DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment on 04/23/2026. Claims 2, 3, 5-15, 17-19, and 21 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/04/2019.
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
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0026070 to Hydroj (“Hydroj”) in view of CN204145574U to Pang Dong (“Dong”)1 in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0114623 to Wurmfeld et al. (“Wurmfeld”).
With regard to claims 2, 12, and 19, Hydroj discloses the claimed device, comprising: detect an event to extend at least a first portion of a substrate from an edge of a device (see e.g. [0010-11] activation of switch; edge of device is shown in Fig. 1, where the edge is the bottom portion of phone/case combo), the substrate comprising a first interface configured to communicate account information to perform transactions (see e.g. [0011] credit cards);
PNG
media_image1.png
396
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“portions” (shown in e.g. Fig. 4 with the line separations between the various portions of that edge) and thereby when the switch is activated, the card is released and extends from the different portions of Fig. 4, shown in e.g. Fig. 11); cause the substrate to extend from the edge of the device based on the event (see Fig. 11, [0011-12]); detect another event (see e.g. [0093]); and cause retraction of the first portion of the substrate from the edge of the device (see e.g. [0093] when card(s) is in the card support drawer, and the drawer is pushed back into the device, this satisfies the claimed retracting).
Hydroj does not disclose the following:
memory to store instructions; and circuitry coupled with the memory, the circuitry operable to execute the instructions to.
Dong teaches at e.g. [0007-9] [0015] [0021-22] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile device art to include the ability to have a mobile device with memory/processor, that can control the extension and retraction of a card from said device upon receiving an electrical signal that indicates such action to be taken (Dong e.g. [0008] [0009] [0015] [0021-22]), where the advantage of said control from mobile device is that this allows automatic control of the card and makes it easier to access the internal card, and to reload said card after being used/removed. See Dong at e.g. [0009] [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile device art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Hydroj with the ability to have a mobile device with memory/processor, that can control the extension and retraction of a card from said device upon receiving an electrical signal that indicates such action to be taken, as shown in Dong, where the advantage of said control from mobile device is that this allows automatic control of the card and makes it easier to access the internal card, and to reload said card after being used/removed. See Dong at e.g. [0009] [0007].
Hydroj and Dong do not teach the added limitations relating to where the device determines a specific account from a plurality of accounts, and configures a first interface of a substrate with account information of the specific account, the substrate coupled with the device. See Wurmfeld, where Wurmfeld at locations below teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the card/mobile device art to include the ability to couple the device with card via network 430 (Wurmfeld, Fig. 4, [0154-155]), detect a specific account from plurality of accounts (see Wurmfled, [0157-158], [0176] a financial institution system may transmit validated transaction rules to a mobile device associated with the transaction card at block 1108. A financial institution system may store an association between a transaction card and a mobile device. For example, a financial institution system may store a link between a mobile device identifier (e.g., mobile device number, mobile device carrier, mobile device application identifier, device UUID, device UDID), an account identifier (e.g., account holder name, account holder username, account number, and/or the like) and a transaction card (e.g., transaction card identifier, transaction card number, and/or the like). Accordingly, a financial institution, using the information linking a mobile device identifier, account identifier, and a transaction card, a financial institution may transmit validated transaction rules to a mobile device that may be paired with the transaction card associated with the validated transaction rules.) and configure a first interface of a substrate with account information of the specific account (see Wurmfeld, e.g. [0158] At block 508, data updates, such as transaction data, transaction history, account balance, account limit, budget category, remaining budget amount, spending per category, and/or like may be received at the dynamic transaction card via an antenna, such as antenna 224, or an EMV chip, such as EMV contacts). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the card to mobile device art to include the ability to have a mobile device that connects with the card and is able to send updates such as account information and budgets information, and the like, over a network to the card, where this provides the added benefit of, as shown in Wurmfeld, providing the dynamic card with account information on-the-fly so that the card can for instance “store a new account balance, store a net budget balance” or the like. See Wurmfeld, [0013].
With regard to claims 3 and 15, Hydroj further discloses the edge of the device comprises at least one selected from the group of a top edge of the device and a bottom edge of the device (e.g. Fig. 1).
With regard to claims 5 and 13, Hydroj does not teach these limitations. However, Dong teaches e.g. where the event, and another event, is a communication received from mobile device (Dong [0009] [0021] [0022] the microprocessor controller of the mobile phone sends an electrical signal to the electric control module. The electric control module controls the card tray to slide out of the card slot according to the electrical signal, where the electric signal is the communication message from the mobile device). As for the another event, another button, or the same button, can be pressed twice for the detection of the another event, as this would also sent an electrical signal from the mobile device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile device art before the effective filing date to modify Hydroj to include such ability for the mobile device to communicate with the card controller so that as shown in Dong [0009] thereby realizing automatic control of the card tray sliding and facilitating the user to load and unload SIM cards.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, Hydroj further discloses the device comprises a housing, and the housing comprises a slot configured to receive the substrate (see e.g. Fig. 1, CS).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Hydroj further discloses the device comprises a housing, and the housing comprises a recess portion configured to permit the card to retract or flip (see e.g. Fig. 1, CS).
Claims 6, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hydroj, Dong, Wurmfeld, in further view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,163,107 to White et al. (“White”).
With regard to claims 6, 14, and 21, Hydroj and Dong do not teach claims 6 and 21. White teaches at e.g. abstract, col. 3, ln 1-30 etc. that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transaction art to detect a failed attempt to perform transaction and perform action accordingly (e.g. col. 3, ln 1-30), where this is beneficial in that it can indicate fraud is occurring and assist in detecting such fraud. See White at e.g. col. 3 ln 49-60. For claim 14, White also teaches detection of completion of transaction at col. 5, ln. 5-20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the payment art before the effective filing date to modify Hydroj/Dong to include such detection of failed attempt, as shown in White above, where this is beneficial in that it can indicate fraud is occurring and assist in detecting such fraud. See White at e.g. col. 3 ln 49-60.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previously-made 112 rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments provided.
Applicant argues that the amendments are not shown in the prior art. The examiner has brought in another reference to show that having a mobile device that communicates with/coupled with a card, and sends data account updates/alterations via a network that are then stored on the card. The arguments are rendered moot in view of the newly cited reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 Dong is attached as translated by espacenet.
Prosecution Insights