DETAILED ACTION
Summary
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 a first Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 13-14, please amend “the conveyance roller pair which is disposed on most front side” to recite “a conveyance roller pair which is disposed on a most front side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the metal detecting mechanism is disposed on a rear side with respect to the external connection terminal of the card when a rear end of the card is sandwiched between the first conveyance roller pair” in lines 17-18. It is unclear to the examiner whether “a rear side” is intended to be the same “rear side” recited in line 9. For purposes of examination, “a rear side” has been interpreted as “the rear side”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “on a front side” in line 1. It is unclear to the examiner whether the recitation of “on a front side” is intended to be the same as the “front side” recited in line 8 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. For purposes of examination, “on a front side” has been interpreted as “on the front side”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “on a rear side” in line 3. It is unclear to the examiner whether “a rear side” is intended to be the same “rear side” recited in line 9 of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. For purposes of examination, “a rear side” has been interpreted as “the rear side”.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “on a front side” in line 3 and “on a rear side” in line 4. It is unclear to the examiner whether “one a front side” and “one a rear side” is intended to be the same as the “front side” and “rear side” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. For purposes of examination, “on a rear side” has been interpreted as “on the rear side” and “on a front side” has been interpreted as “on the front side”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “on a rear side” in line 3. It is unclear to the examiner whether “a rear side” is intended to be the same “rear side” recited in line 9 of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. For purposes of examination, “a rear side” has been interpreted as “the rear side”.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “on a front side” in line 3 and “on a rear side” in line 4. It is unclear to the examiner whether “one a front side” and “one a rear side” is intended to be the same as the “front side” and “rear side” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. For purposes of examination, “on a rear side” has been interpreted as “on the rear side” and “on a front side” has been interpreted as “on the front side”.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FURUYA et al, US 6,164,538.
Re claim 1:
FURUYA discloses a card reader (74) for processing a card (1) which incorporates an IC chip (2) and is formed with an external connection terminal of the IC chip (Figures 2, 9, and 10), the card reader comprising:
A card insertion slot (51) into which the card is inserted (column 7, lines 54-56; Figures 9-10);
A card conveyance path (73) in which the card inserted from the card insertion slot is conveyed (column 7, lines 54-65; Figures 9-10);
A card conveyance mechanism structured to convey the card along the card conveyance path (i.e., drive rollers (column 7, lines 54-61; Figures 9-10)); and
A metal detecting mechanism (70-3) for detecting the external connection terminal (column 7, line 66-67; Figure 10);
Wherein when one side in a conveying direction of the card by the card conveyance mechanism is referred to as a front side and, when another side in the conveying direction of the card by the card conveyance mechanism is referred to as a rear side (Figures 9-10),
A front side end of the card conveyance path is formed with the card insertion slot (column 7, lines 54-55; Figures 9-10);
The card conveyance mechanism comprises one or more conveyance roller pairs which contact with the card and convey the card in a sandwiching state (column 7, lines 54-65; Figure 9);
In a case that the card conveyance mechanism comprises a plurality of conveyance roller pairs, a conveyance roller pair which is disposed on a most front side is referred to as a first conveyance roller pair and, in a case that the card conveyance mechanism comprises only one conveyance roller pair, the one conveyance roller pair is referred to as a first conveyance roller pair (i.e., first drive roller pair of 53-1 and 57-1 (column 7, lines 54-61; Figure 9)); and
The metal detecting mechanism is disposed to the rear side with respect to the external connection terminal of the card when a rear end of the card is sandwiched between the first conveyance roller pair (i.e., when the end of card 1 closest to chip 2 is feed into the insertion slot and reaches the first drive roller pair, magnetic sensor 70-3 is disposed on the rear side of the convey direction with respect to the position of chip 2 (Figures 2 and 9)).
PNG
media_image1.png
192
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUYA et al, US 6,164,538.
Re claim 2:
FURUYA teaches the card reader according to claim 1, but does not teach the metal detecting mechanism is disposed on the front side with respect to a center of the first conveyance roller pair in a conveying direction of the card; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try different placements of the metal detecting mechanism, including on the front side with respect to a center of the first conveyance roller pair. Adjusting the position of the metal detecting mechanism in such a manner would not have modified the operation of the card reader (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUYA et al, US 6,164,538 in view of KITAZAWA, US 2014/0008438.
Re claims 3 and 5:
FURUYA teaches the card reader according to claims 1 and 2, but does not explicitly teach a half or more portion of the card is in the conveying direction of the card is disposed on the rear side with respect to the card insertion slot when the rear end of the card is sandwiched between the conveyance roller pair.
KITAZAWA teaches a card reader (1) comprising a first conveyance roller pair (drive roller 8 and pad roller 11), wherein when a rear end of a card (2) is sandwiched between the first conveyance roller pair, a half or more portion of the card in a conveying direction of the card is disposed on a rear side of a conveyance path with respect to a card insertion slot (3) [0023]-[0029] [Figures 1A-1B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size/shape of the card reader of FURUYA such that a half or more portion of the card is disposed on the rear side with respect to the card insertion slot when the rear end of the card is sandwiched between the conveyance roller pair, such as in KITAZAWA. Modifying the shape in such a manner would provide extra space near the front of the card reader for placement of different types of insertion detection mechanisms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-2398. 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/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876