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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 11/10/2025. Claims 7-21 have been canceled, and claims 1-6 and 22 are currently pending and being examined in this reply
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 102/103 arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wagner does not teach “receive sensor-generated data indicative of movements of fingers of the user relative to a display surface of the user input device”. The Examiner disagrees. As noted in the rejection below cited paragraphs 0009, 0077, 0143, 0152 and further in figures 2-4 and 11a-11f, Wagner teaches a receiving sensor-generated data (bio-potential sensors and SNC sensors) indicative of movements of fingers (gestures of the fingers/thumb of user to control the smartwatch) of the user relative to the display surface of the user input device (gestures relative to the smartwatch display). Therefore the rejection is final.
The Examiner would recommend changing the wording in the claim to get around the art such as removing “data indicative” and “relative to a surface” as these are very broad terms and replacing with something more specific that is not taught by Wagner, such as detecting via tendon sensor, finger motion data on the surface of a display device.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0237026 A1 to Kumar (“Kumar”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0313801 A1 to Wagner (“Wagner”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,762,183 B1 to Charan (“Charan”)
In regards to claim 1, Kumar discloses the following limitations:
A point-of-sale (POS) system, comprising: a POS device; (see at least Kumar Figure 2 (260) POS terminal)
and a user input device of a user, comprising: one or more processors; and at least one memory comprising a plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (see at least Kumar Figure 2 (250) mobile device)
receive data indicating one or more movements made by the user; determine authentication data based on the received data indicating the one or more movements; (see at least Kumar ¶ 0255 “after the user enters a personal identification number (PIN) or similar code on the POS terminal 260 itself or on the mobile device 250 (if entered on the mobile device 250, the PIN may be transmitted wirelessly to the POS terminal 260)” please note: the Examiner has interpreted the act of entering a PIN on the mobile device to be data indicative of movements of the users fingers to enter the PIN on the device)
establish one or more wireless connections with the POS device; and transfer the authentication data to the POS device using the one or more wireless connections. (see at least Kumar ¶ 0255 “In an embodiment, the POS terminal 260 connects with the TSDB 110 after the user enters a personal identification number (PIN) or similar code on the POS terminal 260 itself or on the mobile device 250 (if entered on the mobile device 250, the PIN may be transmitted wirelessly to the POS terminal 260). The PIN may be any numeric, alphanumeric, or other digital code, as understood in the art. The POS terminal 260 transmits the data 251a (which includes the PIN if entered on the mobile device 250) received from the mobile device 250 as data 251b (which includes the PIN whether entered on the mobile device 250 as discussed above or entered on the POS terminal 260)”)
Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
receive sensor-generated data indicative of movement of fingers of the user relative to a display surface of the user input device
determine authentication data based on the received sensor-generated data using one or more classifiers trained to recognize one or more patterns associated with the movements of fingers of the user relative to the display surface;
The Examiner provides Wagner to teach the following limitations:
receive sensor-generated data indicative of movement of fingers of the user relative to a display surface of the user input device; determine input data based on the received sensor-generated data using one or more classifiers trained to recognize one or more patterns associated with the movements of fingers of the user relative to the display surface; (Wagner teaches receiving sensor generated data indicative of user finger movement relative to a surface of the device such as a smart watch and interpreting the movements to determine input data. See at least Abstract, Figures 2-4, and ¶¶ 0009, 0077, 0143, 0152)
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system and method of Kumar the teachings of Wagner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
The Examiner provides Charan to teach the following limitations:
determine authentication data based on the received sensor-generated data (Charan discloses a wearable device that includes multiple sensors to produce authentication data which is interpreted and used to access a service. See at least Abstract, Figures 1, 5, 10, and Col. 11 Line 48 – Col. 12 line 8)
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system and method of Kumar the teachings of Charan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
In regards to claim 2, Kumar discloses the following limitations:
wherein: the user input device comprises a mobile communication device or a wearable device; the authentication data comprises data corresponding to a Personal Identification Number (PIN) associated with the user; or combinations thereof. (see at least Kumar ¶ 0255 “In an embodiment, the POS terminal 260 connects with the TSDB 110 after the user enters a personal identification number (PIN) or similar code on the POS terminal 260 itself or on the mobile device 250 (if entered on the mobile device 250, the PIN may be transmitted wirelessly to the POS terminal 260). The PIN may be any numeric, alphanumeric, or other digital code, as understood in the art. The POS terminal 260 transmits the data 251a (which includes the PIN if entered on the mobile device 250) received from the mobile device 250 as data 251b (which includes the PIN whether entered on the mobile device 250 as discussed above or entered on the POS terminal 260)”
In regards to claim 6, Kumar discloses the following limitations:
wherein the POS device is configured to authenticate a transaction associated with the user based on the transferred authentication data. (see at least Kumar ¶¶ 0255-0256)
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0237026 A1 to Kumar (“Kumar”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0313801 A1 to Wagner (“Wagner”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,762,183 B1 to Charan (“Charan”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0250538 A1 to Narasimhan (“Narasimhan”).
In regards to claim 3, Kumar discloses receiving a PIN entry from a user on a mobile device and transmitting to the POS, however does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to transfer the authentication data further cause the one or more processors to: receive request data from the POS device, wherein the request data corresponds to a request for the authentication data from the user input device; rendering a Personal Identification Number (PIN) pad interface on a display of the user input device based on the received request data; and receive the authentication data from the user based on the rendered PIN pad interface.
The Examiner provides Narasimhan to teach the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to transfer the authentication data further cause the one or more processors to: receive request data from the POS device, wherein the request data corresponds to a request for the authentication data from the user input device; rendering a Personal Identification Number (PIN) pad interface on a display of the user input device based on the received request data; and receive the authentication data from the user based on the rendered PIN pad interface. (Narasimhan teaches a system and method of performing a transaction by which a merchant device requests authentication data from a user device, the user enters PIN information using the virtual PIN pad on the user device, and sends the information to the merchant device using Bluetooth. see at least Narasimhan Figure 6)
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system and method of Kumar the teachings of Narasimhan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 4, Kumar discloses wireless communication between the POS device and the user device (see at least ¶ 0255) however, does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to establish the one or more wireless connections further cause the one or more processors to establish the one or more wireless connections using a Bluetooth protocol.
The Examiner provides Narasimhan to teach the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to establish the one or more wireless connections further cause the one or more processors to establish the one or more wireless connections using a Bluetooth protocol. (Narasimhan teaches a system and method of performing a transaction by which a merchant device requests authentication data from a user device, the user enters PIN information using the virtual PIN pad on the user device, and sends the information to the merchant device using Bluetooth. see at least Narasimhan Figure 6)
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system and method of Kumar the teachings of Narasimhan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In regards to claim 5, Kumar discloses wireless communication between the POS device and the user device (see at least ¶ 0255) however, does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to transfer the authentication data further cause the one or more processors to: encrypt the authentication data using one or more encryption algorithms; and transfer the encrypted authentication data to the POS device using the one or more wireless connections.
The Examiner provides Narasimhan to teach the following limitations:
wherein the plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to transfer the authentication data further cause the one or more processors to: encrypt the authentication data using one or more encryption algorithms; and transfer the encrypted authentication data to the POS device using the one or more wireless connections. (Narasimhan teaches a system and method of performing a transaction by which a merchant device requests authentication data from a user device, the user enters PIN information using the virtual PIN pad on the user device, encrypts the PIN data, and sends the information to the merchant device using Bluetooth. see at least Narasimhan Figure 6)
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system and method of Kumar the teachings of Narasimhan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0237026 A1 to Kumar (“Kumar”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0313801 A1 to Wagner (“Wagner”), in view of United States Patent No. 10,762,183 B1 to Charan (“Charan”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0370326 A1 to Chapeskie et al. (“Chapeskie”)
In regards to claim 22, Kumar does not appear to specifically disclose the following limitations:
wherein the movements of fingers are further associated with movements of tendons in a wrist of the user, the movements of tendons corresponding to the one or more patterns associated with the movements of fingers of the user relative to the display surface.
The Examiner provides Chapeskie to teach the following limitations:
wherein the movements of fingers are further associated with movements of tendons in a wrist of the user, the movements of tendons corresponding to the one or more patterns associated with the movements of fingers (Chapeskie teaches a wearable user device to detect movement of the tendons of a user, wherein the movement is associated with finger taps of the user to input data. See at least ¶ 0020 “detecting, by at least one sensor in the set of sensors, a vibration at the appendage of the user in response to a tapping gesture made by the user may include detecting at least one of….a tendon vibration at the appendage of the user in response to the tapping gesture made by the user”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include in the system and method as taught by Kumar the teachings of Chapeskie to include wearable devices capable of detecting finger taps for user input, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Examiner provides Wagner to teach the following limitations:
of the user relative to the display surface. (Wagner teaches tendon sensos in the wrist strap, and further, receiving sensor generated data indicative of user finger movement relative to a surface of the device such as a smart watch and interpreting the movements to determine input data. See at least Abstract, Figures 2-4, and ¶¶ 0009, 0077, 0143, 0152)
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the system and method of Kumar the teachings of Wagner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
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 JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6603. The examiner can normally be reached 0600-1430.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/JOSEPH M MUTSCHLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/A. Hunter Wilder/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights