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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed 1/21/2026 are entered.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim 1 is independent.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 2-6 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Miu (US 2021/0216982 A1) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the current amendment presented herein.
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 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US 2021/0192508 A1) in view of Ramalingam (US 8,255,284 B1), further in view of Sohrab (WO 2013/098851 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Edwards discloses an augmented passport, comprising:
a substrate (see Fig. 4A, paras. 0050-0051);
information printed on or otherwise encoded on the substrate sufficient to enable a payor to lawfully enter a plurality of countries (see Figs. 1, 4A, 4B, paras. 0001, 0020); and
a payment device printed on or embedded within the substrate, the payment device being configured to generate payment signals in response to being scanned by an electronic scanning device at a border crossing to initiate a payment from an account associated with the payor to purchase a visa for entry into one of the plurality of countries based upon the augmented passport (see Figs. 1, 4A, 4B, paras. 0001, 0020; Note that the claim limitations “at a border crossing” and “to purchase a visa for entry into one of the plurality of countries based upon the augmented passport” are directed to intended use);
wherein the payment is initiated when aspects of the payment signals are compared to a predefined context associated with transactions stored in identification payment settings linked to the account associated with the payor (see para. 0042).
Edwards does not explicitly disclose, but Ramalingam teaches a transaction automatically initiated at a border crossing for entry into one of the plurality of countries based upon the augmented passport (see cols. 14-15, ll. 51-9).
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 product of Edwards to include the feature of Ramalingam.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to reduce the friction associated with processing people entering a country (see Ramalingam cols. 14-15, ll. 51-9).
Edwards and Ramalingam do not explicitly disclose, but Sohrab teaches the transaction including a payment to purchase a visa (see pp. 14-15)
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 product of Edwards further to include the feature taught by Sohrab.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist a user in completing formalities associated with visa processing (see Sohrab, pg. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Edwards discloses wherein the payment device includes a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag (see para. 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Edwards discloses wherein the payment device includes a near field communication (NFC) chip (see para. 0019).
Regarding claim 6, Edwards discloses wherein the payment device includes an integrated circuit (IC) chip (see para. 0019).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US 2021/0192508 A1) in view of Ramalingam (8,255,284 B1), further in view of Sohrab (WO2013098851 A1), further in view of Miu (US 2021/0216982).
Regarding claim 2, Edwards does not explicitly disclose, but Miu teaches an image of a face of the payor printed on or secured to the substrate (see Figs. 2 & 4, para. 0041-0044).
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 product of Edward further to include the feature of Miu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to provide identity attributes required by various standards (see Miu, para. 0041-0044).
Regarding claim 3, Edwards does not explicitly disclose, but Miu wherein the payment device includes a magnetic stripe (see Figs. 2 & 4, para. 0029, 0041-0044).
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 product of Edward further to include the feature of Miu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to enable use with physical readers (see Miu, para. 0029)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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