DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 13-15, and 18-20 were amended. Claim 10 was canceled.
The objections of claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 18, and 19 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 9 of the REMARKS filed on February 3, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of CARUANA in view of MOOSAVI has been withdrawn. However, after further consideration and an updated search, a new grounds of rejection have been asserted. See Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/00523141 to Caruana (hereinafter, “CARUANA”) in view of US 2021/0099862 to Yang et al. (hereinafter, “YANG”) and in further view of US 2014/0210589 to Grace (hereinafter, “GRACE”).
As per claim 1: CARUANA discloses: A passive device comprising (a portable contactless device D2 [CARUANA, ¶0040; Fig. 1]): (device D2 comprises a communication interface NFC-3 configured to communicate according to a the Near Field Communication standard with a contactless reader (“access”) device D [CARUANA, ¶0041, 0050]); a second electronic component range different than the first frequency range (device D2 also comprises a communication interface UWB-2 configured to communicate using the Ultra-Wideband protocol with a wireless unit of the contactless reader [CARUANA, ¶0042, 0051]; UWB and NFC were well-known wireless protocols that operated in different frequencies2); a first antenna electrically coupled to at least the first electronic component or the second electronic component (device D2 comprises an NFC antenna configured to enable conventional communication with a NFC reader [CARUANA, ¶0095]); and a second antenna electrically coupled to at least the second electronic component (device D2 comprises a UWB antenna [CARUANA, ¶0096]), wherein the first antenna is adapted to receive a first signal from the access device, which powers the first component and the second electronic component, thereby causing the second electronic component to cause the second antenna to emit a second signal that is received by the access device (UWB communicates using generated pulses – an ultra-low power UWB generator is able to be powered by a NFC reader RF magnetic field to perform these pulse generations [CARUANA, ¶0055-0056; 0061]; for example, power is extracted from an electromagnetic field generated by the reader [CARUANA, ¶0024-0025]),
CARUANA does not explicitly disclose “a substrate” where the “electronic component[s]” are located and “a first link that directly couples the first electronic component to the second electronic component.” However, YANG is directed to analogous art of incorporating UWB technology to complement NFC technology [YANG, ¶0006-0008]. YANG discloses: a first link that directly couples the first electronic component to the second electronic component (electrically connecting a UWB communication circuit 210 with an NFC communication circuit 220 [YANG, ¶0058; Fig. 2]) and “a substrate” for the “electronic component[s]” (the UWB communication circuit and NFC communication circuit 220 may be configured as a single chip [YANG, ¶0059; Fig. 2])
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the “first” (NFC) and “second” (UWB) components in CARUANA into a single “substrate”, or a single chip. Many of the processes and components required by those radio-frequency (RF)-based technologies are the same. Therefore, a single chip would have been hardware cost-efficient. Furthermore, there would have only been a finite number of configurations of how the NFC and UWB components are connected – direct or indirect connections.
CARUAN in view of YANG do not explicitly disclose, but GRACE discloses: wherein the first electronic component controls and regulates power delivered to the second electronic component (an NFC router regulates power from an NFC antenna to components on the device [GRACE, ¶0047]; e.g., in view of YANG and CARUANA, the NFC component is directly linked with the UWB on a single and would have been capable of regulating power to the UWB (and to any other components))
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a power regulator, such as the NFC router described in GRACE, into modified system of CARUANA in view of YANG. The NFC router would have distributed power to components of a contactless device through NFC signals without requiring a battery or connected power source, which would have been useful in portable structures with limited power and/or physical space, such as a smartcard.
As per claim 2: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, CARUANA discloses: wherein the passive device is a contactless card (portable contactless device D2 [CARUANA, ¶0038, 0048]).
As per claim 3: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, CARUANA discloses: wherein the first wireless communication protocol is a near-field communications (NFC) protocol and the second wireless communication protocol is an ultra-wide band (UWB) protocol (NFC and UWB protocols [CARUANA, ¶0050-0051]).
As per claim 4: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, CARUANA discloses: wherein the first electronic component is an NFC chip and the second electronic component is an ultra-wide band (UWB) chip (communication interfaces NFC-3 and UWB-2, both respectively configured to establish communication channels according NFC and UWB protocols [CARUANA, ¶0050-0051]).
As per claim 5: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 4. The motivation for incorporating YANG with CARUANA in claim 1 is also applicable herein. Therefore, CARUANA in view of YANG disclose: wherein the NFC chip and the UWB chip are in a same chip module (a single chip [YANG, ¶0059]).
As per claim 6: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, CARUANA discloses: wherein the second electronic component is programmed to measure a distance between the passive device and the access device based on the second signal (UWB technology enables a UWB radio system to measure a distance between two communicating devices with an accurate precision and detect the location of device D2 with respect to device D3 [CARUANA. ¶0046, 0055]).
As per claim 8: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, CARUANA discloses: wherein the second frequency range is greater than the first frequency range (CARUANA is directed to employing NFC (“first”) and UWB (“second”), both are well-known and established wireless technologies operating in different frequency ranges, wherein UWB operates in a range greater than the range of NFC [CARUANA, ¶0044-0045; 0055]).
As per claim 9: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating GRACE in claim 1 is also applicable in claim 9. Therefore, CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose: further comprising a power regulator, wherein the first electronic component is electrically coupled to the power regulator via a second link, the power regulator supplying power to the first electronic component via the second link (an NFC router in a smart card regulates the power transferred via a NFC antenna [GRACE, ¶0029; 0047] (e.g., the NFC and UWB of the contactless device in CARUANA); wherein the NFC antenna is attached to the NFC router [GRACE, ¶0011, 0020; Fig. 2]).
As per claim 11: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 9. The motivation for incorporating GRACE with CARUANA and YANG in claim 9 is also applicable herein. Therefore, CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose: wherein the first antenna is directly coupled to the power regulator (the NFC antenna is attached to the NFC router [GRACE, ¶0011, 0020; Fig. 2]).
As per claim 12: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, CARUANA discloses: wherein the first signal is an RF signal emitted by the access device (receiving RF signals [CARUANA, ¶0061]; furthermore, NFC is a well-known wireless radio technology).
As per claim 13: Claim 13 is different in overall scope from claim 1. Claim 13 is directed to a method performed by the components of the passive device in claim 1. Therefore, the response provided to claim 1 is also applicable to claim 13.
As per claim 14: Claim 14 incorporates all limitations of claim 13. Claim 14 is directed to a method corresponding to the passive device recited in claims 2 and 3. Therefore, the response to claims 2 and 3 are also applicable to claim 14.
As per claim 15: Claim 15 incorporates all limitations of claim 13. Claim 15 is directed to a method corresponding to the passive device recited in claims 4 and 5. Therefore, the response to claims 4 and 5 are also applicable to claim 15.
As per claim 16: Claim 16 incorporates all limitations of claim 13. Claim 16 is directed to a method corresponding to the passive device recited in claim 6. Therefore, the response to claim 6 is also applicable to claim 16.
As per claim 17: Claim 17 incorporates all limitations of claim 13. Claim 17 is directed to a method corresponding to the passive device recited in claims 9 and 10. Therefore, the response to claims 9 and 10 are also applicable to claim 17.
As per claim 18: Claim 18 is different in overall scope from claim 1. Claim 18 is directed to a method performed by the components of the passive device in claim 1. Therefore, the response provided to claim 1 is also applicable to claim 18.
As per claim 19: Claim 19 incorporates all limitations of claim 18. Claim 19 is directed to a method corresponding to the passive device recited in claim 3. Therefore, the response to claim 3 is also applicable to claim 19.
As per claim 20: Claim 20 incorporates all limitations of claim 18. Claim 20 is directed to a method corresponding to the passive device recited in claim 4. Therefore, the response to claim 4 is also applicable to claim 20.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE and in further view of US 2017/0221047 to Veerasangappa Kadi et al. (hereinafter, “KADI”).
As per claim 7: CARUANA in view of YANG and GRACE disclose all limitations of claim 6. CARUANA, YANG, and GRACE do not explicitly disclose, but KADI discloses: wherein the first electronic component is programmed to commence an authorization process based on the distance being less than a threshold distance (a user device employing NFC is triggered to perform a contactless transaction within a threshold proximity to a point-of-sale device (a reader) [KADI, ¶0079]; the transaction includes performing an authorization process [KADI, ¶0071-0073]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of CARUANA and KADI to obtain an improved contactless payment system that utilizes NFC-based distance measuring supported by UWB. Therefore, contactless transactions in KADI would have been more resilient to malicious attacks and/or fraudulent processes due to the accurate distance measurements offered by UWB technology. See [CARUANA, ¶0055, 0058].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0312424: UWB chips are able to detect each other’s transmissions to start ranging, or measuring their distance from each other. See ¶0016.
US 2017/0303084: Distance measuring utilizing UWB technology enables access control between a mobile device and an interaction unit. See Abstract, ¶0040-0041.
M. Henzl, P. Hanacek and M. Kacic, "Preventing real-world relay attacks on contactless devices," 2014 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST), Rome, Italy, 2014, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/CCST.2014.6987031. (Distance bound protocols are disclosed for preventing relay attacks on contactless devices, such as NFC devices. See Abstract.)
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 ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET.
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, JUNG KIM can be reached at 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 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
1 Cited in the IDS filed Mar. 22, 2024.
2 See Section III in S. Movassaghi, P. Arab and M. Abolhasan, "Wireless technologies for Body Area Networks: Characteristics and challenges," 2012 International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT), Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 2012, pp. 42-47.
Prosecution Insights