DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 3/11/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 8, 9, and one duplicate claim 15, and amendments to claims 1, 7, 18 and 19 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. The amendments concerning claim 9 and claim 15 resolve the claim objections regarding antecedent basis and claim numbering.
Lemire teaches a transparent external housing and multiple opaque internal housings. The “third layer” being opaque, as seen in para. 102, 108, or 121, can be adhered to the fencing element that holds the first layer, or the external housing. Additionally, the fencing element can be opaque. See paragraphs 47-53. This is seen as having the same effect as the claimed dual opaque housings in present application, regardless of being internal or external to a transparent housing. Further, Slaney supports opaque external housings and has been cited for this teaching. Additionally, official notice supports a conclusion that the vast majority of external housings for electronic devices with internal printed circuit boards are not transparent, rather opaque. See MPEP 2144.03.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemire (US 2022/0330422) in view of Slaney (US 2021/0185802).
Claim 1. Lemire teaches a device, comprising:
A first housing, wherein the first housing is substantially opaque; (para. 87 showing layer of opaque material)
a printed circuit board arranged within the first housing; (para. 121 showing printed circuit board (PCB) within said housing)
an second housing arranged within the first housing and on the printed circuit board, wherein the second housing is substantially opaque; (paragraphs 100, 108 and 121 showing multiple housings for PCB that are opaque)
a tamper detection circuit comprising a light sensor, wherein the tamper detection circuit is configured to provide a light detection signal based on incident light received by the light sensor; and (para. 89 showing tamper circuitry and photo sensor and light detection) wherein the tamper detection circuit comprising the light sensor is arranged on the printed circuit board and enclosed by the second housing; (paragraphs 100, 108 and 121 showing multiple housings for PCB that are opaque)
a processor configured to:
generate a tamper signal based on the light detection signal; and (para. 89 issue tamper signal)
initiate a tamper event response according to the tamper signal. (para. 89 anti-tampering operation response)
Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches point of sale devices with tamper detection. (Slaney para. 5 showing POS terminal with tamper detection)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of computerized point-of-sale in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for multiple applications of the protection. (para. 210 of Slaney showing multiple application of protection)
Lemire does teach multiple opaque housings, but not an external opaque housing. While it is more common for housings for PCBs to be opaque, Lemire teaches a transparent external housing with multiple internal opaque layers. However, Slaney teaches an external housing that is opaque. See Fig. 1B showing a housing that is not transparent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of opaque housings, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for multiple opaque layers and enhanced security. See paras. 100, 108 and 121 of Lemire.
Claim 2. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 1, wherein the tamper event response erases at least a portion of a memory. (Lemire paragraphs. 33 and 89 showing erasure of memory in response to tamper signal trigger)
Claim 3. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 1, wherein the tamper event response triggers an alarm. (Lemire para. 86 issuance of alert in response to tamper signal)
Claim 4. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 1, wherein the light sensor comprises a phototransistor, a photoresistor, or a photodiode. (Lemire para. 21 phototransistor for sensor)
Claim 5. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-device of claim 1, wherein the tamper signal is generated further based on a threshold level, wherein the light detection signal exceeding the threshold indicates a tamper event. (Lemire para. 25 showing event indication if any light is sensed)
Claim 6. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 1, wherein the incident light has a wavelength between approximately 400 and 700 nm. (Lemire para. 26 visible light)
Claim 10. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 7, wherein the processor and/or the memory are arranged within the internal housing. (para. 25 of Lemire showing memory and processor inside housing)
Claim 11. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 7. Lemire teaches traces within protection area (Para. 7.) It does not detail, but Slaney teaches wherein one or more traces electrically coupled to one or more user inputs are arranged within the internal housing. (para. 84 input keypad and touchscreen inside secure enclosure)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of protecting sensitive information handling equipment in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for detection of attempts to remove said security. (See para. 80 of Slaney)
Claim 12. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 11. Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches wherein the user input is a touchscreen or keypad. (para. 84 input keypad and touchscreen inside secure enclosure)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of protecting sensitive information handling equipment in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for detection of attempts to remove said security. (See para. 80 of Slaney)
Claim 13. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 7. Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches further comprising a connector tamper detection circuit comprising one or more conductive elastomeric connectors embedded within the internal housing. (Para. 121 showing elastomeric connectors for internal housing components)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of protecting sensitive information handling equipment in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for detection of attempts to remove said security. (See para. 80 of Slaney)
Claim 14. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 13. Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches wherein the connector tamper detection circuit is configured to provide a connector disruption signal to the processor, wherein the connector disruption signal is based on a change in a size, a shape, or a position of at least one of the one or more conductive elastomeric connectors. (paragraphs 124 and 125 of Slaney showing physical modification of circuitry, including connectors, as basis for detection of signal disruption/voltage abnormality)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of protecting sensitive information handling equipment in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for detection of attempts to remove said security. (See para. 80 of Slaney)
Claim 15. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 14. Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate the tamper signal based on the connector disruption signal. (paragraphs 124 and 125 of Slaney showing signal disruption as basis for tamper signal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of protecting sensitive information handling equipment in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for detection of attempts to remove said security. (See para. 80 of Slaney)
Claim 16. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 1. Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches wherein the processor is configured to process payment transactions. (para. 42 showing payment processing)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of point of sale devices in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for multiple applications of the protection. (para. 210 of Slaney showing multiple application of protection)
Claim 17. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 1. Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches wherein the memory is configured to store payment information. (para. 79 showing memory including payment information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of point of sale devices in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for multiple applications of the protection. (para. 210 of Slaney showing multiple application of protection)
Claim 18. Lemire teaches a method for detecting a tamper event in a device, comprising:
measuring, via a light detection circuit included as part of a tamper detection circuit (para. 89 showing tamper circuitry and photo sensor and light detection) arranged on a printed circuit board, (para. 121 showing printed circuit board (PCB) within housing) an amount of light received by the light detection circuit, wherein the tamper detection circuit including the light detection circuit is enclosed by an internal housing arranged on the printed circuit board, wherein the internal housing and the printed circuit board are is arranged within an external housing, (paragraphs 100, 108 and 121 showing multiple housings for PCB that are opaque) and wherein the external housing and the internal housing are both substantially opaque; (The “third layer”, as seen in para. 102, 108, or 121, can be adhered to the fencing element that holds the first layer, or the external housing. Additionally, the fencing element can be opaque. See paragraphs 47-53.)
determining, by a processor associated with the tamper detection circuit, whether the measured amount of light exceeds a threshold level such that the measured amount of light indicates a tamper event; (Lemire para. 25 showing event indication if any light is sensed)
generating, by the processor, a tamper signal in response to the determination; and (para. 89 issue tamper signal)
erasing, via the processor, a memory based on the tamper signal. (para. 89 anti-tampering operation response including memory erasure)
Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches point of sale devices with tamper detection. (Slaney para. 5 showing POS terminal with tamper detection)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of point of sale devices in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for multiple applications of the protection. (para. 210 of Slaney showing multiple application of protection)
Claim 19. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the method of claim 18. Lemire does not, but Slaney teaches further comprising:
providing a connector disruption signal, wherein the connector disruption signal is based on a change in a size, a shape, or a position of at least one of the one or more conductive elastomeric connectors within an internal housing of the point-of-sale device; (Paragraphs 124 and 125 showing change in size of connection resulting in conclusion of tampering of connector pieces and disruption of signal)
receiving, via the processor, the connector disruption signal; and (Para. 127 showing said attempt to tamper results in said tamper signal processing security measures)
generating, via the processor, the tamper signal based on the connector disruption signal. (Para. 127 showing said attempt to tamper results in said tamper signal processing security measures)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of protecting sensitive information handling equipment in Slaney, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for detection of attempts to remove said security. (See para. 80 of Slaney)
Claim 20. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the method of claim 19. Lemire teaches wherein the tamper detection circuit is arranged within the internal housing, wherein the internal housing is substantially opaque. (para. 17 of Lemire showing opaque material of housing inner layer)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemire in view of Slaney, and in further view of Sasson (US 2013/0015972).
Claim 7. Lemire as modified by Slaney teaches the point-of-sale device of claim 1. Lemire as modified by Sasson could also teaches claim 1, if Lemire is relied upon for the double opaque housings, as Sasson also teaches the reliant teaching of Slaney: tamper detection in POS (Para. 36). Lemire does not, but Sasson teaches wherein the tamper detection circuit is a static line circuit or a switched line circuit. (Sasson para. 182 showing static circuit for tamper system)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of tamper detection in Lemire, with the known technique of static circuitry in Sasson, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for preferable selection of circuit topography. (See Sasson para. 182 for said selection preferences)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS 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 extension fee 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 Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627