DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' communication filed on May 21, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 21, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues in its Argument that cited arts fail to teach limitations of the independent Claim 1, specifically:
“transmit the low-power mode indicator to the first UICC," "the transmitting causing an auxiliary processor of the first UICC to retrieve a configuration indicator from an auxiliary memory of the first UICC," and "the first UICC using the configuration indicator to switch a single wire protocol (SWP) link for operating the first UICC in the low-power operating mode."
Examiner replies: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111. Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP § 2145(VI).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding limitations the Claim 1 of the instant case, as indicated in the original office action Li clearly teaches Li: Fig. 1, a system configuration that supports contactless apps through a secure element 101 and sim 109; Fig. 2, secure element is integrated into SWP SIM through SWIO interface, and controlled through a contactless controller (SWP SIM’s another name is SMI UICC); Figs. 3-4 illustrate configurations of a single contactless controller interfaces with multiple secure element/SIMs through a switching configuration, e.g., in Figs. 7a-b and description of 7a; “for a contactless communication terminal, its working state can be divided into three situations, including a normal working mode, a low power mode (such as a sleep state), and a shutdown mode” through switches as illustrated in Figs. 7a-b and controlled through SWIOs. It clearly implies that the controller 207 communicates power indicator/commands to SIM/UICC that also contains a processor/controller, i.e., an auxiliary processor, which in turns to controls operating power states of the contactless communication terminal 205, where ETSi is merely cited to illustrate a detailed standard compliance method. As Li already stated clearly that only three states, normal, low, and shutdown modes are available, where the controller can transfer power indicator directly or ask the SIM controller (auxiliary processor) to retrieve from its lookup storage, and these two methods are also well known and used.
Following a standard protocol or process is known practices in consumer electronic market, which ensures widely adoptability and acceptability for consumers and marketplace.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Li as modified teaches all limitations as claimed.
Conclusion: Examiner has shown the rejections set forth in the Office Action of May 21, 2026 are proper. 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).
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2011124078 A1 (Li), in view of ETSI TS 102 613 V7.0.0 (ETSI).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15:
A near field communication (NFC) controller for a circuit having a first Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) and a second UICC, the NFC controller comprising a control circuit configured to: receive a low-power mode indicator from a main processor of the circuit, the low-power mode indicator designating an operation of the first UICC in a low-power operating mode, the second UICC being powered OFF when the first UICC is in the low-power operating mode; transmit the low-power mode indicator to the first UICC, the transmitting causing an auxiliary processor of the first UICC to retrieve a configuration indicator from an auxiliary memory of the first UICC, the first UICC using the configuration indicator to switch a single wire protocol (SWP) link for operating the first UICC in the low-power operating mode; and communicate, in the low-power operating mode, with the first UICC, wherein the first UICC is powered by the NFC controller in the low-power operating mode (Li: Fig. 1, a system configuration that supports contactless apps through a secure element 101 and sim 109; Fig. 2, secure element is integrated into SWP SIM through SWIO interface, and controlled through a contactless controller; Figs. 3-4 illustrate configurations of a single contactless controller interfaces with multiple secure element/SIMs through a switching configuration, e.g., in Figs. 7a-b and description of 7a; “for a contactless communication terminal, its working state can be divided into three situations, including a normal working mode, a low power mode (such as a sleep state), and a shutdown mode” through switches as illustrated in Figs. 7a-b and controlled through SWIOs. It clearly implies that the controller 207 communicates power indicator/commands to SIM/UICC that also contains a processor/controller, i.e., an auxiliary processor, which in turns to controls operating power states of the contactless communication terminal 205).
Li does not teach explicitly on interactions between contactless controller and SIM. However, ETSI teaches (ETSI: 4.-5., SWP/UICC configurations; 6.2. and 8.4.; 11., contactless controller supports NFC operation mode, RF protocol and etc.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Li with interactions between contactless controller and SIM as further taught by ETSI. The advantage of doing so is to leverage industrial standard(s) to enhance product features and ensure market compatibility.
Regarding Claim 2, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to exchange communication between the circuit and an external contactless device using an antenna (Li: Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 2, wherein power provided by the antenna is used to power the NFC controller in the low-power operating mode (ETSI: 4.-5., SWP/UICC configurations; 6.2. and 8.4.; 11., contactless controller supports NFC operation mode, RF protocol and etc., Li: Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to store the configuration indicator in the auxiliary memory in a full-power operating mode of the circuit (Li: Fig. 1, e.g., “The security chip 101 processes the data storage and security management tasks of the smart card application”).
Regarding Claim 5, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 1, wherein the NFC controller provides a voltage to the first UICC in the low-power operating mode (Li: Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claims 6 and 12 and 19, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 1, wherein the first UICC and the second UICC conform to a European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) standard (ETSI: 4.- 5.).
Regarding Claim 7, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to: designate an operation of the second UICC in the low-power operating mode; and exchange NFC communications with the second UICC (Li: Figs. 3-4 and 7a-b).
Regarding Claim 11, Li as modified further teaches:
The UICC of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to communicate with the NFC controller using a communication link having a switch that selectively links the UICC with the NFC controller (Li: Figs. 3-4 and 7a-b).
Regarding Claim 12, Li as modified further teaches:
The UICC of claim 8, wherein the UICC conforms to a European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) standard.
Regarding Claim 13, Li as modified further teaches:
The UICC of claim 8, wherein the UICC is a first UICC, the device further comprising a second UICC, and wherein the second UICC is activated in response to de-activating the first UICC (Figs. 3-4 and 7a-b).
Regarding Claim 14, Li as modified further teaches:
The UICC of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a signal from a main processor of the device, the signal de-activating the UICC in the low-power operating mode (Li: Figs. 3-4 and 7a-b, where a control signal originated from a host controller or contactless controller is design choice).
Regarding Claim 16, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 15, wherein the control circuit is further configured to generate the control signal based on a determination of whether the NFC controller is to communicate with the first UICC or the second UICC via the SWP communications link (Li: Figs. 3-4 and 7a-b).
Regarding Claim 17, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 15, wherein the control circuit is further configured to: enable the SWP communications link between the NFC controller and the first UICC based on the control signal; and disable the SWP communications link between the NFC controller and the second UICC based on the control signal (Li: Figs. 3-4 and 7a-b).
Regarding Claim 18, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 15, wherein the SWP communications link between the NFC controller and the first UICC comprises an SWP communications channel between the NFC controller and a subscriber identification module (SIM) card (Li: Figs. 1-4 and 7a-b).
Regarding Claim 20, Li as modified further teaches:
The NFC controller of claim 15, wherein the SWP port, the control circuit, the control port, and the switch are integrated within a single element (Li: e.g., Fig. 2).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 ZHITONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1936. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am - 5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHITONG CHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights