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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims filed 2/17/2026 are entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent.
Claims 1, 4, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanner (US 2008/0054078 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tanner discloses a user card comprising:
a substrate (see Figs. 7-8);
an electronic circuit embedded on the substrate (see para. 0030-0031);
an antenna embedded on the substrate (see para. 0030-0031);
one or more surface features exposed on a surface of the substrate (Figs. 7-8); and
a memory embedded on the substrate electrically coupled to the electronic circuit, the antenna, and the one or more surface features (see para. 0032), the memory storing:
account information associated with a plurality of accounts, wherein each account is associated with a payment application stored on the memory (see para. 0032); and
a logic programmed to:
power up upon entering in a magnetic field of a terminal (see para. 0028);
determine whether a first surface feature among the one or more surface features is activated (see para. 0028);
identify, among the plurality of accounts, an account based on determining whether the first surface feature is activated (see para. 0028);
retrieve account information associated with the identified account, wherein the account information identifies only one of the plurality of accounts (see para. 0028);
deactivate remaining account applications other than an account application associated with the identified account on the user card (see para. 0028); and
provide only the account information to the terminal masking remaining accounts associated with the deactivated remaining account applications while the user card is in near field communication with the terminal allowing the terminal to read the memory (see para. 0028).
Regarding independent claim 13, Tanner discloses manufacturing the card, including providing the substrate, embedding the electronic circuit, embedding the antenna, forming the surface features, embedding the memory, electrically coupling the memory, storing the account information, and storing the logic (see Fig. 9, para. 0029-0033).
Regarding independent claim 17, Tanner discloses the corresponding method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Tanner discloses logic programmed to: determine that none of one or more surface features is activated, wherein the identified account is a default account (see para. 0028).
Regarding claim 6, Tanner discloses wherein the user card includes a payment card, and the account information includes payment credentials (see para. 0011, 0028).
Regarding claim 12, Tanner discloses wherein the account information is provided to the terminal using a near field communication capability of the user card (see para. 0013).
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 2, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner (US 2008/0054078 A1) in view of Taveau (US 2013/0232066 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Tanner does not explicitly disclose, but Taveau teaches a fingerprint sensor, wherein the logic is further programmed to: acquire a first fingerprint information, wherein the identified account is associated with the first fingerprint information, wherein another account among the plurality of accounts is associated with a second fingerprint information (see abstract, para. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the card of Tanner to include the feature taught by Taveau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow a user to more easily select a desired funding source (see Taveau, para. 0044).
Regarding claim 18, Tanner does not explicitly disclose, but Taveau teaches wherein the one or more surface features include a fingerprint sensor, the method further comprising: acquiring a first fingerprint information, wherein the identified account is associated with the first fingerprint information, wherein another account among the plurality of accounts is associated with a second fingerprint information (see abstract, para. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the card of Tanner to include the feature taught by Taveau.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow a user to more easily select a desired funding source (see Taveau, para. 0044).
Claims 4-5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner (US 2008/0054078 A1) in view of Giesler (US 6,424,029 B1).
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 19, Tanner discloses wherein the one or more surface features include a button associated with a first account among the plurality of accounts, wherein the logic is further programmed to: determine that the button is activated by being pressed upon; and identify, among the plurality of accounts, the first account as the identified account based on determining that the button is activated (para. 0028, wherein the switches are buttons).
Tanner discloses pressure sensitive switches/buttons. However, Tanner does not explicitly disclose, but Giesler (US 6,424,029 B1) teaches capacitive switches/buttons (see col. 2, ll. 3-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the card of Tanner further to include capacitive switches/buttons to provide a cost-efficient, reliable switching mechanism insensitive to dirt, oxidation, humidity or to the user wearing gloves (see Giesler, col. 2, ll. 12-31).
Regarding claim 5, Tanner discloses wherein the one or more surface features include a first button associated with a first account and a second button associated with a second account, wherein the logic is further programmed to: determine that the first button is activated by being pressed upon; identify, among the plurality of accounts, the first account as the identified account based on determining that the first button is activated; retrieve the account information associated with the identified account; and provide the account information to the terminal while masking account information associated with the second account from the terminal (see para. 0028).
Tanner discloses pressure sensitive switches/buttons. However, Tanner does not explicitly disclose, but Giesler (US 6,424,029 B1) teaches capacitive switches/buttons (see col. 2, ll. 3-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the card of Tanner further to include capacitive switches/buttons to provide a cost-efficient, reliable switching mechanism insensitive to dirt, oxidation, humidity or to the user wearing gloves (see Giesler, col. 2, ll. 12-31).
Claims 7-9, 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner (US 2008/0054078 A1) in view of Hanmer (US 2016/0132761 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tanner does not explicitly disclose, but Hanmer teaches: one or more visual aids exposed on the surface of the substrate, wherein at least one of the one or more visual aids is activated when one of the one or more surface features are activated (see Fig. 1, para. 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the card of Tanner to include the feature of Hanmer to provide an indication to the user as to which payment function is currently selected in the card (see Hanmer, para. 0018).
Regarding claim 8, Hanmer teaches wherein each one of the one or more visual aids is associated with one of the one or more surface features, wherein a visual aid is provided in proximity of or below the surface feature associated with the visual aid (see Fig. 1, para. 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 9, Hanmer teaches wherein the one or more visual aids includes at least one light emitting diode (LED) (see Fig. 1, para. 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 11, Hanmer teaches wherein the one or more visual aids includes a light emitting diode (LED) per each one of the one or more surface features, wherein the LED is powered up when a corresponding surface feature is activated (see Fig. 1, para. 0017-0018).
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Tanner does not explicitly disclose, but Hanmer teaches providing one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) on the surface of the substrate, wherein each one of the one or more LEDs is associated with one of the one or more surface features, wherein a LED is provided in proximity of or below the surface feature associated with the LED; and electrically coupling the LED to the electronic circuit and the surface feature associated with the LED, wherein the LED is powered up when the surface feature is activated (see Fig. 1, para. 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the card of Tanner to include the feature of Hanmer to provide an indication to the user as to which payment function is currently selected in the card (see Hanmer, para. 0018).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner (US 2008/0054078 A1) in view of Hanmer (US 2016/0132761 A1), further in view of Griffin (US 2008/0301015 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tanner does not explicitly disclose, but Griffin teaches a first color when a first account is selected as the identified account and a second color when a second account is selected as the identified account (see abstract, para. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the card of Tanner further to include the feature taught by Griffin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to facilitate easy identification of accounts (see Griffin, para. 0015).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng (US 2019/0244210 A1) discloses a transaction card with fingerprint identification function including a card body, on which a fingerprint identification and transaction processor, an energy-storage capacitor, a fingerprint sensing receiver, a control switch, a display unit, a contactless RF antenna and a contact communication unit are arranged. In use, the contactless RF antenna or the contact communication unit can obtain external electricity needed by the transaction card to work, while the energy-storage capacitor is charged at the same time to store backup electricity. After the needed external electricity is obtained, the control switch enables the fingerprint sensing receiver and the fingerprint identification and transaction processor to receive and identify a card user's fingerprint. The transaction is performed only when the received fingerprint is identified to be the cardholder's fingerprint, and the display unit will display fingerprint identification message and transaction message. Therefore, it is able to ensure enhanced safety of transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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 W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights