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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paterno (US 5636271) in view of Henderson et al. (US 6028926).
Re claim 1, Paterno teaches:
A device, comprising:
a contact component configured to instruct an audio generator to generate a sequence of tones (FIG. 6+); and
circuitry configured to process an incoming signal from the contact component and to transmit an outgoing signal to the audio generator (speaker 86 outputs sounds via circuitry),
wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate, based on another movement related to the contact component or another movement of the device matching the configured pattern, the new threshold value being satisfied, code that is executable by the circuitry to generate the outgoing signal, and
wherein the audio generator generates the sequence of tones based on the outgoing signal (col 1, lines 63+ which teaches generating the tones based on the signal when the proper movement/ keypad pressing is sensed).
Paterno is silent to wherein the circuitry is further configured to be programmed, via a contact pad of another device, and wherein the programming comprises configuration of a pattern associated with at least one of movement related to the contact component or movement of the device.
Nonetheless, Henderson et al. teaches at FIG. 2 that the card device is programmed, which is intpereted as circuitry of the device being programmed by a contact pad (contact implicit in the programming of the device) and its related to the keyed in code, thus is related to contact component movement (pattern input).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for ease of programming/ configuring.
Re claim 2, the limitations have been discussed above.
Re claim 3, depressing a key has been discussed above.
Re claim 4, a pattern is interpreted as drawn on the device via the specific key pressing inputs.
Re claim 5, though silent, the Examiner notes that generating based on a prompt would have been obviated given the various keys (FIG. 6) interpreted as prompts to activate.
Re claim 6, a card has been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claim 7, the limitations are not drawn toward the limitations of the device, but instead on the intended use of the sequence of tones that is generated by the device, and thus is not patentably distinguishing or further limiting of the device. Nonetheless, one would have been motivated to record and encrypt for the expected benefits of security for a transfer of information, for example.
Re claim 8, Paterno/ Henderson et al. teaches:
A device, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
program, via a contact pad of the device, a circuitry of another device with a pattern associated with at least one of movement related to a contact component of the other device or movement of the other device;
receive, from the other device, a sequence of tones, in response to a prompt for a tone, wherein audio signals are generated by an audio generator of the other device and based on another movement related to the contact component or another movement of the other device matching the programmed pattern;
generate an indication of the sequence of tones;
transmit the indication to a remote server; and
receive, from the remote server, a verification of the indication, as
the limitations have been discussed above. Though silent to the transmitting to a server for verification, the Examiner notes that Henderson et al. teaches a data storage means (214) that is used to verify programming as discussed above. Though silent to the data storage being remote, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use remote storage such as for security, network accessibility, etc., for such expected results. Re the limitations of prompting, they have been discussed above re the programming and activation of the device functionally being equivalent to involve prompting of action.
Re claim 9, the recording is interpreted as the results of programming.
Re claim 10, though silent to encryption, encryption is generally understood as an obvious expedient for security benefits.
Re claims 11-13, the limitations have been discussed above by verifying the programming is correct, as taught by Henderson et al.
Re claim 14, though silent to properties of the tones, the Examiner notes that as the programming is verified, verification fop roperies of the information is an obvious expedient, such as the code or data that functionally represents the tones.
Re claim 15, a card has been discussed above.
Re claim 16, Paterno/ Henderson et al. teaches:
A method, comprising:
programming, by a device, circuitry of the device with a pattern associated with at least one of movement related to a contact component or movement of the device, wherein the contact component is configured to cause an audio generator to generate a sequence of tones;
processing, via the circuitry of the device, an incoming signal from the contact component;
generating, by the device and based on another movement related to the contact component or another movement of the device matching the programmed pattern;
transmitting, by the device, an outgoing signal to the audio generator; and
generating, by the device and based on transmitting the outgoing signal to the audio generator, the sequence of tones (col 1, lines 63+ wherein the card is pre-programmed with a pattern associated with movement of a contact component/ keys of the card, wherein a signal from the keys results in an audio generator to output DTMF tones when they match the pattern/ order of the keys pressed on the card, and the Paterno is interpreted to teach programming circuitry of the device by the device through the card being preprogrammed which involves the device being programmed through interaction with the elements of the device, interpreted as obviating by programming of circuitry of the device by the device).
Nonetheless, Henderson et al. teaches at FIG. 2 that the card device is programmed, which is intpereted as circuitry of the device being programmed by the device.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings to program the card.
Re claim 17, interaction is interpreted to include pressing buttons.
Re claim 18, depressing the button/ contact component and/ or a pattern drawn on the device (key sequence) has been discussed above.
Re claim 19, recording the tones is interpreted as programming the tones into the device. It would have been obvious to have a prompt as part of the programming, so as to actuate/ start the programming process, such as is routine can conventional in the art. Though silent to a prompt time, it would have been obvious to start programming after prompting, to control the actual programming, such as by key activation or pressing a button to signal the start, as is known in the art.
Re claim 20, the sequences of tones are verified via the interaction with the phone system. Alternatively, FIG. 2b of Henderson et al. teaches programming can test and verify the accuracy of data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the art above.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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 571-272-2404. 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 I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights