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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2025 have been entered and considered. Initialed copy/copies of the PTO-1449 by the Examiner is/are attached.
Drawings
Figures 1-11 are objected to as depicting a block diagram without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.” For e.g. in the case of figure Fig 1, the blocks are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part “comprising the steps of”. Please amend the claim by removing the word “the” which induces indefinite language in order to avoid a 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection.
Claim 20 recites in part “comprising the steps of”. Please amend the claim by removing the word “the” which induces indefinite language in order to avoid a 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection.
Claim 21 recites in part “carry out the steps of”. Please amend the claim by removing the word “the” which induces indefinite language in order to avoid a 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 23 February 2010), Annex IV, reads as follows:
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473(Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 20 defines “A computer program” embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In see Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG212, February 23, 2010). That is, the scope of the presently claimed “computer-readable medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. The Examiner suggests amending the claim by adding the limitation ”non-transitory” to the claim or equivalent in order to make the claim statutory. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
The Examiner suggests amending the preamble of the claim as follows:
A computer program comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out the steps of the method defined by claim 1
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, 6, 8, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300).
Regarding independent claim 1, Takeda teaches a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal (foreign matter detection device, a card reader, a foreign matter detection method and a recording medium that records a foreign matter detection program – see [p][00002]), comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device (84a – see Fig 3) of a peripheral device (see Fig 5) of a transaction terminal (100, card reader – see Fig 1 and [p][0026]), a first image (the host apparatus 10 acquires a captured image obtained from the imaging device 84 by the imaging control in the step S12 as a first captured image (step S13) – see [p][0059]) of an internal region of the peripheral device (the imaging control so that the imaging device 84 images the space 90 at a timing that lights are irradiated from the light sources 85 and 86 to the space 90 by the light emitting control – see [p][0058]); calculating, by a processor (control part, CPU – see [p][0045] and Fig 5) of the transaction terminal, a difference between first pixel values associated with pixels of said first image and second pixel values (a second captured image (step S18) – see [p][0064]) associated with corresponding pixels of a baseline image of the internal region (the host apparatus 10 determines to be “matching” when a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image among respective pixels of the particular region is less than a threshold and, in a case that a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image – see [p][0069]), thereby obtaining a plurality of difference values ([p][0069]); and when more than a predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed a first predetermined threshold in at least one region of interest associated with the internal region (in a case that a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image is equal to or more than the threshold, the host apparatus 10 determines to be “not matching” - see [p][0069]), determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is present in the peripheral device (in a case that a matching rate of each of the cells is calculated, the host apparatus 10 may determine whether a foreign matter exists in the space 90 or not based on the number of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, distribution (adjacent number) of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, or the like - see [p][0072]), or when less than the predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed the first predetermined threshold in the at least one region of interest associated with the internal region, determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is not present in the peripheral device ([f]or example, the host apparatus 10 determines that no foreign matter exists in the space 90 when the matching rate is not less than a predetermined value – see [p][0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the processor, a difference image comprising pixels each having a pixel value equal to one of the plurality of difference values ([f]or example, the host apparatus 10 determines to be “matching” when a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image among respective pixels of the particular region is less than a threshold and, in a case that a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image is equal to or more than the threshold, the host apparatus 10 determines to be “not matching” – see [p][0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: capturing, by the imaging device, said first image after a transaction has been conducted on the transaction terminal (captured images before a card taking-in operation and after a card eject operation are compared with each other and thus, influence by factors (change over time and the like) except installation of a magnetic data swindle member by utilizing a card taking-in operation is reduced and the magnetic data swindle member can be detected with a high degree of accuracy – see [p][0098]).
Regarding claim 12, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: responsive to determining that the foreign object is present, issuing, by the processor, an alert ([f]urther, in the step S23, the host apparatus 10 may output alert information indicating detection of the foreign matter in the space 90 and a type of the foreign matter having been determined to a manager of the host apparatus 10 – see [p][0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, further comprising: responsive to issuing the alert ([f]urther, in the step S23, the host apparatus 10 may output alert information indicating detection of the foreign matter in the space 90 – see [p][0075]), temporarily placing the transaction terminal into an inactive state (unable to insert card – see [p][0074]).
Regarding claim 14, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, further comprising: after placing the transaction terminal into the inactive state, capturing, by the imaging device, at least one further image of the internal region over a preset time period (see [0074]]); and when the foreign object is determined as being present in each of said at least one further image, placing the transaction terminal into an out of service state (the host apparatus 10 performs control that a magnetic card 2 is unable to be inserted into the card reader 100. This is control that, for example, even if card insertion is detected by the insertion detection sensor 55, the shutter of the card insertion part 50 is not opened – see [p][0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: when capturing the first image, illuminating the internal region of the peripheral device with at least one light source (the imaging device 84 images the space 90 at a timing that lights are irradiated from the light sources 85 and 86 to the space 90 by the light emitting control – see [p][0058]), optionally whereby the light source is integrated within the imaging device.
Regarding claim 17, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, whereby each region of interest is a predefined region of the internal region where components of the peripheral device remain static in all images captured by the imaging device.
` Regarding claim 18, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, whereby the peripheral device is a card reader and the foreign object is a card skimming device (for example, for the purpose of skimming – see [p][0033]).
Regarding independent claim 19, Takeda teaches a transaction terminal (foreign matter detection device, a card reader, a foreign matter detection method and a recording medium that records a foreign matter detection program – see [p][0002]), comprising: at least one peripheral device (100, card reader – see Fig 1 and [p][0026]) comprising an imaging device (84a – see Fig 3) configured to capture images of an internal region of the peripheral device (the imaging control so that the imaging device 84 images the space 90 at a timing that lights are irradiated from the light sources 85 and 86 to the space 90 by the light emitting control – see [p][0058]); and at least one processor (control part, CPU – see [p][0045] and Fig 5) comprised within or communicatively (see Fig 5) coupled to the peripheral device (see Fig 5), the processor configured to: calculate a difference between first pixel values associated with pixels of a first image of the internal region and second pixel values associated with corresponding pixels of a baseline image of the internal region (the host apparatus 10 determines to be “matching” when a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image among respective pixels of the particular region is less than a threshold and, in a case that a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image – see [p][0069]), to obtain a plurality of difference values (see [p][0069]); and determine that a foreign object is present in the peripheral device when a predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed a first predetermined threshold in at least one region of interest associated with the internal region ( in a case that a matching rate of each of the cells is calculated, the host apparatus 10 may determine whether a foreign matter exists in the space 90 or not based on the number of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, distribution (adjacent number) of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, or the like - see [p][0072]), or determine that a foreign object is not present in the peripheral device when less than the predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed the first predetermined threshold in the at least one region of interest associated with the internal region ([f]or example, the host apparatus 10 determines that no foreign matter exists in the space 90 when the matching rate is not less than a predetermined value – see [p][0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Takeda teaches a computer program (a foreign matter detection program – see [p][0014]) comprising instructions (program – see [p][0046]) which, when executed by a computing device (control part, CPU – see [p][0045] and Fig 5), cause the computing device to carry out the steps of the method defined by claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300) in view of Connell (US Patent No.: 7970229).
Regarding claim 5, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: all pixel values associated with the pixels of the first image from all corresponding pixel values associated with the pixels of the baseline image (the host apparatus 10 acquires a captured image obtained from the imaging device 84 by the imaging control in the step S12 as a first captured image (step S13). The first captured image which is acquired in the step S13 is an example of the first captured image which is obtained by imaging of the imaging device 84 at a first timing before a card taking-in operation of the card reader 100 is performed – see [p][0059]), or vice versa; Takeda does not explicitly teach calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor.
Connell explicitly teaches calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor ([a]n input video stream is passed through one or more switchable, reconfigurable image correction units before being sent on to a background subtraction module or another visual – see col 4, lines 34-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of Connell having calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor
Wherein having Takeda calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and Connell relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Connell detected one or more effects by identifying one or more objects in the preprocessed image signal using background subtraction (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Connell (US Patent No.: 7970229), see col 3, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 9, Takeda teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: capturing, by the imaging device, an original baseline image with the imaging device during startup of the peripheral device on the transaction terminal (a first captured image which is obtained by imaging of the imaging device at the first timing – see [p][0097]); and when the foreign object is not determined as being present in the peripheral device (see [p][0097]); Takeda does not explicitly teaches replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image.
Connell explicitly teaches replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image ([i]f a valid, significantly small shift is estimated (typically less than /10 pixel) and it has been a long time since the reference image was initialized (typically 100 frames), then the background reference image is updated by simply copying the current frame – see col 6, lines 55-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of Connell having replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image.
Wherein having Takeda replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and Connell relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Connell detected one or more effects by identifying one or more objects in the preprocessed image signal using background subtraction (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Connell (US Patent No.: 7970229), see col 3, lines 43-46).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300) in view of MASANORI et al (English Translation of JP 2015-180982).
Regarding claim 10, Takeda does not explicitly teach the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level.
MASANORI explicitly teaches capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level (base image and band of the banknote in the captured image are about the same brightness – see page 20, 1st paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of MASANORI of having capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level.
Wherein having Takeda capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object by adjusting the brightness of the images since both Takeda and MASANORI relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while MASANORI adjusting the brightness of images (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and MASANORI (English Translation of JP 2015-180982), see page 11, [p][004])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300) in view of MASANORI et al (English Translation of JP 2015-180982) as applied to claim 10 further in view of Nayak et al (Pub No.: US20220138909A1)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takeda in view of MASANORI does not explicitly teach method as claimed in claim 10, whereby capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames; selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels; and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level.
Nayak explicitly teaches whereby capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames (sequence of image frames for a digital video – see [p][0009]); selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels (determining the number of frames to be blended may be based on one or more image quality metrics (such as a light intensity metric or a sharpness metric). The one or more image quality metrics may be determined from the current frame, or the one or more image quality metrics may be the most recent measurement since receiving the current frame. In some implementations, the image quality metric is a light intensity metric. In one example, the device 100 (such as the image signal processor 112) may determine a total luminance in a current image frame – see [p][0065]); and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level (blending the frames together may include combining each of the non-anchor frames to the anchor frame to adjust values in the anchor frame – see [p][0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda in view Nayak of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, Nayak with the teachings of having capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames; selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels; and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level.
Wherein having Takeda capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames; selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels; and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object based on video images since both Takeda and Nayak relate yo processing image wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Nayak blends the number of image frames includes selecting an anchor frame from the number of image frames and combining each of the other image frames from the number of image frames to the anchor frame to adjust values in the anchor frame (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Nayak (US20220138909A1), see [p][0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Momose et al (Pub No.: Pub No.: 20220245617) discloses a card reader structured to perform processing on a card includes a main body part, an insertion port which is opened in the main body part and into which the card is inserted, a conveyance passage which is provided in an inside of the main body part and in which the card having been inserted is conveyed, a drive mechanism structured to convey the card in the conveyance passage, a plurality of sensors which detect insertion of the card into the insertion port and a state of conveyance of the card in the conveyance passage, and a control part which monitors state transitions of detected results of the plurality of the sensors for the card and determines that a foreign matter has been inserted into the card reader when the control part detects that a state transition is generated in a mode which is different from a predetermined state transition.
McGrath et al (Pub No.: 20220114351) discloses a card reader for reading a bank card and a method of use thereof is disclosed. The card reader housing has a card entry slot where a customer inserts a bank card, either a magnetic stripe card or a chip-based smart card. A camera is mounted adjacent to the card entry slot in a position to allow an image to be taken of an upper surface of a bank card inserted into the card entry slot. A chip reader unit reads the chip-based smart card. A controller is coupled to the camera and to the chip reader unit. The controller processes an image received from the camera to determine that the inserted bank card is a chip-based smart card in a proper orientation. The controller enables the chip reader unit upon determining that the inserted bank card is a chip-based smart card in proper orientation.
Momose et al (Pub No.: 20190384945) discloses a reader (1) has a magnetic detector i.e. prehead (10), and a card detection sensor placed at a distance less than a length of a card (2) in an insertion direction. A control unit starts monitoring of a magnetism detected by the magnetic detector when the card detection sensor detects a tip end of an insert inserted into an insertion port (4). The control unit detects that an object other than the card is inserted when a movement distance of the insert in a period in which the magnetism is undetected by the magnetic detector is a predetermined value.
Takeda et al (US Patent No.: 12175320) discloses a foreign matter detection device which detects a foreign matter in an inside of a card reader. The foreign matter detection device includes a control part which performs control for causing an imaging device provided in the inside of the card reader to image a space in the inside of the card reader, and a detection part which detects the foreign matter in the space by image analysis based on a captured image obtained by the imaging device.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRAE S ALLISON whose telephone number is (571)270-1052. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns, can be reached on (571) 272-9752. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRAE S ALLISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
March 3, 2026