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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10 and 18-20) in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilincic et al. (US 2021/0342477) in view of Avetisov et al. (US 2021/0258308) and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2009/0063802).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Ilincic teaches a contactless card (see abstract) (and corresponding method) comprising:
A storage device comprising a controller (data encrypted and stored on the contactless card – see abstract)
A processing circuit coupled to the storage device, and to:
Receive a request to access the storage device (request for data access key to access personal user data stored on the contactless card – see [0007]).
Alter a locking state of the storage device from a locked state to an unlocked state, thereby granting access to the storage device by the computing device (verifying that the service provider is authorized to receive access (i.e., unlock) to personal user data stored on the contactless card – see [0007]. Signals – [0079]).
Ilincic does not teach generating the encrypted data based on the request and providing the encrypted data to the computing device, receiving from the computing device, an indication that the encrypted data has been decrypted, and in response to receiving the indication, the control signal is sent in response to receiving the indication.
Avetisov teaches a first device requesting access to a secure asset, generating data by encrypting it, the first device successfully decryption an encryption portion of a notification data based on a decryption key retained by the first device, and transmitting, based on the verifying, an authentication result to grant an access attempt by the second device – see [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ilincic by granting access based on the successful decryption of data received, in order to make sure the device is authentic, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Avetisov. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Ilincic and Avetisov do not explicitly teach sending a control signal to alter the lock.
Johnson teaches using an access message to indicate that the identity of the user has been authenticated and direct the secure storage lock to allow access to the secure storage – see column 38 line 52 – column 39 line 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ilincic and Avetisov by using a control signal to alter the locking state, in order to control the unlocking of the device, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Johnson. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson teaches that the indication from the computing device includes an instruction to indicate that the locking state of the storage device should be altered – see column 38 line 52 – column 39 line 16.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 20, Avetisov further teaches receiving a second indication that the encrypted data was not verified (invalid credentials (not verified), client computing device may be restricted from accessing the online resources (i.e., locked state)) – see [0037].
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Johnson teaches the control signal to alter the locking state, as discussed above. In addition, Ilnicic teaches that the processing circuit is to execute an applet, wherein the applet is to receive the indication from the computing device and control the unlocking of the device – see [0049] and [0074].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilincic et al. (US 2021/0342477) in view of Avetisov et al. (US 2021/0258308), in view of Johnson et al. (US 2009/0063802), and further in view of Batke et al. (US 2016/0149861).
The teachings of Ilincic, Avetisov, and Johnson are relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Ilincic, Avetisov, and Johnson do not teach transmitting a notification to the computing device in response to the control signal being sent, the notification specifying that the storage device has been unlocked by the controller and is available for read, write or modify transactions with the computing device.
Batke teaches a system wherein an access right, identifying the type of access (e.g., read, write, or both) available to the device may be defined and the availability of the device may be enabled/disabled with the status field – see [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ilincic, Avetisov, and Johnson by notifying the device of the availability of access rights, in order to make sure the device knows what rights it has, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Batke. These modifications would result in a smoother user experience.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Avetisov further teaches that after a predetermined period of time, sending a second control signal the to controller to transition to the locking state of the storage device from the unlocked state to the locked state again, thereby preventing access to the storage device by the computing device (time stamp to indicate expiration – see [0109] and [0047].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 recites that the contactless card includes a wired interface for connecting the storage device to the computing device. The contactless card of Ilincic (the closest prior art does not teach or suggest a wired connection of the client device to the contactless card (see figure 1C 105 and 101). Therefore, this limitation, in combination of the other limitations of claim 9 and its independent claim, are not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA C LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7am-2pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/LISA C LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights