DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group l in the reply filed on 4/7/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that dependent claims 3 and 4 and independent claim 19 each recite elevation arrangement of input keys. While the elevation / elevational plane recited in independent claim 19 is broader in that movement is not required, a search of claims 3 and 4 would likely yield search results relevant to claim 19. Thus, there is no undue burden to search independent claim 19.
This is not found persuasive because while Claim 4 and Claim 19 both involve keys at different elevations, they remain distinct based on their exact claim language.
An analysis of the provided claims reveals separate mechanisms:
Claim 4 (Active/Dynamic): This claim is dependent on Claim 2 and Claim 1. It explicitly requires a processor that is programmed to dynamically alter the keypad. The exact text states the processor is programmed to "cause the one or more movable keys to move along a different elevational plane with respect to at least one other key".
Claim 19 (Passive/Static): This claim is an independent claim. It explicitly requires a fixed hardware structure. The exact text states the device comprises "one or more passive anti-skimming countermeasures" where a first set of keys is "arranged at a first elevation" and a second set is "arranged at a second elevation higher than the first elevation to prevent a skimming device from sitting flush onto the keypad".
Because Claim 4 requires a processor to actively "move" the keys to a different plane and Claim 19 relies on a "passive" arrangement where keys are statically built at different elevations, the inventions are distinct. Therefore, the restriction requirement between the two groups remains justified.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 9196111 B1) in view of Washington (US 7070111 B2).
Re Claim 1: Newman discloses a card acceptor device with anti-skimming, comprising:
a processor programmed to:
cause a state of the card acceptor device to change from a first state to a second state (col 3 ll 62+: The dynamic display may include presenting numeric keys in a different sequence or format each time);
prompt a user to identify a current state of the card acceptor device (col 7 ll 67+: the user is prompted to enter a confidential access sequence or PIN, examiner: The user must visually identify the current layout state to respond correctly.);
receive a user response to the prompt (col 8 ll 11+: At step 104 the user enters a PIN by selecting presented inputs);
determine whether the user response correctly identifies the current state (col 8 ll 12+: At step 105, the system verifies that a correct PIN has been received examiner: The system determines if the response aligns with the current, dynamically generated layout state.); and
generate a skimming device determination based on the determination of whether the user response correctly identifies the current state (col 4 ll 57+: The dynamic representation of keys preferably undermines a critical assumption of keypad overlays—that the fixed positions of keys on the keypad represent fixed inputs. examiner: Generating an incorrect attempt determination triggers secondary actions (e.g., reverting to a conventional layout or halting), structurally determining the likely presence of a static overlay.).
However, Newman does not disclose that a state of the card acceptor device, a first state, a second state, and a current state are physical states.
Washington however discloses that a state of the card acceptor device, a first state, a second state, and a current state are physical states (col 19 ll 21+: The buttons can have an outward end or head. The buttons can be elongated and have an axis. The position of the buttons can be changed (or adjusted or reconfigured) to correspondingly change (or alter) the cassette information that is represented by the position of the buttons. The buttons can be axially moved (e.g., repositioned) outward and inward relative to the cassette housing (or outer surface of the cassette) by rotation thereof. col 19 ll 34+: An outwardly positioned button can be read or sensed by the machine. When a button is in an inward position, the button head may be flush with a cassette outer surface or inward of the outer surface.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Washington’s teaching in the apparatus of Newman for the purpose of creating an anti-skimming countermeasure that leverages the cognitive verification loop of Newman and applies it to a physical topography. Thus, such anti-skimming countermeasure cannot be defeated by a static, rigid physical overlay skimmer.
Re Claims 2 and 11: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, further comprising a keypad having one or more movable keys, and wherein to cause the physical state of the card acceptor device to change (Washington: col 19 ll 21+: The position of the buttons can be changed (or adjusted or reconfigured)), the processor is further programmed to: cause one or more of the movable keys to move.
Re Claims 4 and 13: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 2 and the method of claim 11, wherein to cause the one or more movable keys to move, the processor is further programmed to:
cause the one or more movable keys to move along a different elevational plane with respect to at least one other key (Washington: col 19 ll 21+: The buttons can be axially moved (e.g., repositioned) outward and inward relative to the cassette housing (or outer surface of the cassette) by rotation thereof.).
Re Claims 6 and 15: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, wherein the processor is further programmed to:
require, before the prompt, the user to initiate a challenge-response in order to proceed with a transaction (fig 1: 101).
Re Claim 10: Newman discloses a method, comprising:
causing, by a card acceptor device, a state of the card acceptor device to change from a first state to a second state (col 3 ll 62+: The dynamic display may include presenting numeric keys in a different sequence or format each time);
prompting, by the card acceptor device, a user to identify a current state of the card acceptor device (col 7 ll 67+: the user is prompted to enter a confidential access sequence or PIN, examiner: The user must visually identify the current layout state to respond correctly.);
receiving, by the card acceptor device, a user response to the prompt (col 8 ll 11+: At step 104 the user enters a PIN by selecting presented inputs);
determining, by the card acceptor device, whether the user response correctly identifies the current state (col 8 ll 12+: At step 105, the system verifies that a correct PIN has been received examiner: The system determines if the response aligns with the current, dynamically generated layout state.); and
generating, by the card acceptor device, a skimming device determination based on the determination of whether the user response correctly identifies the current state (col 4 ll 57+: The dynamic representation of keys preferably undermines a critical assumption of keypad overlays—that the fixed positions of keys on the keypad represent fixed inputs. examiner: Generating an incorrect attempt determination triggers secondary actions (e.g., reverting to a conventional layout or halting), structurally determining the likely presence of a static overlay.).
However, Newman does not disclose that a state of the card acceptor device, a first state, a second state, and a current state are physical states.
Washington however discloses that a state of the card acceptor device, a first state, a second state, and a current state are physical states (col 19 ll 21+: The buttons can have an outward end or head. The buttons can be elongated and have an axis. The position of the buttons can be changed (or adjusted or reconfigured) to correspondingly change (or alter) the cassette information that is represented by the position of the buttons. The buttons can be axially moved (e.g., repositioned) outward and inward relative to the cassette housing (or outer surface of the cassette) by rotation thereof. col 19 ll 34+: An outwardly positioned button can be read or sensed by the machine. When a button is in an inward position, the button head may be flush with a cassette outer surface or inward of the outer surface.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Washington’s teaching in the method of Newman for the purpose of creating an anti-skimming countermeasure that leverages the cognitive verification loop of Newman and applies it to a physical topography. Thus, such anti-skimming countermeasure cannot be defeated by a static, rigid physical overlay skimmer.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 9196111 B1) modified by Washington (US 7070111 B2) in view of Lewis (US 9595026 B2).
Re Claims 3 and 12: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 2 and the method of claim 11, wherein to cause the one or more movable keys to move, the processor is further programmed to: cause the one or more movable keys to move.
However, Newman modified by Washington does not disclose that the movement is along an elevational plane that is the same as other keys that are not moved.
Lewis however discloses that the movement is along a lateral elevational plane (col 35 ll 45+: the computer then causes the appropriate read head (i.e., either the first or second read head) to be moved laterally across the slot to read the magnetic stripe data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Lewis’ teaching in the apparatus and the method of Newman modified by Washington. Applying these known lateral mechanical translations to the keypad keys represents an obvious, predictable design choice to fulfill the physical state change logic.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 9196111 B1) modified by Washington (US 7070111 B2) in view of Washington (US 20040169075 A1).
Re Claims 5 and 14: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, wherein to cause the physical state of the card acceptor device to change, the processor is further programmed.
However, Newman modified by Washington does not disclose changing a color of at least one part of the card acceptor device.
Washington (US 20040169075 A1) however discloses changing a color of at least one part of the card acceptor device (p230: a cassette 354 with programmable locking buttons 356 and adjacent LEDs 358.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Washington (US 20040169075 A1)’s teaching in the apparatus and the method of Newman modified by Washington because linking the color change of an LED to the challenge-response protocol is a predictable, trivial variation of dynamic state visual prompts.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 9196111 B1) modified by Washington (US 7070111 B2) in view of Pavlov (US 4614861 A).
Re Claims 7 and 16: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, wherein the processor is further programmed.
However, Newman modified by Washington does not disclose applying a lock to prohibit further transaction processing unless the user response is correct (col 12 ll 10: The card is then powered down and disabled from further use.).
Pavlov however discloses applying a lock to prohibit further transaction processing unless the user response is correct (col 12 ll 8-10: the card is invalidated by setting the invalid flag… The card is then powered down and disabled from further use.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Pavlov’s teaching in the apparatus and the method of Newman modified by Washington because applying a transaction lock pending a correct challenge-response is the foundational premise of all modern PIN security.
Re Claims 8 and 17: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 7 and the method of claim 16, wherein the processor is further programmed to: determine that the user response is correct.
However, Newman modified by Washington does not disclose releasing the lock responsive to the determination that the user response is correct.
Pavlov however discloses releasing the lock responsive to the determination that the user response is correct (col 12 ll 17: If, however, the two personal identification numbers (PIN) match, then the card is valid and the program proceeds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Pavlov’s teaching in the apparatus and the method of Newman modified by Washington to predictably ensure that a locked transaction state is released upon receiving the correct challenge-response verification.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (US 9196111 B1) modified by Washington (US 7070111 B2) in view of Paliga (US 20140232863 A1).
Re Claims 9 and 18: Newman modified by Washington discloses the card acceptor device of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, wherein the processor is further programmed to: determine that the user response is incorrect.
However, Newman modified by Washington does not disclose transmitting an alert to a responsible party responsive to the determination that the user response is incorrect.
Paliga however discloses transmitting an alert to a responsible party responsive to the determination that the user response is incorrect (p17: issues real-time e-mail alerts and text messages warning bank employees of skimming attacks. p21: the customer can receive real-time notification of ATM skimming occurrences).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinarily skill in the art to incorporate Paliga’s teaching in the apparatus and the method of Newman modified by Washington for the purpose of allowing law enforcement or security to be dispatched to review ATMs in alarm or remove detected skimming devices (Paliga p21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE W KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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 at 5712722404. 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.
/TAE W KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights