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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
The amendments to the claims filed 06/26/2026 are acknowledged.
Remarks
The indicated allowability of claim 3 is withdrawn in view of the previously recited reference(s) to Ray (US 9,564,985). Rejections based on the cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, the limitation “said at least one optical controller being at least one infrared photoelectric sensor” is recited twice (see the last two lines on page 2; and page 3, lines 5-7).
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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or similar devices" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or similar devices"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "or a similar device" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or a similar device"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2 and 4-9 are rejected to since they are dependent upon a rejected claim, and inherit the problems of that claim.
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.
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) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whytock (US 11,790,189) in view of Ray (US 9,564,985), cited by the applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Whytock discloses an electronic card reader (10) for automated teller machines (ATMs) or cash machines, 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 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).
Whytock fails to teach at least one optical controller being at least one infrared photoelectric sensor.
Ray discloses an automated banking machine including an infrared photoelectric sensor (col. 29, lines 16-20; and col. 29, line 41 to col. 30, line 25).
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 an infrared photoelectric sensor within Whytock;s device in order to provide an alternative means for detecting the presence of an unauthorized material or device in connection with the automated banking machine.
Regarding claim 2, Whytock as modified by Ray 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 (see Whytock, fig. 2; and col. 2, lines 12-33; col. 3, lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 4, Whytock as modified by Ray further 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 Whytock, fig. 2; col. 3, lines 37-43; and col. 4, lines 14-67).
Regarding claim 5, Whytock as modified by Ray further 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 (see Whytock, col. 2, lines 10-20).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whytock in view of Ray, and further in view of Wankmueller et al. (US 2010/0044433) (hereinafter referred to as Wankmueller), cited by the applicant. The teachings of Whytock as modified by Ray have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Whytock as modified by Ray 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/Ray apparatus in order to enhance the security of the device by ensuring unauthorized reads using external readers are prevented.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Whytock/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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Whytock, Wankmueller, and Ray in order to prevent unauthorized interception of valid card data (see Ray, col. 62, lines 41-59).
Regarding claim 10, Whytock/Ray as modified by Wankmueller futher teaches an automated teller machine comprising the electronic card reader (see Whytock, col. 1, line 64 to col. 2, line 1).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights