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 .
1. This is in response to the communications filed on 17 February 2025.
2. Claims 1-15, 32-34 and 38 are pending in the application.
3. Claims 1-15, 32-34 and 38 have been rejected.
4. Claims 16-31 and 35-37 have been cancelled in a preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The examiner has considered the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 17 February 2025.
Specification
6. The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
7. Claim 1-15, 33 and 38 is 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.
Claims 1-15 and 33 recites the limitation "the device" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner whether “the device” is the near field RF communications enabled device or the another near field RF communications enabled device. Clarification is needed.
Claims 1, 2, 32-34 and 38 recites the limitation "the event" in claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the obtained auxiliary data" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the selected criterion”, "the obtained auxiliary data" and “the obtained authentication data” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said antenna" and “the antenna” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-15 recites the limitation "the output signal" in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the obtained auxiliary data" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitations "the auxiliary circuitry", “the selected criterion” “the obtained auxiliary data” and “the obtained authentication data” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any claims not directly addressed are rejected on the virtue of their dependency.
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.
8. Claim(s) 32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huomo US 2010/0009627 A1 in view of Don et al U.S. Patent No. 8,819,374 B1 (hereinafter Don) and Gomme et al US 2020/0083962 A1 (hereinafter Gomme).
As to claim 32, Huomo discloses a near field RF communications apparatus comprising:
a first near field RF communications enabled device [0063 and figure 1] operable to provide an H-field for near field communication (i.e. H field from one antenna to another communicator) [0067] with another RF communications device [0063 and figure 2]; and
a second near field RF communications enabled device configured for inductive coupling with said H-field (i.e. the couplers enable inductive coupling of the H field) [0067];
Huomo does not teach that the second RF communications device is configured to operate in a spoofing mode and an RF communications mode. Huomo does not teach that the first RF communications device is configured to determine whether the second RF communications device is operating in the spoofing mode, and in the event that it is determined that the second RF communications device is operating in the spoofing mode, the first RF communications device is configured to maintain or increase its H-field.
Don teaches the second RF communications device is configured to operate in a spoofing mode and an RF communications mode (i.e. a target device operating in pass-through mode and spoofing mode) [column 3, lines 57-67]. Don teaches that the first RF communications device is configured to determine whether the second RF communications device is operating in the spoofing mode (i.e. host perceives that the target device is in spoofing mode) [column 19, lines 4-27].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Huomo so that the second RF communications device would have been configured to operate in a spoofing mode and an RF communications mode. The first RF communications device would have been configured to determine whether the second RF communications device was operating in the spoofing mode
It 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 to have modified Huomo by the teaching of Don because spoofing mode allows the target device to be accessible to the host device [column 1, lines 51-65].
The Huomo-Don combination does not teach that in the event that it is determined that the second RF communications device is operating in the spoofing mode, the first RF communications device is configured to maintain or increase its H-field.
Gomme teaches the communications device is configured to maintain or increase its H-field (i.e. H-field amplitudes is increased) [0060].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Huomo-Don combination so that in the event that it was determined that the second RF communications device was operating in the spoofing mode, the first RF communications device would have been configured to increase its H-field.
It 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 to have modified the Huomo-Don combination by the teaching of Gomme because it enable the antenna to still communicate over longer distances [0060].
As to claim 34, Huomo discloses a near field RF communications device [0063 and figure 1] configured to provide an H- field for near field communication (i.e. H field from one antenna to another communicator) [0067] with another RF communications device [0063 and figure 2];
wherein the RF communications device is inductively coupling with the said another RF communication device (i.e. the couplers enable inductive coupling of the H field) [0067].
Huomo does not teach determine whether a said another RF communication device is operating in a spoofing mode. Huomo does not teach that in the event that it is determined that said another RF communications device is operating in the spoofing mode, the RF communications device is configured to maintain or increase its H-field.
Don teaches determine whether a said another RF communication device is operating in a spoofing mode (i.e. host perceives that the target device is in spoofing mode) [column 19, lines 4-27].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified Huomo so that it would have been determined whether a said another RF communication device was operating in a spoofing mode.
It 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 to have modified Huomo by the teaching of Don because spoofing mode allows the target device to be accessible to the host device [column 1, lines 51-65].
The Huomo-Don combination does not teach that in the event that it is determined that said another RF communications device is operating in the spoofing mode, the RF communications device is configured to maintain or increase its H-field.
Gomme teaches the communications device is configured to maintain or increase its H-field (i.e. H-field amplitudes is increased) [0060].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Huomo-Don combination so that in the event that it was determined that said another RF communications device was operating in the spoofing mode, the RF communications device would have been configured to maintain or increase its H-field.
It 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 to have modified the Huomo-Don combination by the teaching of Gomme because it enable the antenna to still communicate over longer distances [0060].
9. Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huomo US 2010/0009627 A1, Don et al U.S. Patent No. 8,819,374 B1 (hereinafter Don) and Gomme et al US 2020/0083962 A1 (hereinafter Gomme) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Ehrlich US 2020/0026829 A1.
As to claim 38, the Huomo-Don-Gomme combination does not teach the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the auxiliary circuitry comprises authentication circuitry operable to obtain authentication data for a user interacting with the device, and the selected criterion is an authentication criterion. The Huomo-Don-Gomme combination does not teach that the controller is configured to determine that the obtained auxiliary data satisfies the threshold criterion in the event that the obtained authentication data indicates that said user interacting with the device is an authenticated user.
Ehrlich teaches that the auxiliary circuitry comprises authentication circuitry operable to obtain authentication data for a user interacting with the device (i.e. detected biometric data) [0027], and the selected criterion is an authentication criterion (i.e. match score meeting or exceeding the threshold match score) [0027]. Ehrlich teaches that the controller is configured to determine that the obtained auxiliary data satisfies the threshold criterion in the event that the obtained authentication data indicates that said user interacting with the device is an authenticated user (i.e. by comparing the match score to a threshold match score) [0027].
Therefore, it 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 to have modified the Huomo-Don-Gomme combination so that the auxiliary circuitry would have comprised authentication circuitry operable to obtain authentication data for a user interacting with the device, and the selected criterion would have been an authentication criterion. The controller would have been configured to determine that the obtained auxiliary data satisfied the threshold criterion in the event that the obtained authentication data indicated that said user interacting with the device was an authenticated user.
It 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 to have modified the Huomo-Don-Gomme combination by the teaching of Ehrlich because it provides restrictions for access control [0001].
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-15 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art are Huomo US 2010/0009627 A1, Don et al U.S. Patent No. 8,819,374 B1 (hereinafter Don) and Gomme et al US 2020/0083962 A1 (hereinafter Gomme). Huomo is directed towards an NFC communicator that has a coupler operable to couple with a coupler of a near field RF communicator in near field range to enable communication of data between the communicators by modulation of a magnetic field, a demodulator to extract modulation from a modulated signal coupled to the coupler, and a modulator to modulate an RF signal in accordance with data to be communicated by the NFC communicator [abstract]. Huomo teaches that near field RF communication requires an antenna of one near field RF communicator to be present within alternating field (H field) generated by the antenna of another near field RF communicator by transmission of an RF signal to enable the magnetic field (the H field) of the RF signal to be inductively coupled between the communicators [0002]. Don is directed towards techniques for migrating data from a source device storage system to a target device of a target data storage system [abstract]. Don teaches a target device operating in pass-through mode and spoofing mode [column 3, lines 57-67]. Gomme is directed towards near-field electromagnetic induction antennas [0001]. Gomme teaches increasing the H-field amplitude [0060]. However, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “wherein the controller is configured to control the device to operate in the spoofing mode until the device has harvested enough power from the H field of said another RF communications device for the auxiliary circuitry to obtain auxiliary data” and “wherein the controller is configured to determine if the obtained auxiliary data satisfies a threshold criterion, and in the event that it does, the controller is configured to connect the RF communicator to the coupler to switch the device into the RF communications mode to communicate with said another RF communications device according to a stored RF communications protocol”.
Any claims not directly addressed are allowed on the virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
11. Claim 33 is 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.
As to claim 33, the prior art does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the limitations of “wherein the controller is configured to control the device to operate in the spoofing mode until the device has harvested enough power from the H field of said another RF communications device for the auxiliary circuitry to obtain auxiliary data” and “wherein the controller is configured to determine if the obtained auxiliary data satisfies a threshold criterion, and in the event that it does, the controller is configured to connect the RF communicator to the coupler to switch the device into the RF communications mode to communicate with said another RF communications device according to a stored RF communications protocol”.
Relevant Prior Art
12. The following references have been considered relevant by the examiner:
A. Ashjaee US 2019/0154839 A1 directed to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) devices and, more specifically, to determining accurate positioning using GNSS devices when false signals are received [0002].
B. Mullins et al US 2020/0244670 A1 directed to user authentication using location assurance based on a location indicator modified by a shared secret [abstract].
C. Richter et al US 2020/0220576 A1 directed to a system which extends NFC near field communication over a user’s skin by converting electromagnetic signals into modulated alternating electric fields and vice versa [abstract].
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARAVIND K MOORTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 4:30-3:00.
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, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
/ARAVIND K MOORTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407
