Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 7/22/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claim 1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1,4,6-10, and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zellner US Patent Application Publication 20060091223 in view of Ferber US Patent Application Publication 20050211785 and further in view of Nair et al. US Patent 5362952.
Regarding claim 1, Zellner teaches a card comprising:
a plurality of buttons (paragraph 08, fig. 1C);
a dynamic magnetic communications device (paragraph 07,031);
operable to communicate at least one track of magnetic stripe information to a read head of a magnetic stripe reader of a payment terminal (paragraph 07,031 032);
RFID circuitry operable to communicate with RFID circuitry of a payment terminal;
processing circuitry that generates a dynamic credit card number upon successful biometric authentication entry of a (paragraph 07,031,033);
and a display that displays said dynamics credit card number (paragraph 06,051) wherein said card is operable to transmit said dynamic credit card number to said payment terminal through at least one of dynamic magnetic communication device and said RFID circuitry (paragraph 040,047). Zellner teaches the display is coupled to a display driver (150, paragraph 033). Zellner is not explicit in teaching the dynamics communication device being fabricated on a first printed circuit board and the use of a PIN for authenticating the user. Ferber in an analogous teaches conventional practice of fabrication the electronic circuitry of a smart card on printed circuit board (paragraph 07,029) and teaches the use of personal identification number (PIN) for authenticating the user (paragraph 010). Ferber is silent on teaching the display driving circuit is fabricated on a second printed circuit board. Nair in an analogous art teaches placing the display and the display driver on different side of the circuit board as an alternative to having two printed circuit boards (abstract, col. 3 lines 20-32,col. 4 lines 27-40). The mounting of the display and different circuit boards therefore represent an obvious variation of selecting the mounting of the display and display drivers from a limited available number of options.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Zellner as disclosed by Ferber in view of Nair because the circuit board provide an efficient and reliable means for mounting the card’s circuitry and use of the personal identification (PIN) represents the substitution of one identification means for another for producing the predictable result of reliably verify the identification of the user.
Regarding claim 4, Zellner teaches display is located above said plurality of buttons (display (110/160 is above the input buttons (fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 6, Zellner teaches the card comprises a battery (paragraph 033).
Regarding claim 7, Zellner teaches card reader communication device (paragraph 040).
Regarding claim 8, Zellner teaches the magnetic stripe read-head detector circuitry (paragraph 035,055).
Regarding claim 9, Zellner teaches a card reader communication device for communicating a data block upon successful entry of the authentication factor (paragraph 07,031,033)
Regarding claim 10, Zellner teaches a card reader communication device for communicating a data block upon successful entry of the authentication factor (paragraph 07,031,033) but is silent on teaching the use of a PIN. Ferber in an analogous teaches the use of personal identification number (PIN) for authenticating the user (paragraph 010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Zellner as disclosed by Ferber in view of Nair because the use of the personal identification (PIN) represents the substitution of one identification means for another for producing the predictable result of reliably verify the identification of the user.
Regarding claim 12, Zellner is silent on teaches successful entry of a stored PIN number comprises circuitry that matches a sequence of button entries with stored personal identification number. sequence Ferber in an analogous art teaches the successful entry of a stored PIN number comprises circuitry that matches a sequence of button entries with stored personal identification number (paragraph 010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Zellner as disclosed by Ferber in view of Nair because the use of the personal identification (PIN) represents the substitution of one identification means for another for producing the predictable result of reliably verify the identification of the user.
Claim 2-3 and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zellner US Patent Application Publication 20060091223 in view of Ferber US Patent Application Publication 20050211785 in view of Nair et al. US Patent 5362952 and further in view of Freeman US Patent 6019284.
Regarding claims 2-3, Zellner is silent on teaching the display bi-stable or non-stable. Freeman et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of a bi-stable display on a card and teaches selecting a bi-stable display in order to make it unnecessary for the card to have its own power supply because the display will maintain the image when the power has been removed (col. 4 line 53-col. 5 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zellner in view of Ferber in view of Nair because bi-stable display is an alternative to the non-bi-stable display and is selected based whether the displayed image must be maintained when the power has been removed.
Regarding claim 15, Zellner is not explicit in teaching the data transmitted to the payment terminal includes at least a portion of a debit card number. Freeman in an analogous art teaches the payment card includes a debit card and teaches the data transmitted to the payment terminal includes at least a portion of a debit card number (paragraph 048,059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zellner in view of Ferber in view of Nair as disclosed by Freeman because such modification represents an improvement over the system Zellner in view of Ferber in view of Nair by increasing the security of the card by further ensure the card transaction is authentic.
Claim 5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zellner US Patent Application Publication 20060091223 in view of Ferber US Patent Application Publication 20050211785 and further in view Li US Patent 7051929.
Regarding 5, Zellner is silent on teaching display is located to the right of said plurality of buttons. Li in an analogous art teaches a card on which the display is located to the right of said plurality of buttons (display 7 is located to the right of the plurality of buttons 11,fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Zellner in view of Ferber in view of Nair et al. US Patent 5362952 as disclosed by Li because such modification represents the rearrangement of parts and further represents a design preference.
Regarding claim 13, Zellner teaches the credit card displays a number (paragraph 034) but is not explicit in teaching data transmitted to the payment terminal comprises at least a portion of a payment number. Li in an analogous art teaches the data transmitted to the payment terminal comprises at least a portion of a payment number (security number, col. 5 lines 6-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zellner in view of Ferber in view of Nair et al. US Patent 5362952 as disclosed by Li because such modification represents an improvement over the system Zellner in view of Ferber by increasing the security of the card by further ensure the card transaction is authentic.
Regarding claim 14, Zellner teaches the credit card displays a number (paragraph 034) but is not explicit in teaching the data transmitted to the payment terminal comprises at least a portion of the credit card number. Li in an analogous art teaches the data transmitted to the payment terminal comprises at least a portion of a payment number (security number, col. 5 lines 6-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zellner in view of Ferber in view of Nair et al. US Patent 5362952 as disclosed by Li because such modification represents an improvement over the system Zellner in view of Ferber by increasing the security of the card by further ensure the card transaction is authentic.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zellner US Patent Application Publication 20060091223 in view of Ferber US Patent Application Publication 20050211785 and further in view of Wang US Patent Application Publication 20030004827.
Regarding claim 11, Zellner is silent on teaching the card reader communicates the data block serially. Wang in an analogous art teaches a card reader communicating data block serially (paragraph 081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zellner in view of Ferber in view of Nair as disclosed by Wang because data blocks are generally communicated in a serial or parallel mode and represents choice of communicating data from a finite number of choices and producing a predictable result.
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 VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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 Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights