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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed on 3/2/26. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 18 amended. Claims 3 and 13 canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 and 14-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15, line 2 the limitation “currently amended” appears to be a typographically error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Ray et al. US Publication No. 2014/0372305.
Re Claim 1, Ray discloses a method comprising:
determining, based on a first set of evaluations, first parameters associated with an existing physical interface of a payment processing device ( P186, P137, automated banking machine), wherein determining the first parameters includes:
sending a test signal (via radiation pulses) to a payment reader (94) associated with the payment processing device (P137, P142, P148, P192, 193, radiation test ;
receiving a response signal from the payment reader ( radiation level response, P152, in response to the sensed signal data the processor may operate in accordance with its programming to evaluate the nature and character of the intercepted signal) ; and determining the first parameters (Threshold values ) based on a comparison of the test signal and the response signal (P193) ; monitoring second parameters (time periods) associated with the existing physical interface of the payment processing device P137 P193, 196, P197.; evaluating, in a second set of subsequent evaluations, tamper risk associated with the existing physical interface based at least in part on comparing the first parameters with the second parameters; and performing a remedial action based at least in part on a determination that the tamper risk exceeds a threshold (P193, 196, P197; Fig. 22).
Re Claim 2, Ray discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first parameters establish a baseline analysis of the payment processing device for evaluating the tamper risk (P193, P196, P197).
Re Claim 4, Ray discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first parameters are determined when no payment instrument is present at the payment reader (P181).
Re Claim 5, Ray discloses the method of claim1 wherein the test signal corresponds to a monitoring system embedded within the payment processing device (P193, P196, P197).
Re Claim 6, Ray discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the monitoring system is a Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) system and the test signal is a pulse signal (P191, 192).
Re Claim 7, Ray discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the monitoring system is a capacitance monitoring system and the test signal is an oscillator waveform (P137, P205, P207, P210).
Re Claim 8, Ray discloses the method of claim 7 wherein the test signal is sent to input/output pins of the existing physical interface (P94).
Re Claim 9, Ray discloses the method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the tamper risk comprises: sending the first parameters and the second parameters to a payment server; and receiving an indication of the tamper risk from the payment server (P193, P196, P197 and 418).
Re Claim 10, Ray discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first parameters and the second parameters are determined by a monitoring system installed within the payment processing device (P193, P196, P197).
Re Claim 11, Ray discloses a payment processing device comprising: one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to: determine, based on a first set of evaluations, first parameters associated with an existing physical interface of the payment processing device (P94) , wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the first parameters by: sending a test signal ((via radiation pulses) to a payment reader associated with the payment processing device;
receiving a response signal from the payment reader ( radiation level response, P152, in response to the sensed signal data the processor may operate in accordance with its programming to evaluate the nature and character of the intercepted signal); and determining the first parameters based on a comparison of the test signal and the response signal; monitor second parameters associated with the existing physical interface of the payment processing device; evaluate, in a second set of subsequent evaluations, tamper risk associated with the existing physical interface based at least in part on comparing the first parameters with the second parameters; and perform a remedial action based at least in part on a determination that the tamper risk exceeds a threshold (P193, P196, P197; Fig. 22).
Re Claim 12, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 11, wherein the first parameters establish a baseline analysis of the payment processing device for evaluating the tamper risk (P193, P196, P197).
Re Claim 14, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 11, wherein the first parameters are determined when no payment instrument is present at the payment reader (P181).
Re Claim 15, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 11, wherein the test signal Currently Amended to a monitoring system embedded within the payment processing device (P193, P196, P197).
Re Claim 16, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 15, wherein the monitoring system is a Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) system and the test signal is a pulse signal(P191, 192). .
Re Claim 17, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 15, wherein the monitoring system is a capacitance monitoring system and the test signal is an oscillator waveform (P137, P205, P207, P210).
Re Claim 18, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 11wherein the test signal is sent to input/output pins of the existing physical interface (P94).
Re Claim 19, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to evaluate the tamper risk by: sending the first parameters and the second parameters to a payment server; and receiving an indication of the tamper risk from the payment server (P193, P196, P197 and 418).
Re Claim 20, Ray discloses the payment processing device of claim 11, wherein the first parameters and the second parameters are determined by a monitoring system installed within the payment processing device (P31, P125, P127, 196, P197, P193).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed on 3/2/26 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.
Applicant amended the claims with new limitations which necessitated new search and consideration. Therefore this action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
The following reference is cited but not relied upon:
Lewis discloses applying certain rules to correlate the repeated sensing of abnormal conditions with a possible fraud or tampering condition and to conduct tests for the presence of fraud devices
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 SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights