Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
The application of Jeffrey David Mullen for Credit, Security, Debit Cards And The Like With Buttons filed 10/21/24 has been examined. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,328.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations of claims 1-15 are generally broader than the patented claims. The recited claim limitation are included in the patented claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,121,328.
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.
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 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).
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 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 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 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 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 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 include 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 as disclosed by Freeman 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 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 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 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 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 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
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