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 .
This is a 2nd non-final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 8/13/2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 6-7 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-18 are pending and being considered.
Oath or Declaration
Applicant is reminded to fill the Oath or Declaration.
Response to Amendment
The objection of claims 8 and 15 due to informalities has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 10-11, 17-18 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9 of the Remarks filed 8/13/2026 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 102/103 over prior arts of record has been fully considered and is moot in light of applicant’s amendment by including limitations from previous claim 6 and 7 into independent claim 1 and further in view of current office action with newly applied prior arts Wei. The combination of Bienfait and Wei teaches the amended claim 1. The rejection of claims 1-5, 10-11, 17-18 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s argument regarding Merrem’s teachings on “flexible connection portion and physically and signally connecting the authentication mainboard and the interface portion, the flexible connection portion being arranged to at least partially surround the housing” is persuasive. However, upon updated search, Wei is found to teach the amended limitations. A new ground of rejection is presented below.
Applicant is encouraged to further include innovative features into the independent claims to advance the case.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5, 8, 10-11, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienfait (US20240078302A1, hereinafter, "Bienfait"), in view of Wei et al (US20230282962A1, hereinafter, “Wei”).
Regarding claim 1, Bienfait teaches:
An identity indication apparatus (Bienfait, discloses secure access token device with biometric authentication, see [Abstract]), comprising:
a housing comprising an identity indication portion adapted to present identity information (e.g., Fig. 2A-C shows identity management device 100. Also Fig. 19 and 20 show portable housing of the secure access token device. And Fig. 5A-5C shows displays of identity on screen of an identity management device);
and an authentication component at least partially arranged in the housing and comprising an authentication mainboard and an interface portion coupled to the authentication mainboard, the interface portion being adapted to be connected to an external device so that the authentication mainboard communicates with the external device for authentication (Fig. 1 shows Identity Management Device with Authentication Manager 126 (i.e., authentication component), and [0055] Identification record 200 can further comprise authentication data 206, which can include information to be sent electronically to one or more external devices via communications interface 110. And Fig. 21 shows circuit diagram of the secure access token device. And [0065] As depicted in FIG. 6, user device interface 112 can enable an identity management device 100 (labeled here as identity management device 100a) to be connected, or paired, to one or more user devices 300),
while Bienfait does not specifically teach a flexible connection portion recited in the following, in the similar field of endeavor Wei teaches:
wherein the authentication component further comprises a flexible connection portion physically and signally connecting the authentication mainboard and the interface portion, the flexible connection portion being arranged to at least partially surround the housing (Wei, discloses mobile electronic device and method for displaying and conducting electromagnetic signals, see [Abstract]. In particular, see Fig. 10 for sensor substrate. And [0075] As shown in FIG. 10, printed circuit board 1009 (i.e., the interface portion) may be connected to sensor substrate 1016 (i.e., authentication mainboard in view of Bienfait) through flexible cable 1032 (i.e., flexible connection portion)... Sensor signals may pass through flexible cable 1032 from sensor substrate 1016 to printed circuit board 1009);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Wei in the secure access token of Bienfait by connecting sensor substrate with print circuit board with flexible cable. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to electrically isolate the sensor substrate from patch antenna based on isolating gap(s) around sensor substrate and/or isolating gap(s) around the flexible cable connecting sensor substrate to printed circuit board (Wei, [Abstract], [0072]).
The combination of Bienfait and Wei further teaches: and wherein the housing is in a shape of a sheet as a whole and further comprises a cable accommodation groove formed in a circumferential wall of the housing for accommodating the flexible connection portion (Bienfait, See Fig. 20A-20B (i.e., planar view, i.e., in a shape of a sheet as a whole). And Wei, [0075] RF signals may pass through patch feed 1020 from printed circuit board 1009 to patch antenna 1014… As shown in FIG. 10, isolating gap 1034 may include a free space air gap surrounding flexible cable 1032 in the region where flexible cable 1032 passes through patch antenna 1014 from printed circuit board 1009 to sensor substrate 1016. Examiner further notes, the arrangement of print circuit board and sensor substrate shown in Fig. 10 of Wei represents planar view, i.e., shape of a sheet).
Regarding claim 2, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the authentication component further comprises: a verification portion partially arranged outside of the housing or arranged to facilitate user operation, the verification portion being coupled to the authentication mainboard to verify a user's identity when the authentication mainboard performs the authentication (Bienfait, e.g., [0063] The screen of FIG. 5B can request that the user provide a fingerprint input at user control 120d, which can be a fingerprint scanner. If the provided fingerprint matches security requirements 210 for the associated identification record 200, a QR code can be displayed as depicted in FIG. 5C. Authentication data 206 can also be provided as login credentials such as usernames or passwords on display 108).
Regarding claim 3, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 2,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the verification portion comprises a biometric identification portion (Bienfait, Fig. 5B shows fingerprint input at user control, which can be a fingerprint scanner (i.e., biometric identification portion)).
Regarding claim 4, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 3,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the biometric identification portion comprises a fingerprint recognition portion (Bienfait, similarly as shown for claim 3, Fig. 5B shows fingerprint input at user control, which can be a fingerprint scanner (i.e., biometric identification portion)).
Regarding claim 5, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 2,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the verification portion comprises a button component for user pressing (Bienfait, [0050] FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2C depict external views of identity management device 100. User controls 120 can be present on, through, or within housing 122. User controls 120 can be switches, buttons, touch screen controls, or any other control enabling the user to provide an input to identity management device 100).
Regarding claim 8, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the housing further comprises: an interface accommodation cavity arranged to communicate with the cable accommodation groove and comprising an opening portion formed in the circumferential wall of the housing for accommodating the interface portion in the interface accommodation cavity or removing the interface portion from the interface accommodation cavity (Bienfait, see Fig. 20A-20B).
Regarding claim 10, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
Bienfait further teaches: further comprising: an indication component arranged on the authentication mainboard for at least indicating a status relating to the authentication (Bienfait, [0012] The processor may be configured to activate the status visual indicator when the biometric data matches the authentic biometric data template).
Regarding claim 11, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 10,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the indication component comprises an indicator light, and the housing comprises an exposed portion for at least partially transmitting light emitted by the indicator light to outside of the housing (Bienfait, [0103] The secure access token device 600 also includes a status visual indicator 605 carried by the portable housing 601. The status visual indicator 605 may comprise a light emitting diode (LED) indicator, for example).
Regarding claim 17, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the authentication mainboard is arranged in an accommodation space between a portable portion and the identity indication portion (Bienfait, see e.g., Fig. 21 which shows a circuit diagram between display and portable portion. Examiner notes, the claim does not describe what the “portable portion” is).
Regarding claim 18, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 17,
Bienfait further teaches: wherein the housing comprises: a bottom shell and a top shell coupled together through detachable connection (Bienfait, [0038] FIGS. 20A-20B are perspective views of the portable housing of the second embodiment of the secure access token device).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienfait-Wei as applied above to claim 8, further in view of Liu (US20170170863A1, hereinafter, “Liu”).
Regarding claim 9, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 8,
The combination of Bienfait-Wei does not specifically teach, in the similar field of endeavor Liu teaches:
wherein one of a plurality of walls of the housing forming the opening portion has a notch portion, and wherein the interface portion comprises an operation portion arranged to be positioned in the notch portion when the interface portion is accommodated in the interface accommodation cavity to facilitate user operation (Liu, discloses a mobile device enclosure system, see [Abstract]. And e.g., [0058] Referencing FIG. 7-9, the notch 26 is peripherally positioned on the curved surface 27. The notch 26 of the first coupler 24 and the notch 26 of the second coupler 25 are positioned in a manner that results in a symmetrical alignment across the housing 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Liu in the secure access token of Bienfait-Wei by using notch positioned in a manner that results in a symmetrical alignment across the housing. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow for various viewable orientations of the mobile device while additionally providing protection form wear and tear (Liu, [Abstract], [0002]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienfait-Wei as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Bruno et al (US20140304795A1, hereinafter, “Bruno”).
Regarding claim 12, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
The combination of Bienfait-Wei does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Bruno teaches:
wherein the identity indication portion comprises: a recessed portion for accommodating an identity indication card configured to present the identity information (Bruno, discloses modular identity authentication apparatus, see [Abstract]. And [0022] the housing 23 is provided with an inset or recess 33 in the top surface thereof to display a window 34 of a biometric authentication device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Bruno in the secure access token of Bienfait-Wei by providing a recess in the top surface of housing to display window of biometric authentication. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate security devices into one enclosed structure (Bruno, [Abstract], [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Bienfait-Wei-Bruno combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 12,
Bruno further teaches: wherein the housing further comprises: a card fixing frame arranged to be coupled to the recessed portion for accommodating the identity indication card in the recessed portion ([0023] A notable difference is that the inset recess 33' supports the interface window 34' of an RFID or near field communications device that is disposed to read a coded badge or personal ID card that is moved into proximity to the window 34'). Same motivation as presented in claim 12 would apply.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienfait-Wei as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Cannon et al (US20090095810A1, hereinafter, “Cannon”).
Regarding claim 14, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
The combination of Bienfait-Wei does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Cannon teaches:
further comprising: a portable portion adapted to be coupled to facilitate carrying the identity indication apparatus by a user (Cannon, discloses biometric identification device, [Abstract] The device also allows for authenticating an individual using the smartcard-enabled BPID Security Device. And Fig. 1, and [0043] the BPID Smartcard Security Device 100 may be attachable to a strap 110, so that it may be worn around an individual's neck).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Cannon in the secure access token of Bienfait-Wei by integrating smartcard reader with biometric authentication device. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow for authenticating an individual using smartcard-enabled BPID Security Device (Cannon, [Abstract]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienfait-Wei as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Li et al (US20220046001A1, hereinafter, “Li”).
Regarding claim 15, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
The combination of Bienfait-Wei does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Li teaches:
wherein the authentication component further comprises: a Fast Identity Online Verification FIDO2 authentication chip arranged on the authentication mainboard for performing the authentication via a FIDO2 protocol (Li, discloses system and method of security key device, [Abstract]. And [0020] In this embodiment, the authentication module 121 is an application created based on the Fast IDentity Online (FIDO) protocol (the disclosure may apply the first-generation FIDO protocol or the second-generation FIDO2 protocol; the following uniformly refers to the “FIDO2 protocol” as an example) to execute operations according to the FIDO2 protocol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Li in the secure access token of Bienfait-Wei by implementing authentication with security key device based on FIDO2 protocol. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to operate according to a Fast IDentity Online protocol (Li, [Abstract]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bienfait-Wei as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Johnson et al (US20220050930A1, hereinafter, “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 16, Bienfait-Wei combination teaches the identity indication apparatus of claim 1,
The combination of Bienfait-Wei does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Johnson teaches:
wherein the interface portion comprises at least two of the following interfaces: a Type-C interface, a Lightning interface, a Mini-USB interface, a Micro-USB interface (Johnson, discloses multi-factor device holder for storing multi-factor authentication devices, see [Abstract]. And [0026] An external port connector on the adapter is then plugged into the port on the computing device. The external port connector 102 is implemented as, for example, a universal serial bus (USB) type a connector, a USB-c connector, a lightning connector…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Johnson in the secure access token of Bienfait-Wei by having external port connector implemented as plurality types of port connector. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect the MDH (multi-factor device holder) into a corresponding port on a computing device (Johnson, [Abstract], [0026]).
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Bushnell et al (US20220300041A1) discloses electronic device having sealed button biometric sensing system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. 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.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights