Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to remarks received 03/23/2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent claims while claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are dependent claims.
The Terminal Disclaimer received 03/21/2025 overcomes the current Double Patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeffrey D. Mullen et al. (US 2012/0290472 A1, herein Mullen).
As per claim 1, Mullen teaches
a method, comprising:
accessing, by a mobile device, one or more images of a contactless card captured by a camera of the mobile device (Mullen ¶¶ [55, 83, 98, 108 & 126]);
processing each image of the one or more images to identify a darkness level associated with a distance of the contactless card from the mobile device (Mullen ¶¶ [61, 142 & 162]);
determining, based on a comparison of the darkness level of at least one of the one or more images to a predetermined darkness level, that the contactless card is at a predetermined distance from the mobile device, wherein the predetermined distance is a distance to automatically trigger a short-range communication operation between the mobile device and the contactless card (Mullen ¶¶ [79, 95, 106, 142, 144 & 159]); and
automatically triggering the short-range communication operation between the mobile device and the contactless card in response to the determination that the contactless card is at the predetermined distance from the mobile device (Mullen ¶¶ [64, 79, 95, 106, 142, 144, 159 & 161]).
As per claims 8 & 15, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 1 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 3, Mullen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the short-range communication operation comprises a near-field communication (NFC) exchange with the contactless card (Mullen ¶¶ [19-20, 64-66, 79 & 161]).
As per claims 10 & 17, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 3 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 4, Mullen teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing each darkness level to the predetermined darkness level comprises performing comparisons until one of the darkness levels meets or exceeds the predetermined darkness level (Mullen ¶¶ [61, 64 & 142]).
As per claims 11 & 18, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 4 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 5, Mullen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each image of the one or more images comprises a plurality of pixels and wherein, for each image, a subset of the plurality of pixels are used to identify the darkness level (Mullen ¶ [55]).
As per claims 12 & 19, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 5 above and rejected under the same premise.
As per claim 7, Mullen teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of pixels of the image is apportioned into a plurality of subsets of pixels, wherein each subset of pixels comprises a subset darkness level, and wherein the darkness level of an image is determined using the subset darkness levels of the plurality of subsets of pixels (Mullen ¶¶ [22, 55, 61 & 162]).
As per claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations as claim 7 above and rejected under the same premise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 9 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen in view of David Wurmfeld et al. (US 9,978,058 B2, herein Wurmfeld).
As per claim 2, Mullen teaches the method of claim 1, it can be argued Mullen does not explicitly teach, however, Wurmfeld further teaches wherein the short-range communication operation comprises a read of a cryptogram generated by the contactless card (Wurmfeld column 22 lines 4-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the systems and devices for mobile payment acceptance of Mullen with the system, method, and apparatus for a dynamic transaction card of Wurmfeld in order to send and receive data packets between the dynamic transaction card and the terminal (see Wurmfeld column 22 lines 4-29).
As per claims 9 & 16, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 2 above and rejected under the same premise.
Claims 6, 13 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen in view of Arkadiusz W. Biegun et al. (US 2017/0255938 A1, herein Biegun).
As per claim 6, Mullen teaches the method of claim 5, it can be argued Mullen does not explicitly teach, however, Biegun further teaches wherein the darkness level for at least one image comprises an average of pixel values of the subset of the plurality of pixels of the at least one image (Biegun ¶¶ [27-28, 36 & 48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the systems and devices for mobile payment acceptance of Mullen with the NFC device of Biegun in order to block fraudulent transactions below a brightness threshold (see Biegun ¶¶ [17, 21, 28-29 & 48]).
As per claims 13 & 20, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 6 above and rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights