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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/26 has been entered.
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 Johansen, JR, et al, US Pub. 2007/0257109, in view of Mangaroo, US Pub. 2010/0128449.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, Johansen, JR., et al disclose a payment system with outdoor terminal comprising: a payment processing system 10 having an indoor portion 14 and an outdoor portion 16; the system 10 typically includes an electronic cash register (ECR) 20, 20a, 20b that may be integrated into the operations of the retail location, e.g., providing automatic entry of menu items for both ordering and bill calculation purposes; the ECR is typically provided with an electrical connection to other devices in the system by a multiport cable 22 but may provide with any suitable type of connection; a POS payment terminal 28, such as an Omni 7000 made by VeriFone, may also be coupled to the multiport cable or otherwise connected to the ECR for the handling of payments for goods and services by the customer; the outdoor portion 16 of the payment processing system typically includes a customer payment device 32; the customer payment device 32 may be provided with an enclosure 34, which may be water-resistant and provided with a heating system, a cooling system or fan, and a lamp as appropriate for the location of the enclosure; the enclosure may be provided with protection from water in the forms of rain or washing spray from water jets in accordance with the IPX5 rating of the international standard IEC 60529, or in accordance with such other specification as is suitable for the desired application of the payment device; the payment device 32 may include a magnetic stripe reader 36, a contactless reader 38, a display screen 40 with screen-addressable keys 42, and a keypad 44, typically with 12 or 16 keys of metal or other suitable construction; a reader 36 may be a swipe-style or a motorized device, or any suitable configuration, typically a dip-insertion style, with dual-track and bidirectional reading capability. (See Figs. 1-3; par. 0016-0020).
Johansen, JR., et al fails to disclose a USB-C controller, USB-C cable, and having each component in a different void or cavity (for a total of 3 voids).
Mangaroo discloses a ruggedized and components for handheld device comprising: a seal polymeric enclosure, a separate battery compartment, a PCB compartment, a radio compartment, and a gasketed housing (see Fig. 1a-1f, 5a-5e; par. 0079).
In view of the teachings of Mangaroo, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill at the time the invention effective filing date to modify the teachings of Johansen, JR. et al by incorporating the compartment housing of Mangaroo to organize the electronic components into separate sealed spaces in order to improve ruggedness and facilitate servicing of components. With respect to using USB-connector, cable, or controller, replacing the generic USB or a serial connector with USB-C is very common in the art since USB-C has become a standardized connector, which therefore, an obvious design choice for meeting customer requirements. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Mangaroo discloses wherein the weather resistant shell is a polymeric shell (see Fig. 1a-1f, 5a-5e).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the weather resistant shell is resistant to water and dust ingress to an international standard EN 60529 and IEC 60529 IP rating 55 (the rating suitable for an application can be applied, including IEC 60529, see par. 0019 of Johansen Jr. et al).
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 (including contactless reader 38, see Johansen et al, par. 0018+).
Regarding claim 10, Johansen JR. et al as modified by Mangaroo do 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, through a single connection, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Johansen JR. et al, show a single connection to the computing device 16. With respect to the type of connection, that is USB-C, such connector has become standardized. Therefore, it would have been an engineering choice for meeting specific customer requirements. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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