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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 09/15/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, delete “means” after “at least one optical controller” (see page 6, line 7).
In claim 3, line 2, insert “at least one” before “optical controller”.
Claims 2 and 4-10 are objected to since they are dependent upon an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said jammer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whytock (US 11,790,189).
Regarding claim 1, Whytock discloses an electronic card reader (10) for automated teller machines (ATMs), cash machines, or similar devices, the electronic card reader configured to read an electronic card including a storage configured to store electronic information, and a transmitter configured to transmit the electronic information (see col. 1, line 59 to col. 2, line 4), the electronic card reader (10) comprising:
an access port (22), defining an access slot (24), the access slot being configured to receive the electronic card that is inserted and extracted therethrough (see fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 5-9);
an internal volume, adjacent to the access slot (24) designed to at least partially house the electronic card (see fig. 2);
a storage reader (56, 58) configured to read the electronic information storage, the storage reader being configured to read the electronic information on the electronic card at least partially housed inside the internal volume (see col. 3, lines 18-43);
an electronic controller (60) functionally connected to the storage reader (see col. 4, lines 24-25);
at least one optical controller (cameras 80, 82) configured to verify a presence of foreign bodies inside the internal volume, the electronic controller (60) being functionally connected to the at least one optical controller means and configured to determine that the foreign bodies inside the internal volume consist of an authorized type of the electronic card (see col. 3, lines 37-43; and col. 4, lines 14-67).
Regarding claim 2, Whytock further discloses the electronic card reader according to claim 1, wherein the internal volume is able to entirely house the electronic card, and wherein the electronic card reader comprises a movement system configured to move the electronic card when the electronic card is at least partially housed within the internal volume (fig. 2; and col. 2, lines 12-33; col. 3, lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 4, Whytock discloses the electronic card reader according to claim 1, wherein the access port extends predominantly in a transverse direction, the internal volume extends predominantly in a longitudinal direction, not parallel and perpendicular to the transverse direction, wherein the electronic card is configured to be moved within the internal volume exclusively along the longitudinal direction, and wherein at least one optical controller (cameras 80, 82) comprises a plurality of optical controllers configured to verify a presence and a position of the electronic card within the internal volume (see fig. 2; col. 3, lines 37-43; and col. 4, lines 14-67).
Regarding claim 5, Whytock discloses the electronic card reader according to claim 1, wherein the access port comprises a shutter (26) configured to obstruct the access slot, preventing an introduction of the electronic card (col. 2, lines 10-20).
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 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.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whytock in view of Wankmueller et al. (US 2010/0044433) (hereinafter referred to as Wankmueller), cited by the applicant. The teachings of Whytock have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Whytock fails to teach an obstacle means designed to prevent wireless electronic communications from being transmitted by an element present within the internal volume to the outside of the electronic card reader; and wherein the obstacle means comprise a Faraday cage.
Wankmueller discloses a kiosk including a card reader/writer that is contained within a Faraday cage in the kiosk (see para. 0068).
In view of Wankmueller’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a Faraday cage within Whytock’s device in order to enhance the security of the device by ensuring unauthorized reads using external readers are prevented
Regarding claim 10, Whytock as modified Wankmueller teaches an automated teller machine comprising the electronic card reader (see Whytock, col. 1, line 64 to col. 2, line 1).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whytock in view of Wankmueller, and further in view of Ray (US 9,564,985), cited by the applicant. The teachings of Whytock as modified by Wankmueller have been discussed above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Whytock as modified by Wankmueller fails to teach a jammer.
Ray discloses a card reader including at least one jammer (col. 62, line 41 to col. 63, line 23).
In view of Ray’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a jammer within Whytock/Wankmueller’s card reader in order to prevent unauthorized interception of valid card data (see Ray, col. 62, lines 41-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, wherein the at least one optical controller is at least one infrared photoelectric sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiesinger et al. (US 9,754,462) discloses a card reader
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 APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday between 9am-6pm.
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, STEVEN S PAIK can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 /