Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/736,772

KEYPAD SECURITY

Non-Final OA §101§102§103
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
TRAN, TRI MINH
Art Unit
2432
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Kyndryl, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
456 granted / 556 resolved
+24.0% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 556 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. This is in response to the application filed on June 7, 2024. This application is a Divisional of 17/508,023 filed on October 22, 2021 Patent 12,039,041. 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 § 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the computer program product is broadly interpreted as software since there is no definition that is a physical device (Specification states a computer readable storage medium is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se. However, par. [0022] discloses a computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium) 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 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub 20190253250 (hereinafter Bruner) Regarding claim 1, Bruner discloses a computer program product for detecting an overlay on a device, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to: monitor for a signal from at least one sensor in an array of sensors located in predetermined positions associated with a surface of the device (Background section, Fig. 4 and par. [0088]-[0092] discloses a process of accepting physical currency at a payment for services, such as laundry machines, vending machines, arcade machines, gambling machines, etc. where a first sensor registers an event when a physical currency is inserted into one or more slots or openings into one of the aforementioned machines); in response to the monitoring, detect the signal from the at least one sensor indicating activation of the at least one sensor; initiate a timer in response to the activation of the at least one sensor (par. [0089] discloses when the physical currency is deposited within the slot and/or other opening, the first sensor detects the physical currency and generates a signal to activate a timing circuit); determine a number of sensors activated in the array of sensors; determine whether the number of sensors activated exceeds a threshold sensor number (par. [0089]-[0090] discloses the timing circuit starts a currency traversal timer and a second sensor generates a second signal configured to stop or pause the timing circuit. Hence, the second sensor is the threshold value used to calculate the travel time of the currency (e.g. bill or coin)); in response to a determination the number of sensors activated exceeds the threshold sensor number and a value of the timer exceeds a threshold timer value, determine a security action; and initiate the security action (par. [0091] discloses different actions if the currency traversal time is below a lower threshold value, between the lower threshold value and upper threshold value or above the upper threshold value. If the elapsed time of the timing circuit is above the upper threshold value, the process identifies a malfunction in the currency mechanism and generates a malfunction indication. For example, in various embodiments, the system may be configured to activate a visual indication (such as a light, screen, etc.), an audible indication (such as a siren, buzzer, etc.), or a digital indication (such as a digital message reviewable by an audit mechanism, etc.)). Regarding claim 2, Bruner discloses wherein the determining the security action comprises calculating a risk value (see claim 1 rejection for an alert only raise when elapsed time above the upper threshold value). Regarding claim 3, Bruner discloses wherein the determining the security action comprises selecting the security action from plural predefined security actions based on the calculated risk value (Figs. 3-4 and related text disclose in the case the timer value exceed the lower threshold but the second sensor never activated the selected action is doing nothing but returning to the standby state. In the case the timer value exceed the upper threshold, the selected action is sending an alert). Regarding claim 4, Bruner discloses wherein the plural predefined security actions include: disabling the device; sending an alert to a user device (see claim 1 rejection); activating a camera that is integrated with the device; and activating a camera that is external to and pointed at the device. Regarding claim 5, Bruner discloses wherein the risk value is calculated based on a predefined risk appetite of the device and the number of sensors activated (Fig. 3 and par. [0082]-[0084] disclose the first sensor maybe activated but no currency is inserted or detected then the machine return to the standby mode. This scenario suggests no risk if only one sensor activated). Regarding claim 6, Bruner discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises a magnetic field sensor (par. [0023] discloses a sensor can be any kind of sensor used for sensing bills and coins. Bruner does not exclude a magnetic field sensor. Also see Fig. 8 and related text discloses the controller comprises a communications interface that can utilize an electromagnetic device). Regarding claim 7, Bruner discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises a Hall sensor (see claim 6 rejection). Regarding claim 8, Bruner discloses wherein the device comprises a keypad (par. [0023] and [0116] discloses a sensor can comprise a subsystem which can be a keyboard). Regarding claims 11-18, they are rejected in view of claims 1-8 rejections respectively. 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 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruner Regarding claims 10 and 20, Bruner discloses wherein the keypad is included in an automated teller machine (although Bruner does not expressly disclose the machine to accept currency deposit as an ATM but can be any machine accepting payment. Hence, one skilled in the art would have understood such implementation should be an obvious variation since an ATM would accept currency deposit the same way using a similar validation process before allowing a deposit into one’s bank account). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9 and 19 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. Inquiry communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1994. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm. 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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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. /TRI M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593208
METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR NETWORK CONNECTION, AND SERVER AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585772
MALICIOUS ACTIVITY DETECTION BY MODELING END-POINT EVENTS AS SEQUENCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585773
USING APPROXIMATE MEMBERSHIP QUERY FILTERS FOR EFFICIENT CONTROL FLOW INTEGRITY PROTECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580960
METADATA-BASED DETECTION AND PREVENTION OF PHISHING ATTACKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579268
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF DATA SELECTION FOR ITERATIVE TRAINING USING ZERO KNOWLEDGE CLUSTERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 556 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month