DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in reply to papers filed on 2025-07-22. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1 is/are independent.
Priority papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 2025-01-16 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. See MPEP § 608.01(a). In particular, the title fails to mention the concepts of a touch screen and of tamper resistance. Examiner suggests Taper Resistant Touch Screen, though other formulations that are sufficiently searchable may also be acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (e.g., "mechanism", "unit", "module", "part", etc.) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim
Limitation
Reasoning
1
a touch position detection mechanism which detects a touch position that is a touched position of the touch panel
"detects a touch position that is a touched position of the touch panel" is functional language. "touch position detection " is not recognized as the name of a structure in the art because it is a function.
1
a disassembly detection mechanism for detecting that the display is disassembled
"detecting that the display is disassembled" is functional language. "disassembly detection " is not recognized as the name of a structure in the art because it is a function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 in view of Wade '724
1
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
2
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
3
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
4
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
5
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
6
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
7
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
8
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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.
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 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 AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 that 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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) 1-3, 5, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 20160020906 to Nolte et al. (hereinafter "Nolte '906") in view of U.S. Publication 20130103190 to Carapelli (hereinafter "Carapelli '190") in view of U.S. Publication 20130058057 to Takemori et al. (hereinafter "Takemori '057"). Nolte '906 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Carapelli '190 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Takemori '057 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Nolte '906 discloses an information processing device comprising a display with a touch panel to which secret information is inputted, wherein the display comprises a touch position detection mechanism which detects a touch position that is a touched position of the touch panel (touch screen with controller for user inputs [Nolte '906 ¶ 0010-0012, 0039-0040, 0049, 0093, 0174, 0121, 0127-0128]; processor(s), memory, computer readable media, storage, executable instructions [Nolte '906 ¶ 0045, 0133-0135, 0147, 015-0151])
Nolte '906 does not disclose a battery which supplies power to the display in a state that power is not supplied from an outside
Nolte '906 does not disclose a flexible printed board which is formed with a detection circuit for detecting at least one of its own disconnection and short circuit, and a signal circuit for transmitting an output signal of the touch position detection mechanism
However, Nolte '906 discloses a printed board which is formed with a detection circuit for detecting at least one of its own disconnection and short circuit, and a signal circuit for transmitting an output signal of the touch position detection mechanism (removal sensor in Security Box trips when power is removed [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124, Fig. 1]; "connecting a non secure touch via USB will lead the Terminal into an inoperable state" [Nolte '906 ¶ 0093]; Security Box transmits encrypted information of touch sensor to main PCB and on to service center/bank [Nolte '906 ¶ 0038-0039, 0057-0058])
Nolte '906 discloses a disassembly detection mechanism for detecting that the display is disassembled (disassembly switch in Security Box [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124, Fig. 1])
Nolte '906 discloses in a case that the display comprises the flexible printed board, a control part which controls the display executes a predetermined tamper-resistant processing when the control part detects at least one of disconnection and a short circuit of the detection circuit ("tamper alarm will raise an immediate erasure of the SB internal Master Key" [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125]; controls display [Nolte '906 ¶ 0012, 0014])
Nolte '906 discloses in a case that the display comprises the disassembly detection mechanism, the control part executes the tamper-resistant processing when the control part detects that the display is disassembled ("tamper alarm will raise an immediate erasure of the SB internal Master Key" [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125])
Further:
Carapelli '190 discloses a battery which supplies power to the display in a state that power is not supplied from an outside (CPUs and controllers of display are powered by battery to ensure anti-tampering response completes [Carapelli '190 ¶ 0051, 0094])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Nolte '906 with the anti-tampering features of Carapelli '190 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
a battery which supplies power to the display in a state that power is not supplied from an outside
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the battery of Carapelli '190 would ensure that the anti-tampering response (e.g. wiping memories and locking processors) would be completed even if an intruder denied the device external power. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the anti-tampering response (e.g. wiping memories and locking processors) would have prevented an intruder from compromising and then continuing to operate the device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Carapelli '190 teaches [Carapelli '190 ¶ 0051, 0094] modifying a tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1] such as that of Nolte '906 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Carapelli '190 and Nolte '906 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (anti-tampering features, including battery and deactivation of controllers/CPUs [Carapelli '190 ¶ 0051, 0094]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (anti-tampering features, including battery and deactivation of controllers/CPUs [Carapelli '190 ¶ 0051, 0094]) to known devices and/or methods (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1] prevents intruder from compromising device using deactivation of controllers/CPUs and wiping memories with assistance of backup battery [Carapelli '190 ¶ 0051, 0094]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Further:
Takemori '057 discloses a flexible printed board which is formed with a detection circuit for detecting at least one of its own disconnection and short circuit, and a signal circuit for transmitting an output signal of the touch position detection mechanism (surrounds protected board with flexible anti-tampering circuit that triggers if short-circuited [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 with the anti-tampering circuit boards of Takemori '057 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
a flexible printed board which is formed with a detection circuit for detecting at least one of its own disconnection and short circuit, and a signal circuit for transmitting an output signal of the touch position detection mechanism
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because adding the anti-tampering circuit boards of Takemori '057 to the device of Nolte '906 would have denied an intruder access to the device without triggering the anti-tampering response. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Takemori '057 teaches [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037] modifying a tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1] such as that of Nolte '906 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Takemori '057 and Nolte '906 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (anti-tampering circuit boards [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (anti-tampering circuit boards [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037]) to known devices and/or methods (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1] prevents intruder from gaining access to device using anti-tampering circuit boards [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Nolte '906 does not disclose the display comprises the flexible printed board and the disassembly detection mechanism
However, Nolte '906 discloses the display comprises the printed board and the disassembly detection mechanism (removal sensor in Security Box trips when power is removed [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124, Fig. 1]; "connecting a non secure touch via USB will lead the Terminal into an inoperable state" [Nolte '906 ¶ 0093]; Security Box transmits encrypted information of touch sensor to main PCB and on to service center/bank [Nolte '906 ¶ 0038-0039, 0057-0058]; disassembly switch in Security Box [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124, Fig. 1])
Further:
Takemori '057 discloses the display comprises the flexible printed board and the disassembly detection mechanism (surrounds protected board with flexible anti-tampering circuit that triggers if short-circuited [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 with the anti-tampering circuit boards of Takemori '057 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the display comprises the flexible printed board and the disassembly detection mechanism
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 1):
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 6 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1):
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 8 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 2):
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference
Nolte '906 does not disclose the control part comprises a CPU, and the tamper-resistant processing stops at least an operation of the CPU to set the CPU in an unusable state
Further:
Carapelli '190 discloses the control part comprises a CPU, and the tamper-resistant processing stops at least an operation of the CPU to set the CPU in an unusable state (upon detection of tampering, CPUs and controllers are deactivated [Carapelli '190 ¶ 0051])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Nolte '906 with the anti-tampering features of Carapelli '190 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the control part comprises a CPU, and the tamper-resistant processing stops at least an operation of the CPU to set the CPU in an unusable state
Per claim 8 (dependent on claim 2):
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference
Nolte '906 discloses a control board on which a main control part controlling the information processing device is mounted (main PCB [Nolte '906 ¶ 0108, Fig. 3, Fig. 1])
Nolte '906 does not disclose a protection board which is a printed board formed with a second detection circuit for detecting at least one of its own disconnection and short circuit and surrounding at least a part of the control board
Nolte '906 discloses a second disassembly detection mechanism for detecting that the information processing device is disassembled ("two switches are embedded on the MPCB" [Nolte '906 ¶ 0108])
Nolte '906 does not disclose the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing when the main control part detects at least one of disconnection and a short circuit of the second detection circuit, and when the main control part detects that the information processing device is disassembled, the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing
However, Nolte '906 discloses when it detects that the information processing device is disassembled, the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing ("two switches are embedded on the MPCB" [Nolte '906 ¶ 0108])
Further:
Carapelli '190 discloses the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing when the main control part detects at least one of disconnection and a short circuit, and when the main control part detects that the information processing device is disassembled, the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing (first or second controller can instruct device to execute tampering response [Carapelli '190 ¶ 0051])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Nolte '906 with the anti-tampering features of Carapelli '190 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing when the main control part detects at least one of disconnection and a short circuit, and when the main control part detects that the information processing device is disassembled, the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing
Further:
Takemori '057 discloses a protection board which is a printed board formed with a second detection circuit for detecting at least one of its own disconnection and short circuit and surrounding at least a part of the control board (sub-board with first circuit pattern covers portions of protected board and triggers response if first circuit pattern is disconnected [Takemori '057 ¶ 0039, 0041]; surrounds protected board with flexible anti-tampering circuit that triggers if short-circuited [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037])
Takemori '057 discloses the device executes the tamper-resistant processing when the main control part detects at least one of disconnection and a short circuit of the second detection circuit (sub-board with first circuit pattern covers portions of protected board and triggers response if first circuit pattern is disconnected [Takemori '057 ¶ 0039, 0041]; surrounds protected board with flexible anti-tampering circuit that triggers if short-circuited [Takemori '057 ¶ 0008-0009, 0037])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 with the anti-tampering circuit boards of Takemori '057 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
a protection board which is a printed board formed with a second detection circuit for detecting at least one of its own disconnection and short circuit and surrounding at least a part of the control board
the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing when the main control part detects at least one of disconnection and a short circuit of the second detection circuit, and when the main control part detects that the information processing device is disassembled, the main control part makes the control part execute the tamper-resistant processing
Claim(s) 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 in view of U.S. Publication 20190026724 to Wade et al. (hereinafter "Wade '724"). Wade '724 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 1):
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 7 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 2):
Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 in view of Takemori '057 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference
Nolte '906 does not disclose a main control part which controls the information processing device monitors the control part, and when the control part executes the tamper-resistant processing, the main control part notifies a host control part electrically connected with the main control part of that the tamper-resistant processing has been executed
Further:
Wade '724 discloses a main control part which controls the information processing device monitors the control part, and when the control part executes the tamper-resistant processing, the main control part notifies a host control part electrically connected with the main control part of that the tamper-resistant processing has been executed (tampering response includes "providing a tamper notification, such as to merchant device 29, payment server 40 via network 30, or to a user of payment terminal 20" [Wade '724 ¶ 0096])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Nolte '906 in view of Carapelli '190 with the anti-tampering notifications of Wade '724 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
a main control part which controls the information processing device monitors the control part, and when the control part executes the tamper-resistant processing, the main control part notifies a host control part electrically connected with the main control part of that the tamper-resistant processing has been executed
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because adding the anti-tampering notifications of Wade '724 to the device of Nolte '906 would have informed other devices involved in a transaction that an intruder had attempted access to the device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Wade '724 teaches [Wade '724 ¶ 0096] modifying a tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1] such as that of Nolte '906 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Wade '724 and Nolte '906 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (anti-tampering notifications [Wade '724 ¶ 0096]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (anti-tampering notifications [Wade '724 ¶ 0096]) to known devices and/or methods (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (tamper-resistant device [Nolte '906 ¶ 0107, 0124-0125, Fig. 1] uses anti-tampering notifications to prevent other devices involved in a transaction from being compromised or deceived into fraud [Wade '724 ¶ 0096]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication 20150091418 to Chung et al. (hereinafter "Chung '418") discloses a tamper-resistant device including a battery that supplies power to a touch screen display [Chung '418 ¶ 0023, 0031] constructed using flexible circuit boards [Chung '418 ¶ 0022-0023, 0031].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C PARSONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1475. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWRF 7:30-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
/THEODORE C PARSONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights