Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
The information disclosure statements filed 5/12/2025, 8/5/2025, 12/15/2025 and 3/19/2026 were received and considered.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claim 6, the claim recites “further comprising determining the login information from the access control file responsive to the validating”. The specification does not appear to enable a skilled artisan to determine the login information from the access control file, as the login information is received from the portable device (as in claim 4) and the access control file is stored on the computing device (as in claim 2). Claim 16 is similarly deficient.
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 6 and 16 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.
In claim 6, the claim recites “further comprising determining the login information from the access control file responsive to the validating”. It is unclear how the login information is both received from the portable device (as in claims 4/14, “wherein receiving the authentication information comprises wirelessly receiving login information from a secure memory element of the portable device”) and determined from the access control file stored on the computing device (as in claims 2/12, “access control file on the computing device”). Claim 16 is similarly deficient.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-6, 10, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2009/0006846 A1 to Rosenblatt, in view of US 2007/0118891 A1 to Buer.
Regarding claim 2, Rosenblatt discloses a method comprising: detecting a portable device (key, ¶90) within a proximity range of a reader device (host device, ¶90; host device monitors communications to identify broadcasts from keys, ¶90); responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically determining whether the portable device, in a first state is linked to and in communication with the reader device (host device is a computer into which the user associated with the key may be automatically logged in when host device is within the personal area network of the key, ¶57; identify broadcast key, ¶91; communication link is established between the key and host device, ¶93), or in a second state is not linked to and not in communication with the reader device (host device may log out the user or lock the computer when host device is no longer within the personal area network of the key, ¶57); responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically transmitting, by the reader device to a computing device, a control signal indicating that the portable device is in the first state (host is notified that the key and host are in the personal network of the key, ¶57; host device is a computer into which the user associated with the key may be automatically logged in when host device is within the personal area network of the key, ¶57); determining whether a function provided by the computing device is enabled when the portable device is in the first state (host device is a computer into which the user associated with the key may be automatically logged in when host device is within the personal area network of the key, ¶57), and sending authentication information from the reader device to the computing device to enable the function of the computing device using an access control file (host compares the received key identification information with identification information stored in storage device 304 or memory 306, ¶94; key information is also stored on key, ¶94; further, data transferred from key 200 may include, for example, authentication information, identification information, a command or instruction to perform an operation with a host device, an identifier for a user profile or for user preferences, files or other data, or any combination thereof, ¶35) on the computing device (host device may identify the key and retrieve from memory one or more operations that are associated with the identified key, ¶70; further, the key identifies the data to transmit to the identified host device, ¶76; identified data may include authentication information ( e.g., login information), ¶76); validating the portable device (host validates key using key identification from the key, ¶94) using the access control file (host compares the received key identification information with identification information stored in storage device 304 or memory 306, ¶94); responsive to the validating, receiving the authentication information from the portable device (key identifies the data to transmit to the identified host device, ¶76; identified data may include authentication information ( e.g., login information), ¶76); performing a security action (host device identifies one or more operations to perform in response to the key's proximity (i.e., the host device is within the personal area network of the key), ¶98); and enabling access to the function of the computing device in response to the security action (operations may be any suitable action that the device is operative to perform; some operations may include, for example, logging a user into the host device, loading a user's profile, preferences or files, ¶99). Rosenblatt lacks performing the security action in response to receiving the authentication information. However, Buer, in an analogous art (authentication of a user using a physical token, ¶76), teaches that it was known to store resource authentication data on a token (¶82), output the authentication data to a reader/access device (¶82), where the access device authenticates the user (¶¶85-86) for access to the particular resource (¶25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Rosenblatt to perform the security action using the login information (passing login information to a particular resource to the computing device to enable access to the particular resource). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable individualized access to resources using the login information, as taught by Buer.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale. Rosenblatt discloses a reader device coupled to a computing device (transceiver 308, coupled to host 300, Fig. 3) and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (Fig. 3, 302; a processor (e.g., for performing an operation in response to instructions from software in an electronic device; see also ¶48).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Rosenblatt discloses wherein the access control file defines a plurality of security actions to enable access to a plurality of functions provided by the computing device (data transferred from key 200 may include, for example, authentication information, identification information, a command or instruction to perform an operation with a host device, an identifier for a user profile or for user preferences, files or other data, or any combination thereof, ¶35), and responsive to detecting that the portable device is no longer within the proximity range of the reader device, automatically disabling access to any one of the plurality of functions of the computing device that is enabled (if the host device instead determines that the host device is no longer within the personal area network of the key, host device ceases performing the operation, including returning to a prior state, ¶101).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Rosenblatt discloses wherein receiving the authentication information comprises wirelessly receiving login information from a secure memory element of the portable device (key stores authentication information in memory 204, ¶86; further, key information is received from the portable device for authentication of the key itself, ¶99).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Rosenblatt discloses wherein the login information comprises a username and a password in an encrypted form (they key encrypts its transmissions using an encryption key, ¶89).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Rosenblatt, as modified, teaches determining the login information from the access control file responsive to the validating (as modified by Buer, Rosenblatt retrieves access control data from the portable device after it is received, Buer, ¶82, ¶85).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Rosenblatt discloses wherein the functionality provided by the computing device (logging into host) comprises one from a group of an application, a file, a directory, a storage device, and a third-party system (host device comprises applications, for example an operation system, ¶48).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenblatt and Buer, as applied to claims 2 and 12, in view of US 2006/0005035 A1 to Coughlin.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Rosenblatt, as modified, teaches logging in with a username and password (¶95), but lacks wherein automatically enabling access to the functionality provided by the computing device comprises automatically filling in fields of a login screen using the login information and submitting the login information. However, Coughlin, in an analogous art (identifying a user via a wireless tag, ¶63), teaches automatically filling in fields of a login screen using the login information and submitting the login information (after validating a tag, retrieving a login script and communicating the script, ¶63, where a computer receives the login script just as it would receive a username and password from a user’s keyboard, ¶63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Rosenblatt such that automatically enabling access to the functionality provided by the computing device comprises automatically filling in fields of a login screen using the login information and submitting the login information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable logging via a convention username and password entry, as taught by Coughlin.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenblatt and Buer, as applied to claims 2 and 12, in view of US 2005/0080973 A1 to Lee.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Rosenblatt discloses wherein the reader device stores set-up instructions including a first set-up data set used by the reader device (processor nay receive authentication information from the key that processor can compare to data stored for the key in storage device or memory, ¶95)1, but lacks a second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into the computing device to initialize the computing device. However, Lee teaches a WLAN module (¶28) comprising a memory (personal disk 56, ¶28) which includes second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into a computing device to initialize the computing device (personal disk stores device driver, which is installed onto the host to enable use of the peripheral device, ¶37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made further to modify Rosenblatt to utilize a peripheral wireless interface (reader) such that the reader device stores a second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into the computing device to initialize the computing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable a greater selection of reader devices, while also reducing the need to utilize separate driver installation mechanisms, as taught by Lee.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenblatt and Buer, as applied to claims 2 and 12, in view of US 2006/0174349 A1 to Cronce et al. (Cronce).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Rosenblatt, as modified, lacks wherein the access control file is stored in an encrypted memory of the computing device. However, Cronce, in an analogous art (authorizing access to a host system using a portable authorization device, ¶¶112-114), teaches that it was known to store verification data in encrypted form (for example, storing a key selector used in the verification process, ¶107), as encrypting data for storage was known to prevent the data from being read by an unauthorized user (¶114; see also ¶132 which teaches storing backup data in encrypted form). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Rosenblatt such that the access control file is stored in an encrypted memory of the computing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to secure the data from unauthorized reading, as taught by Cronce.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosenblatt and Buer, as applied to claims 2 and 12, in view of US 2006/0112423 A1 to Villadiego et al. (Villadiego).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Rosenblatt lacks wherein initiating the wireless transmission of the login information from the portable device is subsequent to a biometric authentication of a user associated with the portable device. However, Villadiego, in an analogous art (authenticating a portable device to a computer, ¶103), teaches that it was known to authenticate a user’s biometric information and subsequently, transfer login information to a computer system (¶104; see also ¶5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Rosenblatt such that initiating the wireless transmission of the login information from the portable device is subsequent to a biometric authentication of a user associated with the portable device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to verify the user using the key, as taught by Villadiego.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-7, 9-17 and 19-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,554,825 in view of US 2009/0006846 A1 to Rosenblatt, per the correspondence table.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,554,825 in view of Rosenblatt, US 6,839,772 B1 to Kowalski et al. (Kowalski) and US 2005/0080973 A1 to Lee, per the correspondence table.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipate the instant claims, with additional differences discussed in the correspondence table. Further, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to remove limitations from the patent claims for reasons of breadth.
19/030,369
12,554,825
2
1 – The patent claim lacks responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically determining whether the portable device, in a first state is linked to and in communication with the reader device, or in a second state is not linked to and not in communication with the reader device and responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically transmitting, by the reader device to a computing device, a control signal indicating that the portable device is in the first state. However, Rosenblatt teaches that it was known to detect that a portable device is within the proximity range, automatically determine whether the portable device, in a first state is linked to and in communication with the reader device (host device is a computer into which the user associated with the key may be automatically logged in when host device is within the personal area network of the key, ¶57; identify broadcast key, ¶91; communication link is established between the key and host device, ¶93), or in a second state is not linked to and not in communication with the reader device (host device may log out the user or lock the computer when host device is no longer within the personal area network of the key, ¶57) and responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically transmitting, by the reader device to a computing device, a control signal indicating that the portable device is in the first state (host is notified that the key and host are in the personal network of the key, ¶57; host device is a computer into which the user associated with the key may be automatically logged in when host device is within the personal area network of the key, ¶57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the patent claim to include these features to enable the device to detect wireless proximity and notify the system to enable further use of the device, as taught by Rosenblatt.
3
8 – The patent recites enabling access to functionality, for example filling in fields of a login screen, but lacks wherein the access control file defines a plurality of security actions to enable access to a plurality of functions provided by the computing device, and responsive to detecting that the portable device is no longer within the proximity range of the reader device, automatically disabling access to any one of the plurality of functions of the computing device that is enabled. However, Rosenblatt teaches transferring an access control file that defines a plurality of security actions to enable access to a plurality of functions provided by the computing device (data transferred from key 200 may include, for example, authentication information, identification information, a command or instruction to perform an operation with a host device, an identifier for a user profile or for user preferences, files or other data, or any combination thereof, ¶35), and responsive to detecting that the portable device is no longer within the proximity range of the reader device, automatically disabling access to any one of the plurality of functions of the computing device that is enabled (if the host device instead determines that the host device is no longer within the personal area network of the key, host device ceases performing the operation, including returning to a prior state, ¶101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the patent claim to include these features to enable the device to be personalized according to the functionality specified by the key, as taught by Rosenblatt.
4
3
5
6 – The patent claim recites that the login information comprises a username and a password, but lacks that the data is encrypted. However, Rosenblatt teaches that it was known for a portable key to pass authentication data to a host (¶76) and teaches communication between the key and host using encryption (¶¶88-89). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the patent claim to include these features to enable secure transfer, with reduced chances of a third party recover the data in transit, as taught by Rosenblatt.
6
7
7
8
8
1 – The patent claim lacks wherein the reader device stores set-up instructions including a first set-up data set used by the reader device and a second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into the computing device to initialize the computing device. However, Kowalski teaches that it was known for a wireless smart card reader to comprise a microprocessor (MP1) and memory (MEM1) (col. 3, lines 54-67) storing first set-up data that is used by the reader device (programs for operation of the reader, col. 7, lines 16-12). Further, Lee teaches a WLAN module (¶28) comprising a memory (personal disk 56, ¶28) which includes second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into a computing device to initialize the computing device (personal disk stores device driver, which is installed onto the host to enable use of the peripheral device, ¶37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made further to modify the patent claim to utilize a peripheral wireless interface (reader) such that the reader device stores a first set-up data set used by the reader device and a second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into the computing device to initialize the computing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable the reader device to execute code for communicating with the key, as taught by Kowalski, and to enable a greater selection of reader devices, while also reducing the need to utilize separate driver installation mechanisms, as taught by Lee.
9
5
10
9
11
10
12
11 - The patent claim lacks responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically determining whether the portable device, in a first state is linked to and in communication with the reader device, or in a second state is not linked to and not in communication with the reader device and responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically transmitting, by the reader device to a computing device, a control signal indicating that the portable device is in the first state. However, Rosenblatt teaches that it was known to detect that a portable device is within the proximity range, automatically determine whether the portable device, in a first state is linked to and in communication with the reader device (host device is a computer into which the user associated with the key may be automatically logged in when host device is within the personal area network of the key, ¶57; identify broadcast key, ¶91; communication link is established between the key and host device, ¶93), or in a second state is not linked to and not in communication with the reader device (host device may log out the user or lock the computer when host device is no longer within the personal area network of the key, ¶57) and responsive to detecting that the portable device is within the proximity range, automatically transmitting, by the reader device to a computing device, a control signal indicating that the portable device is in the first state (host is notified that the key and host are in the personal network of the key, ¶57; host device is a computer into which the user associated with the key may be automatically logged in when host device is within the personal area network of the key, ¶57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the patent claim to include these features to enable the device to detect wireless proximity and notify the system to enable further use of the device, as taught by Rosenblatt.
13
18 – The patent recites enabling access to functionality, for example filling in fields of a login screen, but lacks wherein the access control file defines a plurality of security actions to enable access to a plurality of functions provided by the computing device, and responsive to detecting that the portable device is no longer within the proximity range of the reader device, automatically disabling access to any one of the plurality of functions of the computing device that is enabled. However, Rosenblatt teaches transferring an access control file that defines a plurality of security actions to enable access to a plurality of functions provided by the computing device (data transferred from key 200 may include, for example, authentication information, identification information, a command or instruction to perform an operation with a host device, an identifier for a user profile or for user preferences, files or other data, or any combination thereof, ¶35), and responsive to detecting that the portable device is no longer within the proximity range of the reader device, automatically disabling access to any one of the plurality of functions of the computing device that is enabled (if the host device instead determines that the host device is no longer within the personal area network of the key, host device ceases performing the operation, including returning to a prior state, ¶101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the patent claim to include these features to enable the device to be personalized according to the functionality specified by the key, as taught by Rosenblatt.
14
13
15
16 – The patent claim recites that the login information comprises a username and a password, but lacks that the data is encrypted. However, Rosenblatt teaches that it was known for a portable key to pass authentication data to a host (¶76) and teaches communication between the key and host using encryption (¶¶88-89). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the patent claim to include these features to enable secure transfer, with reduced chances of a third party recover the data in transit, as taught by Rosenblatt.
16
17
17
18
18
11 – The patent claim lacks wherein the reader device stores set-up instructions including a first set-up data set used by the reader device and a second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into the computing device to initialize the computing device. However, Kowalski teaches that it was known for a wireless smart card reader to comprise a microprocessor (MP1) and memory (MEM1) (col. 3, lines 54-67) storing first set-up data that is used by the reader device (programs for operation of the reader, col. 7, lines 16-12). Further, Lee teaches a WLAN module (¶28) comprising a memory (personal disk 56, ¶28) which includes second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into a computing device to initialize the computing device (personal disk stores device driver, which is installed onto the host to enable use of the peripheral device, ¶37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made further to modify the patent claim to utilize a peripheral wireless interface (reader) such that the reader device stores a first set-up data set used by the reader device and a second set-up data set that is transmitted to and loaded into the computing device to initialize the computing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable the reader device to execute code for communicating with the key, as taught by Kowalski, and to enable a greater selection of reader devices, while also reducing the need to utilize separate driver installation mechanisms, as taught by Lee.
19
15
20
19
21
20
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20020162009 A1 (Shmueli, Shimon et al.) teaches plugging a portable memory device (USB key) into a host, causing the host to automatically execute one or more applications (¶27).
US 7726566 B2 (Brown; Michael K. et al.) teaches a mobile device querying connections maintained by a wireless-enabled smart card reader.
US 5544321 A (Theimer; Marvin M. et al.) teaches automatically configuring a host device (col. 27) based on context, including user proximity (Fig. 20), including maintain a user profile of preferences (cols. 9-10).
“Apps and Data to Go on USB Drives” (ADT) and “Don't get out-smarted by smart devices” (Sever, Gil) teach a USB device with a read-only partition to enable customization of a host device.
“SanDisk Cruzer Profile review: SanDisk Cruzer Profile” (Nadel, Brian) teaches a USB device with a read-only partition to enable customization of a host device, including performing biometric authentication of a user.
US 20050278547 A1 (Hyndman, Arn et al.) teaches a portable device for authenticating a user to a provider.
US 20070198848 A1 (Bjorn; Vance C.) teaches portable device that, when moving into range of terminal, sets up SSL session with terminal (validation), and sends a pseudonym to terminal (login information), causing the terminal to look up pseudonym in database (optionally, terminal requests biometric data, the terminal sends the biometric data to portable for authentication and confirmation is received from the portable device), where access is provided to a user (¶¶47-56).
US 20080141361 A1 (Balfanz; Dirk) teaches authenticating a user using an interaction element and causing a device to behave differently based on the authentication (¶¶17-20).
US 20030074575 A1 (Hoberock, Tim M. et al.) teaches a proximity device enabling locking and unlocking a computer.
US 6871063 B1 (Schiffer; Jeffrey L.) teaches authenticating a user to a computer based on a mobile phone SIM.
US 20060294388 A1 (Abraham; Subil M. et al.) teaches automatic logon/logoff based on user proximity to a first client device.
US 20030199267 A1 (Iwasa, Naoki et al.) teaches a PC recognizing proximity of a Bluetooth-compatible module (¶30, ¶37) and enables a password to be entered in the PC.
US 20100022239 A1 (Anzai; Jun) teaches a terminal recognizing a personal key from a list of IDs (¶¶115-116)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
June 2, 2026
1 US 6839772 B1 (Kowalski; Jacek et al.) teaches that it was known for a wireless smart card reader to comprise a microprocessor (MP1) and memory (MEM1) (col. 3, lines 54-67) storing programs for operation of the reader (col. 7, lines 16-12).
Prosecution Insights