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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2016/0364135) in view of Taffer (US 2021/0256502).
Re claim 21:
Park et al, teaches at para 0013:
“To achieve these objects and other advantages and in accordance with the purpose of the invention, as embodied and broadly described herein, a display device according to one embodiment of the present invention may include a communication unit configured to perform a communication with a terminal device located in a preset distance, the communication unit configured to receive terminal device's information including an identifier of the terminal device, a controller determining whether a card included in a card group exists by searching the card group associated with the received terminal device's identifier, and a display unit, wherein if the card included in the searched card group exists, the controller displays a main card and wherein if the card included in the searched card group does not exist, the controller outputs a notification message.”
See especially figure 6B.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is seen that, just as in the claimed invention, when the card display device 100 comes within a certain distance of a transaction device, a transaction card for that device will display. The memory of the device stores many cards.
It is not clear if the device is required to itself be of a standard credit card form factor. In Park et al., the device seems to be a smartphone in at least one embodiment.
Taffer teaches a smartcard that has a display which displays sophisticated custom features on nearing a transaction device (ATM), namely a map of directions to the ATM.
In view of Taffer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to substitute a customizable card for the smartphone in Park et al. for more convenient handling and for fitting the device in a user’s wallet.
Re claim 23:
LEDs are old and well-known on card for the purpose of indication.
Re claim 24: Displaying a basic credit card appearance would include this. Even an expiration date is a kind of card status.
Re 25: Some cards are identified on their surface as rewards cards.
Re claim 30: Alert noises are conventional in the art of transaction cards for the benefit of impaired users.
Re claim 31: See discussion re claim 21 above.
Re claim 33: See discussion re claim 23, above.
Re claim 36: In both Park et al. and Taffer, proximity to an ATM is detected.
Re claim 38: See discussion re claim 30 above.
Re claim 39: See para 0172 of Park et al. The transaction device could be a point-of-sale device.
Re claim 40: ‘Status’ is vague. It could be something as basic as an expiration date, which is standard to display on a transaction card.
Claims 22, 26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park/Taffer as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Rao.
Re claim 22 and 32:
Rao teaches (para 0106) that a card capable of displaying multiple accounts uses e-ink.
In view of the teachings of Rao, it would have been obvious to use e-ink in the claimed context in order to have a display that requires very little continuous power.
Re claim 26:
Rao’s card has buttons thereon.
It would have been obvious to include buttons in order to, among other things, toggle a display between multiple different transaction cards that are stored in memory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-29, 34, 35 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the arrangement wherein (in the context of the intervening claims) the interface comprises a contact interface that is configured to receive the card feature in response to being dipped into a card reader.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the arrangement wherein (in the context of the intervening claims) the display is configured to dim or turn off in response to a lack of light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (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 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 A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876