DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waughtal, US Patent No. 10,854,049.
Waughtal discloses a hardened remote point of sale comprising: a dedicated mobile computing device (800) encased by a hardened enclosure (802), the hardened enclosure (802) is made of a plastic resin and is secured with a rubber seal contiguous to the dedicated mobile computing device (800); the hardened enclosure (802) is also configured to support display shielding (824) across the display (822) to prevent scratching and damage to the dedicated mobile computing device (800); the dedicated mobile computing device (800) is a Google® Tablet running Android® operating system; the tablet is further equipped with special purpose hardware, including a magnetic strip reader (806), a chip card reader (808), a RFID module (818), and a power module (816); the dedicated mobile computing device (800) in FIG. 8, has installed and executing a POS application (804); the POS application (804) has a GUI layer displayed wherein the vendor and the customer can interact with the dedicated mobile computing device (800); the POS application (804) is configured with the I/0 of the dedicated mobile computing device (800) and accepts additional modules and functionality; the dedicated mobile computing device (800) is equipped with several modules to accept a payment vehicle, including an RFID module (818) accepts radio frequency ID accounts, including near field communications for payment. RFID modules are utilized to receive information from cashless wristbands and other RFID equipped products that facilitate cashless transactions. RFID tags contain an antenna and a memory chip to store data on the tag itself.; the dedicated mobile computing device (800) is also configured through the I/0 to a magnetic strip card reader (806), a chip card reader (808), and a wireless access card module (810); the magnetic strip reader (806) communicates through a serial bus to the dedicated mobile computing device (800), wherein the POS application (804) processes the transaction; the chip reader (808) is equipped to receive EMV payment methods, EMV cards are smart cards or chip cards that store data on an integrated circuit in addition to also having a magnetic strip. EMV cards must be physically dipped or inserted into a reader, similar to contactless cards utilizing near field communication. EMV standards often utilize a chip and PIN methodology and sometimes a chip and signature depending upon the authentication required by the issuing financial institution; the dedicated computing device (800) includes a networking module (820; the dedicated computing device (800) is equipped with I/0 and a power input that is customized as a power module (816) and built within the hardened enclosure (802). ( See Fig. 8, col. 12 – col. 14, line 24).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, the prior art fails to disclose a USB-C controller board for communicating through USB-C cable to the computing device for providing electrical signals to the controller board. However, the type of connection is matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements, wherein USB-C connection would provide rapid charging and data transmission. With respect to having the computing device only connected to the USB-C controller board, such limitation is a matter of choice for meeting customer requirements. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 2-3, wherein the weather resistant shell is a polymeric shell, resistant water and dust to an international standard (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art teaches an enclosure (shell) having a top, a bottom, but fails to disclose a channel with a rubber seal that are held together by pressing the top and bottom side. However, using rubber seal for sealing and protecting electronic device is common in the art for prevent water damage and dust particles from entering into the device. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 8-9, the prior art discloses wireless communication with payment decide including having an antenna in electrical communication with the computing device. ( See Fig. 8, col. 12 – col. 14, line 24).
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 8 does not show the wiring arrangement within the shell enclosure. However, the position of the different modules, such as chip card reader, wireless access card, power module, etc., would require wiring gaps. Therefore, such limitations is obtained and , therefore, obvious.
Regarding claims 11-20, in addition to the limitations discussed above, the positions of each individual component of the device, including the controller board, the power supply, the readers, etc., the shell is manufacture to meet the device requirements. It would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to design and manufacture the shell enclosure to meet the device specification. With respect to the position of each component is a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirement, which therefore, obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant regarding that the prior fails to disclose that the computing device is only electrically connected to the USB-C controller board, such limitation is a matter choice for meeting specific customer requirements. It would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to connect one device at a time as needed or required by the applicant. It appears that the applicant’s argument is more comprehensive than the claims’ language. Connected to a single device is not the same as having a single connector. The computing device or the tablet does not claim that the device consisting of a single connector for connecting to the USB-C controller board. With to the type of connection (i.e. USB-C), such connection type is known in art for rapid charging and data transmission and very common in the art. For instance, Hamann et al (WO 2018098373) disclose a modular tablet case with environment monitoring components comprising: a USB-C connector 55 for connecting a controller board 50 (see par. 0066-0069). Furthermore, when the board is connecter to the device it would in electrical communication with wireless radio module and the module be in electrical communication with the controller board. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/
Prosecution Insights