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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/14/26 has been entered.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al, US Pub. 2022/0164624, in view of Gardenfors et al, US Pub. 2015/0327309.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng et al disclose a card shaped mobile payment device and operation method thereof comprising: an apparatus (item 200, fig. 1, fig. 3) having: a contact pad (item 121, fig. 2-4); an output light (item 180, fig. 2, par. 0052); an ultra-wide band (UWB) transceiver (par. 0047, fig. 1; item 161); and a control circuit (item 110, fig. 1 ), the control circuit to: activate the UWB transceiver when the contact pad is activated by a user §[0039]-[0043]; activate the output light to display a light pattern §[0039]-[0043]; and establish a UWB communication channel with a reader §[0047].
Chen et al do not disclose a pairing on the card displays a first light pattern and the first pattern is the same as a second light pattern displayed on the reader.
Gardenfors disclose a system and method for indicating pairing availability between devices comprising: an electronic device 201 and a pairable electronic device that exchange pairing information and execute a coordinated indication of pairability; the pairing inquiry can contain information for executing the coordinated indication, including the type of indication and clock synchronization information; both devices may contain LEDs, with the LED of electronic device 201 and the LED of the pairable device flashing in a pattern showing an observer that the two particular devices are pairable; the patterns may be synchronized such that the LEDs of the two devices flash, at the same time and at the same frequency; controlling multiple devices so that no more than two devices use the same pattern at any given time, with each pair of corresponding devices assigned a different pattern from other device pairs. (See Figs. 4-6; par. 0045+).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UMB capable card shape to employ Gardenfors’ coordinated pairing lights technique when establishing Cheng et wireless communication in order to provide the user with visual confirmation that the card is communicating with the intended reader. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng et al as modified by Lee et al fails to disclose a solar power to power the control circuit. However, solar cells are very common in the art for powering electronic devices, including powering control circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to employ solar cells for powering the control circuit of Cheng et al as modified by Lee et al.
Regarding claims 3-5, displaying advertisement information is for meeting specific customer requirements, wherein it is common to display information, such as card logo, for indicating the type of cards. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Cheng et al as modified by Lee et al.
Regarding claim 6, Cheng et al as modified by Lee et al fails to disclose wherein the control circuit is deactivated the UWB transceiver when the contact pad deactivated by the user. However, the contact pad must be connected or activated in order to power up the transceiver. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the transceiver is deactivated when a user deactivates the contact pad.
Claim(s) 7, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron et al, US Pub. 2023/0083618, in view of Gardenfors et al, US Pub. 2015/0327309.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Bergeron et al disclose transaction cards, computer-based systems, and a mobile device for authenticating transactions comprising: an apparatus (item 160, fig. 1 ) having: a control circuit, the control circuit to: instruct a camera to capture (§[0046]) a card ID advertisement from a smart card (item 110, fig. 2); verify a card ID from the card ID advertisement (item 130, fig. 2); pair with the smart card (§[0055]-[0058]) using an ultra-wide band (UWB) transceiver (item 255, fig. 2); activate a pairing light to display a light pattern (§[0064]); and establish a UWB communication channel with the smart card .
Chen et al do not disclose a pairing on the card displays a first light pattern and the first pattern is the same as a second light pattern displayed on the reader.
Gardenfors disclose a system and method for indicating pairing availability between devices comprising: an electronic device 201 and a pairable electronic device that exchange pairing information and execute a coordinated indication of pairability; the pairing inquiry can contain information for executing the coordinated indication, including the type of indication and clock synchronization information; both devices may contain LEDs, with the LED of electronic device 201 and the LED of the pairable device flashing in a pattern showing an observer that the two particular devices are pairable; the patterns may be synchronized such that the LEDs of the two devices flash, at the same time and at the same frequency; controlling multiple devices so that no more than two devices use the same pattern at any given time, with each pair of corresponding devices assigned a different pattern from other device pairs. (See Figs. 4-6; par. 0045+).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UMB capable card shape to employ Gardenfors’ coordinated pairing lights technique when establishing Cheng et wireless communication in order to provide the user with visual confirmation that the card is communicating with the intended reader. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Although it is common practice to illuminate a light display during pairing, Bergeron et al fail to specifically teach a pairing light in the reader for indicating pairing between the transceiver and the reader.
Regarding 10-14 and 17-20, they refer to technical features belonging to general knowledge in the field of smart cards and corresponding readers by the person skilled in the art, such detecting the card to activate lights or camera, and pairing the card with appropriate readers. These limitations do not meet the requirements of inventive step; these are generally known steps for processing transactions. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The applicant teaches an apparatus and a method which includes a control circuit to instruct a camera to capture a card ID advertisement from a smart card, to verify the card ID from the card ID advertisement, to pair with the smart card using an ultra-wide band (UWB) transceiver to establish a UWB communication channel with the smart card, wherein the control circuit triangulates a location of the smart card based on signal strength from a UWB antenna and verify the location of the smart card corresponds to a location of the captured card ID advertisement. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claims were not shown by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument regarding the prior art fails to disclose activating a pairing light to display a pattern during a pairing process, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The new prior art (Gardenfors), disclose a method for controlling the lighting system including controlling a pairing light. The addition of Gardenfors would render the claims obvious. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Pham Thomas can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights