US 12039396

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me get the abstract and independent claim text for this specific patent.

US Patent No. 12,039,396 B2 — Analyst Summary

Identification note: All identifiers below are transcribed exactly as they appear in the sources. Where I could not verify a datum directly against USPTO PatentCenter or the Federal Circuit docket (I have no authenticated access to those systems), I say so.

---

1. Bibliographic Data

Family position (per Google Patents): The application sits in a very large continuation/CIP web tracing to Feb. 7, 2006/May 6, 2005. Nearby members include:

• US 11,599,734 — "Methods of inductive communication in a cellular telephone" (from 17/697,923, filed 2022-03-18)
• US 11,989,612 B1 — "Cellular telephone including biometric sensor" (from 17/728,412, filed 2022-04-25)
• US 11,687,741 — "Methods of using a cellular telephone" (from 17/952,176, filed 2022-09-23)
• US 7,719,425; US 7,924,156; US 8,816,826; US 9,569,777; US 11,170,185 (earlier chain)

I could not independently confirm from the authoritative USPTO continuity data which single application 18/422,929 claims as its immediate parent; the Google Patents family table groups it with 17/728,412 (the '612 patent). Treat the immediate-parent identification as moderate confidence only.

---

2. Abstract (as listed in the IEEE/1790 Analytics citing-patent record)

"Various switchable devices, e.g., cellular telephones, including inductive antennas are disclosed. These switchable devices may include one or more switches and a biometric sensor. Some of these one or more switches are optionally wireless and/or manual. In various embodiments, the switchable devices include are included within cellular phones, security devices, identity devices, financial devices, remote controls, and the like. The switchable devices are optionally configured to perform financial transactions."

Two observations worth flagging:

1. This abstract text is verbatim identical to the abstract reported for the sibling patent US 11,989,612 B1 ("Cellular telephone including biometric sensor") in the same citing-patent record.
2. The specification's stated field is not cellular telephones: "The invention is in the fields of electronic passports, and more specifically in the field of electronic passports including shielding and/or switchable RFID tags." The specification is overwhelmingly directed to RFID shielding, clamshell passports, membrane switches and inductive/RF power harvesting. The title and abstract capture only a small slice of the disclosed subject matter.

---

3. Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

Uncertainty disclosure (important): The authoritative full text I obtained for US 12,039,396 cuts off inside the detailed description (at FIG. 30) and does not include the claims. My searches returned the specification and the litigation characterization, but not verbatim claim language. What follows is therefore an inference, labeled as such, and should not be quoted as claim text.

What can be grounded from the record:

• The E.D. Tex. complaint analysis describes the patent as "directed to a cellular telephone that uses two or more different wireless communication modes (e.g., cellular and short-range) and a biometric sensor to approve financial transactions. The short-range communication mode uses an inductive antenna."
• The same source reports Plaintiff asserting "at least claims 1–17 and 19–20" of the '396 patent.
• The related-family claim set in US 2022/0067312 ("Cellular Device Including Inductive Antenna") illustrates the claim architecture used across this family — e.g., an independent claim to "an electronic communication system comprising: a cellular telephone configured to communicate wirelessly using an inductive coupling, wherein the inductive coupling is part of a circuit including an electronic switch configured to change between states of the circuit and configured to communicate via the inductive coupling responsive to the states of the circuit," with dependents reciting a biometric sensor, PIN entry, account selection, WiFi at a different frequency, and point-of-sale reading.

Likely independent-claim gist (inference, not verified quote):

1. Method claim — performing a financial transaction with a cellular telephone placed near a point-of-sale device, including biometric authentication of the user to enable/approve communication of financial account information via an inductive (NFC/RFID) coupling.
2. Apparatus/system claim — a cellular telephone having both a cellular (and/or WiFi/802.11) communication mode and an inductive-coupling mode, a biometric sensor, and an electronic switch/circuit whose state controls whether financial account data is transmitted via the inductive coupling.
3. Possibly a third independent claim (the asserted set reaching claim 20 with claim 18 omitted suggests at least two, and likely three, independent claims, e.g., method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium or system).

Caveat: I cannot confirm the number, statutory category, or exact scope of the independent claims, nor whether any claim is a means-plus-function claim. Claim 18 is notably absent from the asserted set.

---

4. Litigation (2026)

District court (the only 2026 patent litigation I found involving this patent):

• SureCell Transactions LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. et al, No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), filed February 12, 2026.
• District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; Nature of Suit 830 (Patent); Cause 15:1126; jury demand; damages demand $500,000,000.
• Patents asserted in the case: US 11,599,734 ('949; at least independent claims 20 and 29, and method claim 60), US 11,687,741 ('741; at least independent claims 1, 15, 23), US 11,989,612 ('612; at least claims 1–5), and US 12,039,396 ('396; at least claims 1–17 and 19–20).
• Accused products: a broad list of Samsung smartphones (Galaxy S, Note, Z Fold/Flip, A series) and Galaxy Watch wearables, accused via NFC short-range communication authenticated by biometric sensors/PINs (Samsung Pay, Samsung Blockchain Wallet, digital keys).

Federal Circuit: My searches did not surface any CAFC 2026 docket or appeal involving US 12,039,396 (or the co-asserted patents). Given the case was filed in February 2026 and remains at the pleading/venue stage, an appeal would be premature. I cannot rule out a docket I did not retrieve; treat this as "none found," not "none exists."

Also note: Google Patents displays a "Family has litigation" flag and a Unified Patents link pointing to the same 2:26-cv-00106 case.

---

5. Points a Reviewer Should Not Miss

1. Term is nearly over. Google Patents lists the anticipated expiration as May 7, 2026 — i.e., within days of today (April 26, 2026). Status is already flagged "Expired – Lifetime." This is a terminal-disclaimer-shaped term: the patent issued in 2024 but its 20-year clock runs from the 2006 parent filing, leaving an effective life measured in months. This materially affects any damages window.
2. "Biometric control of transactions" is a title/abstract overlay on a passport-shielding specification. A §112 written-description or claim-construction challenge premised on the mismatch between the claimed cellular-telephone subject matter and the disclosure's focus is a foreseeable line of attack.
3. Claim 18 is unasserted. Its content may be informative if the patent is construed.
4. Assignee chain matters for standing. Issued unassigned/individual; assigned to Surecell Transactions LLC by recorded assignment dated Dec. 22, 2025 — about seven weeks before the complaint was filed. The sibling '612 is reported with a different assignee (MYNETTE TECHNOLOGIES INC) in one citation database; confirm current record ownership of each asserted patent before relying on standing.

---

Key sources

• Google Patents, US12039396B2 (full text, family, reassignment, expiration): https://patents.google.com/patent/US12039396/en
• Justia, US 12,039,396: https://patents.justia.com/patent/12039396
• IEEE Xplore citing-patent record (abstract, "UNASSIGNED," filing/grant dates): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/[1607561](/patent/1607561)/citations?tabFilter=patents
• E.D. Tex. docket 2:26-cv-00106 (filing date, judge, demand): https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--26-cv-00106/
• Complaint analysis, 2:26-cv-00106 (asserted claims per patent): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00106/doc/analysis/9
• Related-family claim architecture, US 2022/0067312: https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20220067312

I'll search for litigation specifically involving US 12,039,396 B2, prioritizing litigation databases and court dockets.

The initial searches returned mostly false positives (other patents with similar numbers). Let me target the litigation databases and the known plaintiff.

I've confirmed the primary case and found the asserted-patent list has grown to six. Let me verify the docket status, check for any PTAB/ITC proceedings, and look for other suits involving this patent.

Litigation involving US 12,039,396 B2

Bottom line: Exactly one litigation matter is known to have asserted US 12,039,396. I found no other district court case, no ITC investigation, no PTAB post-grant proceeding, and no Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent. A litigation-analytics party page for the plaintiff lists "Total Cases 1 / Active Cases 1" for Surecell Transactions LLC, corroborating that only a single matter exists (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/surecell-transactions-llc).

---

The one known case

Asserted claims of the '396 patent. Per complaint-analysis reporting, SureCell asserts at least claims 1–17 and 19–20 (claim 18 omitted). See https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00106/doc/analysis/9.

Accused products/functionality. Broad range of Samsung mobile devices — Galaxy S, Note, Z Fold/Flip, and A-series smartphones, plus Galaxy Watch wearables and Galaxy Tab tablets — accused via NFC short-range communication authenticated by biometric sensors or PINs (Samsung Pay / Samsung Wallet, Samsung Blockchain Wallet, digital keys). Analysis source: same link above.

Sources: Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:26-cv-00106; docket summary — https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--26-cv-00106/; Patexia case list — https://services.patexia.com/search/page/240/tab/cases.

---

Co-asserted patents (context for the same case)

This is a multi-patent assertion. Two sources disagree on the size of the asserted set — see the contradiction flag below.

• Per the complaint-analysis source (four patents described in detail): US 11,599,734; US 11,687,741; US 11,989,612; US 12,039,396.
• Per a Korean-language press report of the same complaint (six patents): US 7,924,156; US 11,347,949; US 11,599,734; US 11,687,741; US 11,989,612; US 12,039,396. Source: http://www.the-biz.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=[707046](/patent/707046) (published Sept. 5, 2026).

Corroborating business-press mention: https://en.sedaily.com/finance/2026/03/15/patent-trolls-threaten-korean-tech-giants-under-trumps-pro ("SureCell Transaction has filed suit claiming Samsung Pay's payment technology misappropriated its patents").

---

Contradictions to flag explicitly

1. Number of asserted patents in the same case. The previously generated section of this analysis listed four asserted patents in SureCell v. Samsung; the Korean report of the same complaint lists six, adding US 7,924,156 and US 11,347,949. I could not retrieve the complaint text itself to resolve which is complete. The four-patent set should be treated as a subset (the analysis source may have described only the patents relevant to its synopsis).
2. Patent-number confusion in the earlier section. The earlier section rendered the '734 patent as "US 11,599,734 ('949...)". The Korean report lists 11,347,949 as a separate seventh-numbered patent (the '949 patent) distinct from 11,599,734 (the '734 patent). The '949 short-name appears to have been incorrectly appended to the '734 entry. Treat "11,347,949" and "11,599,734" as two distinct patents.
3. Date basis. The task frame states the current date as April 26, 2026, but the search environment returned content dated September 2026 (e.g., the Korean article of Sept. 5, 2026 and an updated party page). Docket-status statements above are "as of the most recent retrieval," and I flag that a later-filed docket entry could exist that I did not retrieve.

---

Negative findings (searched, not found)

• No PTAB proceeding. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition challenging US 12,039,396 was found. (The IPR hits returned in searching — e.g., Samsung v. Staton Techiya, IPR2022-01106 / IPR2023-01106, on US 11,039,259 — are different patents and must not be conflated with the '396 patent.)
• No Federal Circuit appeal. None found. Given the case was filed Feb. 12, 2026 and (per retrieved records) remains at the early stage, an appeal would be premature.
• No other district court suit. No second plaintiff, defendant, or venue asserting the '396 patent was found.
• No ITC Section 337 investigation involving the '396 patent was found.

Confidence note: The existence, parties, court, case number, filing date, judge, and demand figure of SureCell v. Samsung are well-corroborated across multiple independent sources and I state them with high confidence. The current procedural posture and the complete asserted-patent list are lower confidence — I could not access PACER, CourtListener's RECAP docket for this case number, or the complaint itself, so status is "no disposition found" rather than "confirmed still open." I also could not verify whether any tag-along or related case was filed after my last retrieval.

I'll verify the one proceeding on file and check for any claim-level outcomes, panel assignments, or related activity before writing.

Let me dig into the specific proceeding, the patent's PTAB history, and any sibling-patent IPRs by the same petitioner.

Let me check docket aggregators and whether companion IPRs on the sibling patents exist.

Verification note (read first)

I sourced the proceeding list from the canonical "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal ingest). I then ran targeted searches for the proceeding number, the patent number, the petitioner, and the aggregate case docket. No public claim-level record exists yet — the petition was filed 2026-09-22, one day before today's date (2026-09-23). There is no institution decision, no FWD, no panel assignment I could retrieve, no settlement, and no appeal. Everything below that is not in the structured block is labeled as unverified or as prediction.

Two contradictions/reconciliations with the previously generated sections, flagged as required:

1. Date conflict. The prior summary repeatedly framed "today" as 2026-04-26 ("within days of today (April 26, 2026)"). The authoritative date for this task is 2026-09-23. I use 2026-09-23 throughout and treat the prior framing as stale.
2. Material consequence of that conflict. The specification record states "2026-05-07 Anticipated expiration" and status "Expired – Lifetime." On the prior (April) date that was five days out; on today's date it is ~4.5 months in the past. That reframes the entire defensive analysis (§4 below). I flag it rather than silently carry the older framing forward.

---

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file against US 12,039,396 — a single IPR filed by Samsung one day ago: 1 active/pending, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore neither "hardened" nor "dead": every claim of the patent is PTAB-untested, no estoppel has attached, and the only thing Samsung has done is buy a ticket. That is a better position for a defendant than "the patent survived two IPRs" (there is no FWD to point to as evidence of strength), but a worse position than "claims 1–5 are canceled" (there is no cancellation to lean on, and the EPROM is that the patent is being asserted against a broad Samsung product line and now has a well-resourced petitioner on the clock).

---

IPR2026-00511 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Surecell Transactions LLC (patent owner name inferred)

There is no "claims-invalidated" proceeding to put at the top of this list, so the single proceeding is presented first by default.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR), 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319.
• Filed: 2026-09-22 (last modified 2026-09-22, i.e., unchanged since docketing).
• Status: "Pending" (verbatim from structured data). Plain English: petition filed and docketed; no POPR, no institution decision, no trial.
• Judge panel: Not retrieved. Panels are frequently not publicly confirmable until the institution decision. I will not name APJs I could not verify.
• Petition grounds: Unknown / not public in any source I could retrieve. I did not find the challenged claim set, the § 102/§ 103/§ 112 basis, or the asserted references. Do not assume the petition mirrors the district court's asserted set (claims 1–17 and 19–20 per the complaint analysis at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00106/doc/analysis/9).
• Institution decision: None. Statutory timing under § 314(b): the patent owner's preliminary response is due ~3 months after the notice of filing date accorded (37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b)), putting a POPR around late 2026 / early 2027, and an institution decision on the outside ~2027-Q1 to 2027-Q2 (3 months from the POPR or its last date, extendable by up to 3 months). Treat these as planning estimates, not docket entries.
• Final Written Decision: None. If instituted, § 316(a)(11) puts the FWD 12 months from institution (extendable up to 6 months for good cause) — i.e., roughly 2028.
• Settlement / termination: None. No termination on file.
• Appeal: None, and none is possible yet — there is no appealable decision.
• Defensive value: Low, today; potentially high later. Samsung's own petition has not narrowed a single claim, and because no FWD has issued, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached — Samsung (and, on the current record, anyone else) remains free to run any § 102/§ 103 ground on patents and printed publications in the district court. The petition's practical significance now is (a) it starts the clock toward a possible cancel-and-purge of the asserted claims, and (b) it is a prerequisite to any stay argument under Acorn Semi, which requires that the last patent-in-suit be acted on by the PTAB.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 12,039,396: 1–20 all UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, nothing has been construed by the Board. That includes claim 18, which is the one claim the complaint analysis reports as not asserted in 2:26-cv-00106 (asserted set: claims 1–17 and 19–20). If a defendant is weighing a § 112 or eligibility challenge, claim 18 is worth pulling from the printed patent, because an unasserted claim is often where the specification's weak support is least defended — but that is a district-court argument, not a PTAB one, and I could not verify claim 18's text (the authoritative full text in my source truncates in the specification at FIG. 30 and does not include the claims).

Estoppel landscape: effectively empty, and that cuts both ways. Section § 315(e)(2) estoppel arises only once an IPR institutes and reaches a final written decision; § 315(e)(1) (Office-side estoppel) is the same trigger. Because there is no institution, no ground is off the table for Samsung or for any other defendant. Practical consequences:

• Every prior-art ground — patents, printed publications, and (crucially) system/product art, which cannot be raised in an IPR at all — remains fully available in E.D. Tex. This is the point Samsung litigated hard in the Wilus case, where it relied on Ingenio Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, 136 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2025), for the proposition that IPR estoppel does not bar using the same patents and printed publications as evidence of a system-art ground (see Samsung's sur-reply, https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.[232954](/patent/232954)/gov.uscourts.txed.232954.446.0.pdf). Expect the same architecture here if Samsung stipulates.
• Samsung's stipulation practice is the thing to watch. In the parallel Wilus litigation, Samsung filed IPR stipulations (in IPR2025-00933, -00934, -00988, -01069) and then argued at meet-and-confer that the stipulations required withdrawal of specific invalidity grounds from its expert reports — meaning Samsung's stipulations were read as broader than a bare Sotera stipulation (see the Rubin declaration, Exs. G–J and K–N, https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.232954/gov.uscourts.txed.232954.274.1.pdf). If Samsung files a comparable stipulation in 2:26-cv-00106, that stipulation — not the IPR — is what will actually shrink the district court case.
• § 315(b) is satisfied for Samsung (the '106 complaint was filed 2026-02-12 and a year has not run), but other defendants get no free ride: this petition does not toll or satisfy anyone else's one-year bar, and non-petitioners are not bound by petitioner estoppel.

Pattern signals. (a) One petition, one petitioner, on this patent. The canonical list shows no second IPR, no PGR, no CBM. (b) Samsung is a demonstrably serial 2026 filer — the searches surfaced, among others, IPR2026-00017 (Samsung v. Netlist), the IPR2026-00025–00042 block, IPR2026-00129 (Samsung Display v. Pictiva), and the IPR2026-00140/00191–00195 institution list — so a follow-on or companion filing is a live possibility, not speculation. Critically, I could not verify whether Samsung filed companion IPRs against the sibling patents co-asserted in the same case (US 11,599,734; US 11,687,741; US 11,989,612), because my search budget was exhausted. That is the single most important open fact: three or four parallel Samsung IPRs covering the whole asserted family would materially improve stay prospects and settlement leverage, whereas one IPR on the weakest patent does not. (c) No defensive aggregator. Unified Patents appears only as a litigation-data link on the Google Patents family page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00106), not as a petitioner. Do not assume Unified is running this. (d) No PTAB appeal history to read — this family has no FWD, so there is no signal about whether Surecell/Colby litigates PTAB decisions aggressively.

The expiration fact changes everything, and it needs independent verification first. Per the authoritative patent text in this record: "2026-05-07 Anticipated expiration" and status "Expired – Lifetime." If correct (the 20-year clock running from parent US 11/382,050, filed 2006-05-07), then:

• Injunctive relief is off the table in the district court action; Samsung's exposure is pre-expiration damages subject to the § 286 six-year lookback.
• The patent owner cannot realistically amend in the IPR. Board practice does not permit claim amendments after expiration because amended claims would not be enforceable. A pending IPR on an expired patent is therefore an all-or-nothing wipeout proceeding for the challenged claims, with no amendment safety valve for Surecell.
• The IPR's raison d'être narrows to past damages, which undercuts the Office's stated premise that AIA review is a genuine alternative to litigation. Expect the patent owner to press this in its POPR, together with any mootness/standing-adjacent argument.
• Caveat: Google Patents' "anticipated expiration" is an assumption and may or may not capture patent term adjustment; a PTA award could push the date later. Verify the expiration date on USPTO PatentCenter before building a damages or mootness argument on it.

Discretionary-denial risk is real and asymmetric. Under the current Director-led institution regime (see the "Memorandum re: Director Institution of AIA Trial Proceedings," Oct. 17, 2025, and the "Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management," Mar. 26, 2025, as reported in a PTAB exhibit list at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558580](/patent/1558580)/download-documents), the precedential Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., IPR2026-00097 (PTAB May 14, 2026) decision denies institution where AIA review would expand rather than narrow a validity dispute already in court, and expressly weighs whether review "confers a tactical advantage on dominant or foreign-affiliated entities." A March 11, 2026 Office guidance as quoted in a patent owner's brief (Ex. 2105, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558838](/patent/1558838)/download-documents) lists three discretionary factors: whether accused products are manufactured in the U.S., whether the patent owner's competing products are U.S.-made, and whether the petitioner is a small business sued for infringement. On the face of it, Samsung is a large foreign-affiliated petitioner, the accused Galaxy handsets/wearables are predominantly foreign-manufactured, and Surecell makes no competing product. That combination is a headwind for institution, which means a defendant should not plan around a canceled claim.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not cite any FWD for this patent; none exists. There is no disposition to quote, no canceled claim, and no Federal Circuit opinion. If a demand letter or mediation statement implies the patent has been "upheld" or "invalidated" at the PTAB, it is wrong in both directions as of 2026-09-23.
2. Calendar the IPR2026-00511 milestones now and monitor via USPTO PTACTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and the PTAB API (https://developer.uspto.gov/api-catalog/ptab-api): POPR due ~3 months from the notice of filing date (§ 42.107(b)); institution decision ~2027-Q1/Q2 (§ 314(b)); if instituted, FWD within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), i.e., roughly 2028. Confirm each date from the PTAB docket rather than from these estimates.
3. Retrieve the petition itself the moment it is public. The three facts that decide everything are: (i) the challenged claim set — does it cover all of asserted claims 1–17 and 19–20, or only the independents?; (ii) which claims the patent owner did not petition on, since those become the residual infringement theory; and (iii) whether Samsung filed a Sotera-plus-style stipulation, which is the lever that actually narrows the district court case.
4. Confirm whether companion IPRs exist against the sibling patents. Check PTACTS for Samsung petitions against US 11,599,734, US 11,687,741, and US 11,989,612. All-asserted-patents coverage is the precondition for a credible stay motion under Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-cv-00347-JRG, 2020 WL 10284981 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020) ("last of the patents-in-suit to be acted upon by the PTAB"), which is the standard in the very court where this case sits.
5. Independently verify the expiration date on USPTO PatentCenter. If the patent expired 2026-05-07 (possibly plus PTA), then (a) a motion to stay defeats itself — there is nothing left to stay but damages; (b) the IPR becomes a pure damages-defense tool; and (c) the six-year § 286 damages window (back to ~2020-02-12 if measured from the complaint) is the real battleground. Note also that the assignment to Surecell Transactions LLC was recorded 2025-12-22, roughly seven weeks before the 2026-02-12 complaint and about four months before expiration — confirm the current chain of title for standing before relying on it.
6. Treat claim 18 as an unexplored flank. It is the only claim outside the asserted set. Pull its text from the printed patent and pressure-test it under § 101 and § 112, since (per the earlier summary) the specification is directed to electronic passports, shielding, and membrane switches while the claims are directed to cellular-telephone transactions — a mismatch the PTAB cannot address but a district court can.
7. If you are a co-defendant, not Samsung: your § 315(b) clock runs from your own service, and you are neither bound by nor protected by Samsung's petition. Separate petitions, filed early, remain available — but expect General Plastic follow-on-petition scrutiny and the Director's current discretionary framework to make a second petition against the same claims harder to get instituted.

I'll research the assignment record for US 12,039,396, focusing on USPTO Assignment Center records, reel/frame data, and correspondent information.

Initial searches returned noise. Let me target the patent-specific assignment data and the assignee entity.

Significant lead: the Mynette/Colby Federal Claims litigation and attorney Robert Yorio. Let me dig into the assignment specifics and the asserter's corporate footprint.

Analysis note up front

I could not open an authenticated session against USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) from this environment. The specific fields the task asks me to capture — reel/frame, conveyance code, and correspondent of record — are therefore not verifiable by me directly, and I will not invent them. Everything below is grounded in (a) the Google Patents legal-events record for US 12,039,396 B2, (b) the patent text itself, and (c) primary-court documents I retrieved for the inventor's other patents. Where a datum is unverified, I say so.

Date-basis contradiction to flag: This task frame states today is 2026-09-23. The previously generated sections of this analysis operated on a frame of April 26, 2026 and flagged the patent as "expiring within days." If the September date is correct, then US 12,039,396 B2 (anticipated expiration May 7, 2026) has already expired, not "about to." I carry the September date forward and flag the earlier section's date basis as stale.

---

Inventors

• Employer at time of filing (2024 continuation): Not determinable from the patent front page. The application was filed as an individual filing — Google Patents lists the "Original Assignee" as "Individual," and the grant record shows no corporate assignee at issue.
• Historical affiliation: Independent inventor databases tie Colby's earlier applications to Mynette Technologies, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA, US; also a Verdi, NV, US address), which is listed as a top assignee for his published applications (last publication 2021-04-15). Source: https://www.patents-review.com/inventor/[1284079](/patent/1284079)-steven-michael-colby-mountain-view-ca-us.html
• Pattern flag — "sole inventor / serial filer": The family is an unusual, decades-long one-man continuation chain. The specification's own priority-claim block on the Google Patents page lists eleven predecessor applications spanning 2006–2018, all flowing to Colby. This is not the "all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months" red flag (there is only one inventor and no operating-company assignee); the analogous pattern here is a single inventor retaining personal ownership while layering continuations, which is the substrate for the pre-litigation transfer discussed below.

---

Original assignee

None. US 12,039,396 B2 issued unassigned to an individual inventor (Google Patents: "Original Assignee — Individual"; IEEE citing-record abstracts that patent as "UNASSIGNED").

• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence of any commercial product. The patent's stated field is "electronic passports, and more specifically… electronic passports including shielding and/or switchable RFID tags." The named inventor is an individual; no assigning company, product line, or manufacturing entity appears on the face of the patent. I found no product, no revenue, and no operating business associated with the '396 patent's owner.
• Primary line of business: Not applicable — the pre-assignment owner is a natural person, not a company.
• Current status: The inventor is an active, living party in litigation as recently as the Federal Claims docket (below). The patents he controls are, functionally, an enforcement portfolio, not a product portfolio.

---

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments against US 12,039,396 B2 specifically: I identified one post-issuance assignment. Reel/frame numbers were not retrievable from this environment and are marked as unverified rather than guessed.

• 2025-12-22 (recording date; execution date not retrievable) / Recorded 2025-12-22 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest (per Google Patents legal-events entry, verbatim: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST").
  • Assignor: COLBY, STEVEN MICHAEL (individual).
  • Assignee: SURECELL TRANSACTIONS, LLC.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. I have no verified correspondent-of-record name for this recording. I decline to name a correspondent on inference.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter. The patent moved from a non-practicing individual inventor to a single-purpose enforcement LLC approximately seven weeks before the LLC filed suit on it.
  • Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12039396/en (legal events / reassignment panel), corroborated by the E.D. Tex. complaint docket showing SureCell Transactions LLC as plaintiff and current owner.

Family-context chain (NOT recorded against the '396 patent — do not conflate): Earlier Colby applications were assigned to Mynette Technologies, Inc., and Mynette Technologies, Inc. plus Steven M. Colby were the co-plaintiffs in Mynette Technologies, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 1:16-cv-01647 (filed Dec. 14, 2016), asserting US 7,719,425; 7,924,156; 9,524,458; and 9,569,777 — patents that sit in this same priority web. Counsel of record for the Mynette/Colby plaintiffs was Robert Yorio (appears as filer on multiple docket entries). Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/federal-claims/cofce/1:2016cv01647/33829 ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[6294590](/patent/6294590)/mynette-technologies-inc-v-united-states/

Contradiction flag (carried from prior sections): the earlier "Patent summary" section reported the sibling US 11,989,612 as having assignee MYNETTE TECHNOLOGIES INC in one citation database, while the '396 chain now terminates at Surceell Transactions, LLC. These are different patents and may legitimately have different owners, but the discrepancy should be resolved against the Assignment Center record before relying on portfolio-wide ownership assumptions.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12039396
    2005 : Priority date May 6 2005
    2006 : Parent application filed
    2024 : Continuation filed Jan 25
         : Patent issued Jul 16
    2025 : Assigned to Surecell Transactions LLC
         : Recording dated Dec 22
    2026 : Suit filed vs Samsung Feb 12
         : Patent term expires May 7

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
   The '396 patent was transferred from an individual inventor holding personal title to Surecell Transactions, LLC, an entity that (i) has no products in commerce in any source I could retrieve, and (ii) appears in litigation analytics with "Total Cases 1 / Active Cases 1" — i.e., a single-purpose assertion vehicle (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/surecell-transactions-llc). The transfer is documented in the Google Patents legal-events entry dated 2025-12-22. I could not verify the registered-agent address (a standard shell tell), so I do not claim it. Note the naming caveat: "Transactions LLC" is not the textbook "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, but the functional evidence (no products + one-case plaintiff + immediate suit) is what drives this call, not the name.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (as to the named lists).
   Neither Surceell Transactions, LLC nor Colby/Mynette appears on the classic public NPE rosters enumerated in the task (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). However, the case is flagged in Unified Patents' litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00106), which is the universe from which such rosters are drawn. Treat as "newly surfaced asserter," not "clean."

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR.
   This is the single most important gap in my analysis. The task correctly identifies the correspondent of record as the highest-value tell for anonymized assignee LLCs, and I could not retrieve it. I have no reel/frame, no correspondent name, and no firm for the 2025-12-22 recording. I note that Robert Yorio served as plaintiffs' counsel for Colby/Mynette in the Federal Claims action and appears repeatedly as the filer across that docket — which makes him a plausible candidate for a repeat-player role in the Colby enforcement ecosystem — but counsel of record in a lawsuit is not the same as correspondent of record on an assignment, and I am not asserting the two are the same. Do not treat Yorio as the correspondent until the Assignment Center reel/frame is pulled.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (for this patent).
   Only one recorded assignment exists in the '396 chain. There is no chained-LLC cascade on this patent. The cascade-like layering in this family is continuation-on-continuation prosecution, not serial assignments.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strong).
   Assignment recorded 2025-12-22; complaint filed 2026-02-12 in SureCell Transactions LLC v. [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) et al, No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap; $500,000,000 damages demand; jury demand). That is roughly 52 days — well inside the 6-month window. This is the textbook sequencing: a clean-standing, single-asset LLC takes title, then asserts. Sources: https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--26-cv-00106/ and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00106

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, receivership, or judicial IP sale involving Colby or any Colby entity was found.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating company here to do the privateering; the inventor is the original titleholder, so there is no "operating company transfers to NPE" structure.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at an asserting plaintiff, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. No neutralization.

Additional contextual signal (not on the numbered list, but directly on point): In Mynette Technologies, Inc. v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims granted in part a motion for terminating sanctions (reported opinion, Dec. 20, 2022), and later denied reconsideration (reported opinion and order, Mar. 13, 2024). In that litigation, the government/intervenor expressly pointed to "Mr. Colby and Mr. Yorio's 'history of using unconventional corporate structures to hold, assert, and monetize their IP'" and to their capacity to "form new companies structured so neither has the right or required voting power to bind the entity to the covenant." Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[6294590/187](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=6294590-0187)/mynette-technologies-inc-v-united-states/ — A court-recorded finding that the principals deliberately use unconventional entity structures to hold and assert IP is about as direct a documentary signal of NPE-style structuring as exists in the record.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are documented, not inferred: (1) a pre-litigation transfer — the Colby→Surceell Transactions, LLC assignment was recorded 2025-12-22, just ~52 days before Surceell filed SureCell v. Samsung, 2:26-cv-00106, on 2026-02-12; and (2) a shell-entity / assertion-vehicle transfer — the patent passed from an individual titleholder to a single-purpose LLC with no products and a one-case litigation profile. Both are reinforced by a court-recorded finding in the same inventor's earlier litigation that he and attorney Robert Yorio have a "history of using unconventional corporate structures to hold, assert, and monetize their IP." The verdict would be even firmer if I could retrieve the reel/frame and correspondent of record for the 2025-12-22 recording — that is the one item a reviewer should pull directly.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 12039396): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy interface): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for US 12,039,396 B2: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12039396/en

---

Explicit confidence bounds (do not overstate)

• High confidence: the existence and 2025-12-22 recording date of the Colby → Surceell Transactions, LLC assignment; Surceell's identity as plaintiff/current owner; the Feb. 12, 2026 suit; the "Individual / unassigned" status at grant; Colby as sole inventor.
• Not verified / could be wrong: reel/frame numbers; conveyance sub-code; correspondent of record; execution (as opposed to recording) date; Surceell's state of formation and registered-agent address; whether any second recorded assignment (e.g., a security interest or an intra-family transfer) exists. Any of these could change the shell-entity and repeat-correspondent calls.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 12,039,396 B2 across USPTO and patent databases.

I found the claims for the '396 patent family member and the citation list header. Let me retrieve the full claim set and the complete cited-references list.

Prior Art Analysis — US 12,039,396 B2

"Cellular telephone including biometric control of transactions" (Colby; app. 18/422,929; filed 2024-01-25; granted 2024-07-16; priority 2005-05-06)

---

0. Scope, method, and an honesty statement

What I was asked to do: query the USPTO database for patent number 12039396 (literal, not a similar number) and, for each cited reference, give full citation, publication/filing date, description, and the claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

What I could not obtain — and why it matters:

• I have no authenticated access to USPTO PatentCenter / the file wrapper for application 18/422,929. I therefore could not retrieve the two documents that actually answer the question:
  • the PTO/SB/08 (IDS) — the applicant's "References Cited" list, and
  • the PTO-892 / Office actions — which show which references the examiner applied to which claims.
• Google Patents' "Citations" table is a flat list. It does not tell you which reference was applied against which claim, nor whether the reference was examiner-cited or applicant-submitted. Any per-claim § 102 mapping for those 72 items would therefore be speculation, and I will not manufacture it. Where a source does supply a claim map, I say so explicitly (Part D).
• Several of my search returns were false positives from the same "citations/ISR" keyword space (e.g., a Puget Sound Energy outage report containing the line item "12039396"; a Chinese patent document numbered 12039396 in a domestic database; unrelated PTAB papers). None of these are the patent. I flag them only so a reviewer does not repeat my dead ends.

Identifiers transcribed literally, including apparent anomalies (e.g., a "1902-10-02" priority date in the Google table, which I do not auto-correct).

---

1. Corrections to the previously generated sections (per instructions)

Three items in the earlier "Patent summary" must now be updated. I flag them rather than silently overwrite:

Contradiction flagged, unresolved: Google's family table for US 2010/0026466A1 groups 18/422,929 with the passport-shielding chain; the claim set is cellular-telephone. Both are accurate; the disclosure is a 2005-vintage RFID/passport specification re-used to support 2022/2024 cellular-telephone claims. This is a § 112 written-description exposure, not a data error.

---

2. The claim set (as retrieved — verbatim for claims 1–9)

Claim 1 (above). Dependents, verbatim from Justia:

Claims 10–20: not retrieved. This matters because the complaint asserts "at least claims 1–17 and 19–20," so claims 10–17 and 19–20 (and the unasserted claim 18) are the bulk of the asserted case and I cannot map art to them. Treat every "claim" column below as covering only claims 1–9 unless stated otherwise.

Effective-date fork (this drives everything):

• If the claims get the 2005-05-06 / 2006-02-07 priority → § 102 art must predate that, and only the pre-2000 IDS references in Part B are in play.
• If priority fails (plausible, given the passport/§ 112 mismatch) → the effective date is 2024-01-25, and all NFC/biometric-payment art published before that date becomes § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art. The 2015–2021 references in Part D would then be squarely available. This fork is the single most consequential point in this analysis.

---

3. Part B — The patent's face: "Citations (72)" (U.S. patent documents)

Provenance and confidence caveat (important): These 72 entries were surfaced from the Google Patents family page for US 2010/0026466 A1 / US 2010/0026466 ("Passive Radio Frequency Data Logger"), which is the publication of 12/577,209 → US 8,816,826 B2 — a member of the same continuation web that lists 18/422,929 among its "Applications Claiming Priority." Because the family shares one specification and one long-running IDS, the '396 front page is expected to be substantially congruent, but the 72-item list I can see is not confirmed to be the '396's own (56) column. Confidence: moderate. Kinds and per-claim mapping are absent from the source.

Search index also returned the beginning of the list with the header "Citations (72)"; only the first 13 entries were exposed in the retrieved snippet. Entries 14–72 were not retrieved.

§ 102 assessment of Part B (honest version):

• None of the 13 retrieved references discloses, alone, all elements of claim 1 (a cellular telephone having two RF modes in different frequency ranges + a biometric sensor to which financial transactions respond + an inductive antenna for the second mode). The closest, US 5,847,662, is a "radio card communication apparatus" — a card, not a telephone, and with no biometric element. So: on the retrieved subset, no reference anticipates claims 1–9.
• The retrieved 13 read much better against the passport/shielding subject matter (US 4,744,497, US 5,700,037, US 5,380,046, US 4,575,601) — which is not what claims 1–9 recite.
• The list matters as a § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(e)-type and § 103 shield, not a sword: it shows the assignee was on notice of decades of electromagnetic-shielding and switchable-tag art. But without entries 14–72 and the examiner's PTO-892, I cannot state which claims (if any) were rejected over them.

---

4. Part B2 — References cited inside the '396 description (authoritative text supplied to me)

These are pulled directly from the specification text I was given (which is the authoritative version for this analysis). They are "patent citations for 12039396" in the narrow sense — documents the applicant identified in the body of the patent. Claims affected are the passport/shielding embodiments, which do not appear in retrieved claims 1–9:

Note: two of these (US 4,744,497; US 5,700,037) appear both in the body and in the Part B list — consistent with the Part B list being this patent's IDS.

---

5. Part D — The only source I found that maps references to specific claims

⚠ Verification flag — read before using

I retrieved an International Search Report dated 10 June 2022 for PCT/US2022/019102, appearing in the published document WO 2022/192120 A1. Its Box C lists references against claim numbers 1, 3–17, 19, 20 (category X) and 2, 18 (category Y). That claim-number pattern is identical in shape to the claim set actually asserted in the litigation (claims 1–17 and 19–20, with claim 18 omitted).

I could not verify that PCT/US2022/019102 belongs to the Colby family. Two facts cut against it: (i) the ISR cites 2015–2021 references as anticipatory (X), which is inconsistent with a genuine 2005-05-06 priority date; and (ii) the "X,P" tag on a reference granted 2021-04-27 indicates the ISA treated the priority date as falling before 2021-04-27, i.e., a 2020/early-2021 priority, not 2005. Other ISR PDFs surfaced by my searches were clearly unrelated decoys. Treat Part D as a lead to verify against the '396 file wrapper, not as established art for the '396. Confidence that it pertains to this family: low-to-moderate.

If it does pertain, it is the single most valuable document in this analysis, because ISR "X" means "the claimed invention cannot be considered novel … when the document is taken alone" — i.e., a § 102-type citation.

Reading of Part D: three independent references are each characterized as novelty-destroying on their own against claims 1 and 3–17 and 19–20, and the two biometric-focused claims (2 and 18) are addressed only in combination. That is a § 102 roadmap covering every claim the plaintiff actually asserts — but only for the claim set of that application. Whether it transfers to the '396's claims 10–20 cannot be checked, because I could not retrieve those claims.

---

6. Part E — Forward citations (NOT prior art; included only to complete the citation picture)

Google reports "Cited By (4)" and "Families Citing this family (7)." These are later documents citing the '396 family; they are not § 102 art against it. They are nonetheless useful as a state-of-the-art check (all the unexpired art post-dates the 2005 disclosure):

• US 2013/0191497 A1 — Int'l Business Machines Corp. — 2013-07-25 — "Storage and Transmission of Log Data In a Networked System."
• US 10,339,619 B2 — Muirhead, Scott Arthur William — granted 2019-07-02 — "Method and apparatus for presenting supply chain information to a consumer."
• JP 2019-030078 A — Daihen Corp. — pub. 2019-02-21 — "Power phase shifter."
• US 2024/0380481 A1 — Cisco Technology, Inc. — pub. 2024-11-14 — "Backscatter device onboarding."
• Family-citing (7), Sprint Communications L.P.: US 9,324,016 B1 (2016-04-26); US 9,454,723 B1 (2016-09-27); US 9,426,604 B1 (2016-08-23); US 9,087,318 B1 (2015-07-21); US 9,460,573 B1 (2016-10-04); US 9,396,424 B1 (2016-07-19); US 9,591,434 B1 (2017-03-07) — all RFID-chip-in-mobile-device art.

---

7. Bottom line on § 102

1. I cannot deliver a defensible reference-by-reference § 102 claim map from USPTO sources for US 12,039,396, because the controlling documents (PTO-892 and Office actions for 18/422,929) were not accessible to me. Anything beyond Part D would be invention, and I have not invented it.
2. On the 13 front-page references I could retrieve, none anticipates claims 1–9. They are shielding/membrane-switch/RF-tag art aimed at the passport disclosure, not at a cellular telephone with two RF modes and a biometric sensor.
3. The genuinely dangerous § 102 art is not on the patent's face at all — it is the 2015–2021 NFC/biometric-payment art (Part D). Its availability turns entirely on whether the claims keep the 2005-05-06 priority. If they do not, the effective date is 2024-01-25 and the art pool expands enormously. This is the highest-leverage validity question for the pending SureCell v. Samsung matter, and it is the same mismatch already flagged in the previous sections between the passport specification and the cellular-telephone claims.
4. Highest-value next retrieval (I could not perform it): the file wrapper for 18/422,929 — specifically the PTO/SB/08 IDS list, any PTO-892s, and the Office action of record — plus claim 18's text, which was omitted from the asserted set and may be the most informative claim in the patent.

Sources relied on: Google Patents, US 2010/0026466A1 family page (Citations (72) / Cited By (4) / Families Citing this family (7)); Google Patents, US 2020/0160867A1 (continuity); Justia, US 2024/0160867 (claims 1–9 verbatim, Patent History); Patents-Review.com, 2024/0160867 (description opening line); WO 2022/192120 A1 ISR for PCT/US2022/019102 (Part D — attribution unverified); the authoritative full patent text supplied in this task.

I'll ground this § 103 analysis in retrievable sources. Let me first try to pin down the actual claim language and the cited prior art for this patent.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim language and the cited-art lists.

Obviousness Analysis — US 12,039,396 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on sources and corrections. Two things changed since the previously generated sections, and they should be flagged rather than silently reconciled:

1. Correction to the earlier "inference." The prior section stated that verbatim claim language was not retrieved and inferred a method claim plus a "switch/circuit state" limitation. I have now retrieved verbatim claim text for claims 1–9 from the pre-grant publication US 2024/0160867 A1 (Justia, https://www.patents.justia.com/patent/20240160867). Claim 1 is an apparatus claim (a cellular telephone), and the switch appears only in dependent claims 3–4, as a "mechanical switch configured to approve the financial transactions" — not as a claim-1 "electronic switch configured to change between states of the circuit." Treat the earlier inference as superseded. Claims 10–20 were still not retrieved.
2. What "prior art section" means here. The page's prior-art section supplies (a) prior-art keywords: "rfid tag, switch, rfid, tag, cellular telephone"; (b) prior art date 2005-05-06; (c) the "Priority claimed from" table (US 11/382,050–054, 11/420,721, 11/458,620, 12/577,209, 14/660,825, 16/186,543); and (d) the family's 72-document citation list, which I retrieved. I build the analysis on those, plus the references the '396 specification itself cites. I did not retrieve a separate examiner-cited-art list for the 18/422,929 file itself, and I say so rather than reconstructing one.

---

1. The claim to be evaluated

Claim 1 (US 2024/0160867 A1, published claims):

"A cellular telephone configured to use two or more different wireless communication modes, the cellular telephone comprising: circuits configured to operate in a first mode for cellular operation and in a second mode for short range communication, wherein the first and second modes are characterized by different radio frequency ranges; a biometric sensor, financial transactions made using the circuits being responsive to the biometric sensor; and an inductive antenna configured for communication of signals in the second mode."

Element breakdown for § 103 purposes:

Dependents: 2 (approve transactions responsive to biometric), 3 (mechanical switch to approve), 4 (transactions responsive to both biometric sensor and mechanical switch), 5–6 (transaction in second / first mode), 7–8 (WiFi / cellular network), 9 (point-of-sale device in second mode).

---

2. The threshold issue that decides the whole § 103 analysis: the effective filing date

This is not a footnote — it is the case. The '396 issued in 2024 from an application filed January 25, 2024, as a continuation of 17/728,412 (2022) → 17/697,923 (2022) / 17/522,697 (2021) → 16/186,543 (2018) → … → 11/350,309 → US 7,719,425 → provisional 60/678,428 (May 6, 2005).

• If the claim-1 "biometric sensor" limitation is supported under § 112 by the May 2005 provisional chain, pre-AIA §§ 102/103 govern (the application contains no claim with an effective filing date on/after March 16, 2013), the critical date is ~May 6, 2005, and the Hilmer doctrine limits § 102(e) references. The prior-art universe is narrow.
• If it is not — and note that my retrieved '396 description text (which terminates inside FIG. 30) does not visibly contain the word "biometric"; biometrics appears in the title and abstract only, not in the passages I obtained — the effective date collapses to 2021–2024, AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) applies, and the claims read directly onto the commercial NFC smartphone payment stack.

I flag explicitly that my text fetch is incomplete (it cuts off at FIG. 30, before the cellular-telephone embodiment detail and the claims), so "the spec lacks biometric disclosure" is an unverified observation, not a conclusion. It is, however, the single most consequential verification task, because it converts the § 103 question from "was this obvious in 2005?" to "was this obvious in 2021?"

---

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Priority holds (critical date ~May 6, 2005): likely non-obvious as to claim 1, and the family's own art is the risk

On a 2005 critical date the claim elements are individually old, but the combination is thin:

Why the combination would have been motivated (KSR): consumer demand for both convenience (tap-to-pay) and fraud reduction; the EMV/Mastercard PayPass contactless rollout beginning 2003; the 2004 formation of the NFC Forum normalizing the very "different radio frequency ranges" architecture recited; and the "known technique" rationale — adding a proximity radio and a biometric confirmation gate to an existing cellular platform is the predictable use of known components for their known purposes.

Why it nevertheless may survive: US 2006/0200427 A1 publishes September 7, 2006 — after the May 6, 2005 date — so it is usable only if its underlying filing date predates the critical date (pre-AIA § 102(e)). I could not verify that filing date from the retrieved record. If it does not qualify, the "biometric + financial transaction + cell phone" element rests on non-patent commercial art, and a 2005-critical-date obviousness case becomes materially harder and more fact-intensive. This is the key evidentiary gap in Ground 1.

Ground 2 — Dependents 3–4 (mechanical switch) and the switchable-tag claims: strong

Claims 3–4 add a mechanical switch for approving the transaction. The '396 specification (which I do have) expressly discloses, in the 2005-era text, a switchable RFID tag in a "portable communication device such as a cellular telephone" with a user interface configured to turn the RFID tag on/off, enter a security code/PIN, or enter financial information, and with the switch "repeatedly turn[ing] on and off detectability or readability." Those bullets are literally in the disclosure.

That creates the classic double-edged result: the specification's own admitted prior art and its own switch teachings supply the mechanical-switch element for dependents 3–4, while US 2004/0117514, US 2005/0011776, US 2004/0237360, US 2004/0169087, US 2004/0089724, US 5,700,037, US 2005/0205665, US 2002/0117243 and US 4,744,497 — all cited by name in the '396 specification itself as the shielded/foldable card-and-case art — supply moveable-cover and switch-actuator structure for the packaging-dependent claims (17–20). A specification that characterizes a field as crowded with prior attempts undercuts any non-obviousness argument resting on the switch.

Ground 3 — Priority fails (effective date 2021–2024): claim 1 is very likely obvious, and dependents 5–9 approach anticipation

If the claims get only their actual 2021–2024 filing dates, then:

• US 10,430,779 B2 (tiered biometric authentication for a financial transaction, expressly listing "fingerprint, retina or iris scan, … facial recognition") supplies element C;
• the settled commercial and published art on NFC smartphone payment (Samsung Pay, Apple Pay, Google Wallet, EMVCo contactless kernels) supplies A, B, D; and
• dependents 5–9 (transaction in the second mode; over WiFi; over a cellular network; with a point-of-sale device in the second mode) are each among the most conventional hardware descriptions in the field and would be obvious, if not anticipated.

This is, on the retrieved record, the more probable outcome, and it also explains the litigation posture noted in the prior sections: the accused Samsung functionality (NFC + biometric/PIN authentication for Samsung Wallet and digital keys) is the ordinary 2021-era implementation, not an exotic one.

---

4. Motivation-to-combine summary (KSR factors)

1. Known technique, known purpose — a proximity radio and a biometric gate are each used for what they are designed to do.
2. Market/regulatory pressure — contactless payment migration and card-fraud reduction.
3. Industry standardization — ISO/IEC 14443 and ISO/IEC 18092/NFCIP-1 normalize "different RF ranges"; the NFC Forum (2004) makes the combination the default design.
4. Design incentive / finite number of predictable solutions — a PHOSITA adding a second radio to a phone picks a loop antenna; adding authentication picks the sensor the device already has.
5. Teach-away absent — nothing in the cited art disparages biometric gating of short-range payments.

---

5. Statements a reviewer should not treat as settled

• I did not obtain a single claim-1-to-reference mapping from an examiner's citation list for 18/422,929. The reference list I retrieved (72 documents: US 4,575,601; US 4,744,497; US 5,206,495; US 5,327,115; US 5,380,046; US 5,506,395; US 5,538,291; US 5,640,151; US 5,700,037; US 5,847,662; US 5,966,082; US 6,130,602; US 6,144,299; …) is dominated by membrane-switch, wallet/shielding and RFID-tag circuitry art — i.e., it evidences the passport/shielding invention, not the biometric-NFC-phone invention. That mismatch is itself the strongest single indicator that the cellular-telephone claims are not the original inventive contribution.
• The '396 specification's stated field ("The invention is in the fields of electronic passports…") is inconsistent with the title and abstract, as previously flagged. Under § 103 this matters because a PHOSITA is defined by the field of the claimed subject matter, not the field the application says it is in.
• No PTAB, ITC or Federal Circuit invalidity determination on the '396 was found; the § 103 grounds above are analytical, not adjudicated.

Confidence: High that claim 1 (as published) would be obvious over post-2013 art and materially harder but not impossible to invalidate over 2005-era art. Moderate-to-high that claims 3–4 and the switch/cover dependents are obvious over the specification-cited card/case art. Low-to-moderate on the exact priority outcome, which I flag as the dispositive unknown.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12039396/en · https://patents.justia.com/patent/20240160867 · https://www.patents-review.com/a/20240160867-cellular-telephone-including-biometric-control-transactions.html · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100026466 (72-document citation list, same family) · https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00106/doc/analysis/9 · US 10,430,779 B2 and US 6,993,658 excerpts as retrieved.

I'll research the USPTO record for this exact patent number, focusing on term adjustment and continuity data.

Let me target the patent-specific record and its continuity data.

Now let me retrieve the patent's front-page term notice and continuity data.

Patent Term, Continuity & Family Analysis — US 12,039,396 B2

Task date basis: April 26, 2026 (as stated in this task). This is not the date basis used in the PTAB section of this analysis, which operated on 2026-09-23. I flag that conflict up front rather than silently normalizing it, and I resolve every date-dependent statement below on April 26, 2026.

Access caveat (read before relying on any number below): I do not have an authenticated session against USPTO PatentCenter, the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) term-adjustment tab, or the Assignment Center. Web searches for patent-specific term data returned the generic § 154(b)/§ 156 legal framework and unrelated documents — the closest false positive was a Puget Sound Energy outage report whose row label happens to read "12039396" (https://apiproxy.utc.wa.gov/cases/GetDocument?docID=1721&year=2004&docketNumber=040640). I therefore could not read the PTA figure off the printed front page and will not invent it. What follows separates (a) what the authoritative patent text states, (b) what primary continuity documents state, and (c) my statutory computation, labeled as such.

---

1. The patent, verified as the requested number

The number is confirmed literally. I did not accept or return any similar-number record.

---

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

2.1 Statutory framework that applies

PTA applies only to original utility applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. Application 18/422,929 was filed January 25, 2024, so it is eligible in principle. The three delay categories are:

• "A" delay — the 14-4-4-4 rule: USPTO must mail a first action or allowance within 14 months of filing, respond to replies within 4 months, act after PTAB/appeal decisions within 4 months, and issue within 4 months of the issue fee.
• "B" delay — no more than 3 years' pendency, excluding RCE time, appeals, and applicant-requested delay.
• "C" delay — interferences, derivation proceedings, secrecy orders, and successful appellate review.

Totals are summed, reduced for overlap (only same-calendar-day overlap counts, per Wyeth v. Kappos, 591 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010)), and then reduced by applicant delay under § 154(b)(2)(C) / 37 C.F.R. § 1.704.

2.2 Crucially, the PTA clock runs from this application's filing date

This is the point most often gotten wrong with long continuation chains. The 20-year term is measured from the earliest § 120 parent; the § 154(b) adjustment is computed on the filing date of the application that issued (37 C.F.R. § 1.703). The 18-year prosecution history of the ancestors therefore contributes zero PTA to the '396. Any A/B/C delay accrued in 11/350,309 in 2006–2009 was consumed in whatever patent issued from those applications.

2.3 Computation for 18/422,929

My conclusion: PTA for US 12,039,396 B2 is almost certainly 0 days, and the front page very likely carries the standard notice in the form "Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days." Label this high-confidence inference, not a verified figure. It is drawable from the arithmetic (a 173-day pendency cannot generate A, B, or C delay), but I could not open the PTA determination to confirm the printed number, the A/B/C breakdown, or any 37 C.F.R. § 1.704 applicant-delay reduction.

2.4 Deadlines for challenging the PTA (both long past)

• 37 C.F.R. § 1.705(b) petition for PTA reconsideration: due within 2 months of issuance → ~2024-09-16.
• 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(4) civil action in E.D. Va.: within 180 days of issuance → ~January 2025.
• No such petition or suit was found for this patent. Barring an unnoticed late filing, the PTA number is now final and unappealable.

2.5 Terminal disclaimer interaction — unverified, flagged

Section 154(b)(2)(B): PTA cannot extend a patent past the date specified in a filed terminal disclaimer. In this family — a ~20-year continuation/CIP web with intensely overlapping claims and shared inventorship — a terminal disclaimer is a realistic possibility (ODP rejections in such chains are routine, and note the In re Cellect ODP/PTA line of authority, discussed at https://www.bakerbotts.com/Thought-Leadership/Publications/2025/January/Maximizing-Patent-Term-in-the-United-States). I could not confirm whether 18/422,929 contains a terminal disclaimer. If PTA is 0 this is moot for term length, but a terminal disclaimer would still appear on the front page and matters for ODP exposure.

---

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

None. And none is legally available.

Section 156 PTE (Hatch-Waxman) restores term consumed by FDA regulatory review and is limited to patents claiming a drug, medical device, food additive, or color additive. Requirements include that the patent claim a product/use/manufacture of such a product, that the application be filed within 60 days of regulatory approval, that the patent not have been previously extended, and that the patent not have expired before the application is filed. Maximum extension is 5 years, and total term cannot exceed 14 years from approval.

US 12,039,396 B2 claims a cellular telephone (claim 1: "A cellular telephone configured to use two or more different wireless communication modes…"). There is no FDA-regulated product, no regulatory review period, and no PTE application of record. No PTE exists.

Separately, the URAA transitional term of § 154(c) (greater of 20-years-from-filing or 17-years-from-grant) does not apply — it is confined to patents in force on, or issuing from applications filed before, June 8, 1995. This application was filed in 2024.

---

4. Continuity — continuations, CIPs, and (no) divisionals

4.1 Immediate parent — now resolved against a primary source

The previously generated "Patent summary" flagged as moderate confidence that 18/422,929's immediate parent was 17/728,412. The cross-reference block of the pre-grant publication US 2024/0160867 A1 removes that doubt:

"This application is a continuation of U.S. non-provisional patent Ser. No. 17/728,412 filed Apr. 25, 2022…"
— https://www.patents-review.com/a/20240160867-cellular-telephone-including-biometric-control-transactions.html

Upgrade to high confidence: 18/422,929 is a § 120 continuation of 17/728,412 (filed 2022-04-25), the application that issued as US 11,989,612 B1. The '396 and the '612 are therefore parent/child, not merely siblings — which is also why their abstracts read identically (flagged in the earlier summary).

4.2 The chain, as recited in the '396's own cross-reference

18/422,929  filed 2024-01-25 → US 12,039,396 B2 / US 2024/0160867 A1   [this patent]
└─ continuation of 17/728,412  filed 2022-04-25 → US 11,989,612 B1
   ├─ also continuation of 17/697,923  filed 2022-03-18 → US 11,599,734
   ├─ also continuation of 17/522,697  filed 2021-11-09
   └─ … 16/186,543  filed 2018-11-11 → US 11,170,185
      └─ CIP of 15/418,726  filed 2017-01-28
         └─ continuation of 14/660,825  filed 2015-03-17 → US 9,569,777
            ├─ CIP of 13/481,104  filed 2012-05-25
            │   └─ continuation of 12/777,474  filed 2010-05-11
            │      └─ continuation of 11/350,309  filed 2006-02-07 → US 7,719,425
            │         └─ provisionals: 60/678,428 (2005-05-06); 60/685,331 (2005-05-27);
            │            60/700,884 (2005-07-19); 60/712,308 (2005-08-30);
            │            60/715,641 (2005-09-10); 60/752,933 (2005-12-21); 60/758,751 (2006-01-13)
            └─ 13/084,433  filed 2011-04-11
                └─ continuation of 11/458,620  filed 2006-07-19 → US 7,924,156
                   ├─ CIP of 11/382,052 (2006-05-07) → US 2007/0200680 A1
                   ├─ CIP of 11/382,053 (2006-05-07) → US 2007/0200681 A1
                   ├─ CIP of 11/382,054 (2006-05-08) → US 2007/0200682 A1
                   ├─ CIP of 11/382,264 (2006-05-08) → US 2007/0200683 A1
                   ├─ CIP of 11/382,265 (2006-05-08) → US 2007/0200684 A1
                   ├─ CIP of 11/420,721 (2006-05-26) → US 2006/0267737 A1
                   ├─ provisionals: 60/782,068 (2006-03-13); 60/744,154 (2006-04-03); 60/746,636 (2006-05-06)
                   └─ CIP of 11/382,050 (2006-05-07) → US 2007/0200679 A1
                      └─ provisionals: 60/678,428 (2005-05-06); 60/685,… [source text truncated]

Parsing caveat: the source rendering of this block is densely nested and partially truncated (the final provisional group is cut off mid-number). The nesting above is my best reconstruction; the identities and dates of the applications are transcribed as printed, but the parent/child topology should be confirmed against the printed patent's "Related U.S. Application Data" field and the PatentCenter continuity tab before it is used in a brief.

4.3 Continuation vs. continuation-in-part — a priority point, not a term point

• Continuations (§ 120, no new matter): 17/728,412; 17/697,923; 17/522,697; 14/660,825→15/418,726; 12/777,474→13/481,104; 11/350,309; 11/458,620→13/084,433.
• Continuation-in-part (§ 120 with new matter): 16/186,543 (CIP of 15/418,726); 14/660,825 (CIP of 13/481,104); and 11/458,620 (CIP of 11/382,050–054, 11/382,264/265, 11/420,721).

CIPs do not change the term date (term still runs from the earliest § 120 benefit date), but they are the mechanism by which the "cellular telephone / inductive antenna / biometric" subject matter could have been added long after 2005. That is the § 112 written-description issue already flagged in the earlier sections, and it is the reason the effective-date fork controls the prior-art analysis.

4.4 Divisional applications

None identified. No § 121 divisional appears anywhere in the retrieved continuity record for this family. The family expands exclusively through continuations and CIPs. If any divisional exists, it was not surfaced by the Google Patents family table or by the '396's own cross-reference block.

---

5. Related family members

5.1 Issued U.S. patents in the chain (as identified in the record)

5.2 Publications in the family (non-patent-granting members)

US 2006/0267737 A1 (11/420,721); US 2007/0200679 A1 (11/382,050); US 2007/0200680 A1 (11/382,052); US 2007/0200681 A1 (11/382,053); US 2007/0200682 A1 (11/382,054); US 2007/0200683 A1 (11/382,264); US 2007/0200684 A1 (11/382,265); US 2024/0160867 A1 (18/422,929). Also reported in the earlier sections: US 2022/0067312 ("Cellular Device Including Inductive Antenna").

5.3 Family-adjacent patents

US 9,524,458 and US 11,347,949 are reported in the record as co-asserted patents in SureCell Transactions LLC v. Samsung, No. 2:26-cv-00106 (the '458 appears in the Mynette Technologies v. United States Federal Claims pleadings alongside '425, '156 and '777). Treat these as family-adjacent, not as confirmed members of the '396 § 120 chain — their continuity has not been verified here.

---

6. Projected expiration date

6.1 The rule

Under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) and MPEP 2701: the term ends 20 years from the earliest non-provisional U.S. application for which benefit is claimed under § 120/121/365(c).

• Provisional applications are excluded from the 20-year calculation (MPEP 2701, "Domestic Priority Under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)"). Provisional 60/678,428 (filed 2005-05-06) therefore does not set the expiry date — notwithstanding that Google Patents labels 2005-05-06 the "prior art date."
• Foreign priority is excluded (none here).
• PTA adds; terminal disclaimer can cap.

6.2 The computed date — and a material discrepancy to resolve

This three-month spread is outcome-determinative on today's date. On April 26, 2026:

• Under Scenario A, the patent expired ~2.5 months ago (Feb 7, 2026).
• Under Scenario B, the patent is still in force with roughly 11 days of term remaining (to May 7, 2026).

Google Patents' own status line already reads "Expired – Lifetime," with the legal-status entry "2026-05-07 Anticipated expiration." Google's "anticipated expiration" is a simple 20-year formula and does not by itself incorporate PTA or terminal-disclaimer effects (see IFI Claims' own description of the distinction between anticipated and adjusted expiration: https://docs.ificlaims.com/download/temp/pdfexport-20240923-[230924](/patent/230924)-2311-8611/CDVDP-AnticipatedandAdjustedExpirationDates-230924-2311-8612.pdf). The correct methodology would take the Feb 7, 2006 date, which suggests Google's calculation may not have picked up the 11/350,309 leg of the chain.

Bottom line, stated with appropriate hedging: the patent's projected expiration is 2026-02-07 on the continuity record read literally (with PTA ≈ 0), or 2026-05-07 per Google Patents. Either way the patent is in its final days or already expired, and it is a "zero-term" asset — which has direct consequences for the pending litigation (no injunction, damages only within the § 286 six-year lookback) and for the IPR (claim amendments after expiration are unavailable in Board practice, so a pending IPR is effectively all-or-nothing). Confirm on PatentCenter's "Patent Term Adjustment" tab and the "Continuity Data" tab before relying on either date.

6.3 Maintenance fees — none ever due

Maintenance fees fall due 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after issue: 2028-01-16, 2031-07-16, 2035-07-16. All post-date expiration under either scenario. The "Expired – Lifetime" status is therefore consistent with expiry at the end of the full statutory term, not with a lapsed-fee expiration.

---

7. Contradictions and corrections to flag explicitly

1. Date basis conflict (carried forward). The prior "Patent summary" and Litigation sections reasoned from April 26, 2026; the PTAB section reasoned from 2026-09-23. This task specifies April 26, 2026, and I have used it. The consequence is significant: on the April date the patent may still have ~11 days of life under Scenario B, whereas on the September date it is definitively expired under either scenario.
2. Expiration computation vs. Google's listed date. Google Patents states 2026-05-07; the patent's own cross-reference block identifies 11/350,309 filed 2006-02-07 as a § 120 parent, which yields 2026-02-07. I have not resolved this. The earlier summary's flat assertion that the term runs "from the May 7, 2006 filing of parent application 11/382,050" is not reconcilable with the cross-reference block as retrieved and should be treated as unverified.
3. Immediate-parent confidence upgraded. The earlier "moderate confidence" identification of 17/728,412 as the immediate parent is now high confidence based on the published cross-reference block.
4. PTA was not directly verified. My "0 days" is a statutory computation from the 173-day pendency, not a read of the front page. Any reviewer must pull the actual figure.
5. Terminal disclaimer status unknown. Unverifiable from the sources I could reach; it could shorten the term further, though a 0-day PTA makes it a non-issue for term length.

---

8. What to pull next (in priority order)

1. PatentCenter → "Patent Term Adjustment" tab for 18/422,929 — the authoritative A/B/C/applicant-delay breakdown and total PTA. Also confirms whether the front-page notice is "0 days."
2. PatentCenter → "Continuity Data" tab — resolves the 2026-02-07 vs. 2026-05-07 dispute by showing exactly which § 120 parents are claimed on this file.
3. The printed front page of US 12,039,396 B2 — the "( * ) Notice" line (PTA days) and any "This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer" line appear there.
4. USPTO Assignment Center — reel/frame for the 2025-12-22 Colby → Surceell Transactions, LLC recording (a gap the assignment section of this analysis also flagged).
5. The full claim set (claims 10–20) and claim 18's text — still unretrieved, and the § 101/§ 112 pressure point.

Sources relied on: the authoritative full patent text supplied in this task (https://patents.google.com/patent/US12039396/en); the cross-reference block of US 2024/0160867 A1 (https://www.patents-review.com/a/20240160867-cellular-telephone-including-biometric-control-transactions.html); Justia's record for US 2024/0160867 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/20240160867); MPEP ch. 2700 (https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2700.pdf); IFI Claims on anticipated vs. adjusted expiration (https://docs.ificlaims.com/download/temp/pdfexport-20240923-230924-2311-8611/CDVDP-AnticipatedandAdjustedExpirationDates-230924-2311-8612.pdf).

DEFENSIVE DISCLOSURE

Derivative Technical Disclosures Filed Against the Claim Space of US 12,039,396 B2

Prepared by: Senior Patent Strategist / Research Engineer (Defensive Publishing)
Publication date (constructive): April 26, 2026
Subject patent identified: US 12,039,396 B2 — "Cellular telephone including biometric control of transactions" — application 18/422,929, filed 2024-01-25, granted 2024-07-16, sole inventor Steven Michael Colby.

---

0. Scope, statutory effect, and verification status

0.1 Purpose and legal effect

This document is a defensive publication. Its function is to place the technical subject matter below into the public domain as of the publication date above, so that it constitutes:

• 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) prior art (publicly available printed publication / public disclosure) against any application filed on or after the publication date, anywhere; and
• § 102(a)(2) prior art, if the disclosure is filed as a published application or otherwise effectively filed before a later-filed U.S. application's effective filing date, subject to the prior-art exception structure of § 102(b)(2).

Note on mechanism. The pre-AIA statutory invention registration (35 U.S.C. § 157) was repealed effective March 16, 2013, and is unavailable. The recommended vehicles are therefore: (a) a defensive-publication service with independent timestamping; (b) a DOI-registered archival deposit; or (c) a deliberately published, non-prosecuted U.S. non-provisional application published under § 122(b). Each of these creates a printed publication under § 102(a)(1).

Effect sought. Every element below is disclosed as of the date of publication and, where a filing vehicle is used, as of the filing date of that vehicle. The disclosure is drafted in enabling terms, i.e., with parameters, materials, dimensions, and processing steps sufficient for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to make and use each variation without undue experimentation.

0.2 Verification status of the claim basis (read before relying on the mapping)

I searched for US patent 12039396 specifically (no similar-number substitution):

• Confirmed literally. US 12,039,396 B2 / application 18/422,929 / publication US 2024/0160867 A1, filed 2024-01-25, granted 2024-07-16, inventor Steven Michael Colby. Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12039396/en; https://patents.justia.com/patent/20240160867; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240160867A1/en.
• Claims 1–9 are verbatim-verified from the pre-grant publication of the same application (Justia record above). They are reproduced below only as the derivation basis, not as a summary of the patent.
• Claims 10–20 were NOT retrievable from any source I could reach, and the authoritative full text in this record truncates inside the specification. Derivative families CC-4 and CC-5 below are therefore anchored to subject matter that is disclosed in the specification, with the claim mapping flagged as inferred. This flag is carried through every affected heading.
• I do not have authenticated access to USPTO PatentCenter, so I did not read the term-adjustment tab or the file wrapper. Nothing in this document depends on those fields.

Date-basis conflict (flagged per instructions): earlier analysis sections in this workstream reasoned from April 26, 2026 (this task's frame) and from 2026-09-23 (a later task frame). This document uses April 26, 2026, the date stated in this task.

0.3 Derivation basis (claim constructs used, not a summary)

0.4 Axis key used throughout

M = Material & Component Substitution · P = Operational Parameter Expansion · X = Cross-Domain Application (3 industries) · I = Integration with Emerging Tech (AI + IoT + blockchain) · F = Inverse / Failure-Mode

0.5 Derivative index

---

1. Derived Subject Matter for CC-1 (dual-mode cellular telephone with biometric-gated inductive transaction)

D-1.1 — Material & Component Substitution

Substituting the inductive front end and the biometric transducer.

Enabling description. The inductive element is a four-turn planar loop of 35 µm screen-printed silver ink (sheet resistance ≤ 12 mΩ/sq after 130 °C/30 min cure) on 50 µm PET, laminated to a 0.12 mm Ni-Zn spinel ferrite sheet (µ′ ≈ 120, tan δ ≤ 0.05 at 13.56 MHz) that shields the loop from the device's ground plane. Measured inductance 1.2 µH, self-resonance > 40 MHz, coupling coefficient k ≈ 0.08 at 20 mm separation. Resonance trimming is performed by a five-bit MEMS switched-capacitor bank of 8 pF per LSB (0–248 pF), giving Q ≥ 40 and compensating ±8 % dielectric loading from the hand. The biometric transducer is a 110 × 110 µm-cell piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT) array at 20 MHz, read by a charge amplifier into a 12-bit SAR ADC at 500 kS/s; the resulting 508 dpi-equivalent image is matched inside a secure element (AES-128, ECDSA P-256, ISO/IEC 7816-4 command set) at a false-accept-rate operating point of 1 × 10⁻⁵. The match decision drives the modulator enable line, so no account data can reach the loop until a match exists.

flowchart LR
    A["Finger on PMUT array"] --> B["Charge amp and 12-bit SAR ADC"]
    B --> C["Feature extract and match in secure element"]
    C -->|"match score at target FAR"| D["Modulator enable line asserted"]
    C -->|"no match"| E["Front end held mute"]
    D --> F["Printed 4-turn Ag loop"]
    F --> G["Ni-Zn ferrite backing"]
    F --> H["MEMS cap bank trims to 13.56 MHz"]
    H --> I["ISO 14443-4 frame transmitted"]

D-1.2 — Operational Parameter Expansion

Two extreme-scale instantiations of the same topology.

Enabling description. (a) Industrial scale. The loop becomes a 0.50 m diameter air-core coil pair driven at 6.78 MHz with 3 A rms, giving read range of 0.7 m and a link budget supporting ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 3 at 10 kbit/s; the same biometric gate protects a 4–20 mA actuator loop rather than a payment payload. (b) On-package scale. The inductive coil is replaced by an on-package 60 GHz (λ = 5 mm) backscatter radiator: a 1.2 mm printed dipole with a Schottky-diode rectifier harvests 2.5 µW at 30 cm, sufficient to power a duty-cycled 1 ms burst every 10 s; range is deliberately limited to < 5 cm for a "touch-to-actuate" data-only mode and < 30 cm for a beacon mode. (c) Environmental extremes. SOI CMOS with NiCr thin-film resistors, Au-Ge eutectic die attach, and a hermetic ceramic lid are qualified from −55 °C to +200 °C with < 2 % drift in resonant frequency, corrected by the MEMS capacitor bank; an oil-filled variant rated to 30 MPa is disclosed for subsea actuator gating, and a 50 kHz lower band is disclosed for 30 mm penetration into fresh water.

flowchart TD
    A["Biometric gate core"] --> B["6.78 MHz industrial front end"]
    A --> C["60 GHz on-package front end"]
    A --> D["50 kHz subsea front end"]
    B --> E["0.50 m coil, 3 A rms, 0.7 m range"]
    C --> F["1.2 mm dipole, 2.5 uW harvested at 30 cm"]
    D --> G["30 mm water penetration"]
    E --> H["Duty-cycled payload emission"]
    F --> H
    G --> H
    H --> I["SOI and Au-Ge stack, minus 55 C to plus 200 C"]

D-1.3 — Cross-Domain Application (Aerospace, AgTech, Industrial Process Control)

The gating mechanism, transplanted.

Enabling description. (a) Aerospace. A line-replaceable unit carries a 13.56 MHz tag; a certifying technician's fingerprint gate is required before the device writes a maintenance record into non-volatile memory. The record is AES-256-CMAC protected over {tail number, part number, ATA chapter, cycle count, UTC timestamp}, then read back and compared by the avionics maintenance computer; gate failure writes a "no certification" sentinel instead of a partial record. (b) AgTech. A rumen bolus transponder is interrogated by a wand reader; the operator's biometric gate enables an automated drench gun for exactly one dose (0.1 mL resolution) and writes the dose against an individual animal ID and a withdrawal-period expiry computed from the product label. Repeated interrogation within 60 s returns a "dose already administered" refusal. (c) Industrial process control. An intrinsically safe (ATEX/IECEx Zone 1, 5 kV isolation) reader mounted on a skid requires a two-person biometric gate before accepting a valve actuator setpoint; the accepted setpoint is range-clamped and rate-limited (≤ 5 %/s of span) and mirrored to the plant historian over Modbus/TCP.

flowchart TD
    A["Operator biometric gate"] --> B["Aerospace LRU"]
    A --> C["AgTech bolus reader"]
    A --> D["Zone 1 process skid"]
    B --> E["AES-256 CMAC maintenance record"]
    C --> F["Single-dose drench lockout"]
    D --> G["Two-person valve setpoint clamp"]
    E --> H["Avionics maintenance computer readback"]
    F --> I["Withdrawal-period ledger"]
    G --> J["Modbus TCP historian mirror"]

D-1.4 — Integration with Emerging Tech (AI, IoT, Blockchain)

Gating plus inference, telemetry, and verifiable evidence.

Enabling description. A quantized 8-bit convolutional network (≈ 60 kB weights, 1.2 MMAC per inference, 5 ms on-device) performs presentation-attack detection on the PMUT image before the match is attempted, rejecting printed, gelatin, and replay artifacts at 1.7 % equal-error rate. An IoT layer publishes one MQTT-SN message per transaction attempt to a local broker with payload {device_id, geohash, rssi_dbm, decision, latency_ms, firmware_digest}; firmware is updated over the air using CoAP block-wise transfer (RFC 7959) guarded by a SUIT manifest (RFC 9019) with an anti-rollback security version number. For evidence, the device computes SHA-256 over the canonical transaction record, inserts it into a Merkle tree, and commits only the hourly root to a permissioned ledger; a zk-SNARK proves the predicate "a biometric match occurred and the stored template hash equals H" without revealing the template, the match score, or the ridge data.

flowchart LR
    A["PMUT image"] --> B["Quantized CNN liveness filter"]
    B -->|"live"| C["Template match in secure element"]
    B -->|"spoof"| D["Attempt refused and logged"]
    C --> E["Transaction record"]
    E --> F["SHA-256 digest and Merkle insert"]
    E --> G["MQTT-SN telemetry to broker"]
    F --> H["Hourly root to permissioned ledger"]
    F --> I["zk-SNARK predicate proof"]
    G --> J["SUIT and CoAP OTA channel"]

D-1.5 — Inverse / Failure Mode

Fail-closed degradation states with relay resistance.

Enabling description. The device implements four explicit states. FULL — normal operation. BEACON — entered when the secure element fails self-test or VDD falls below 2.2 V: a series FET physically decouples the loop from the secure element, the loop is re-tuned to 13.56 MHz against a fixed load, and only an 8-byte rotating pseudonym is returned, derived by a CTR-DRBG reseeded from a ring-oscillator PUF at each cold start; no PAN, no account field, no name. DEAD — a tamper-detect signal opens a polysilicon fusible link, shorting the loop and dropping Q below 2, so the tag is undetectable. DECOY — the tag returns a structurally valid but Luhn-invalid PAN together with a plausible expiry, so that a skimmer's attempted authorization declines and the harvest is burned. Relay resistance uses an eight-round 1-bit distance-bounding exchange with a per-bit response window under 2 ns, implemented in the secure element's fast path, rejecting relay latencies above the calibrated bound.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> FULL
    FULL --> BEACON : secure element self-test fail
    FULL --> BEACON : VDD below 2.2 V
    FULL --> DEAD : tamper detect opens fuse
    FULL --> DECOY : skimmer heuristic triggers
    BEACON --> FULL : self-test passes on reboot
    BEACON --> DEAD : second tamper detect
    DECOY --> FULL : operator reset with PIN
    DEAD --> [*]

D-1.6 — Standard-Anchored Combination Hook

See C-1 and C-4 in §8 for the ISO/IEC 14443 + FIDO CTAP2 and GSMA SGP.32 + ISO 20022 combinations built on this construct.

---

2. Derived Subject Matter for CC-2 (biometric approval plus mechanical switch approval)

D-2.1 — Material & Component Substitution

Replacing the mechanical switch with non-contact and solid-state equivalents.

Enabling description. Four substitutable actuator families are disclosed for the same "second approval" function. (a) Piezoelectric force plate: a 12 mm × 12 mm PZT-5H bimorph with 40 nC/N charge sensitivity and 3 % hysteresis, read by a charge amplifier with 2 pF feedback, threshold programmable 0.5–6 N; physical deflection is converted to an electrical assertion with no moving contact. (b) Force-touch strain gauge: a bonded 350 Ω bridge at 0.01 % full-scale resolution, threshold 0.8–4 N, hysteresis compensated by a 0.5 Hz dither. (c) Nitinol dome: a shape-memory dome with austenite finish at 65 °C provides bistable snap-through with a 4 N trip and a 40 ms release constant. (d) Magnetic reed or Hall switch: actuation by a magnet in the mating cover, sensing 15 mT at 8 mm. In every case the switch output is routed on an independent trace to a secure-element GPIO, and the secure element requires a steady assertion window before treating the event as a deliberate approval, so that distributed compression in a pocket or wallet does not authorize anything.

flowchart TD
    A["Approval intent"] --> B["Piezo force plate"]
    A --> C["Force-touch strain gauge"]
    A --> D["Nitinol snap dome"]
    A --> E["Reed or Hall sensor"]
    B --> F["Independent secure element GPIO"]
    C --> F
    D --> F
    E --> F
    F --> G["Steady assertion window test"]
    G -->|"window satisfied"| H["Second approval granted"]
    G -->|"window not satisfied"| I["Event discarded"]

D-2.2 — Operational Parameter Expansion

Extreme force, cycle count, hold time, and environment.

Enabling description. The actuation envelope is disclosed from 10 mN (light touch, 24-bit capacitance-to-digital converter with 4 aF rms noise, 2 ms sample window, 90 nW sleep with 5 aF wake threshold) to 50 N (hard mechanical press, stainless dome with gold-flashed contacts). Cycle life is qualified to 1 × 10⁷ cycles at 2 N with < 5 % drift in threshold; a 1 × 10⁹-cycle variant uses a graphene-coated contact pair with contact resistance held below 50 mΩ. Authorization windows are disclosed from 10 ms (fast tap) to 800 ms (deliberate hold), with an optional coincidence rule requiring two independent actuations 100 mm apart within 300 ms. Thermal qualification is −40 °C to +150 °C, with PZT drive held below 30 V to stay clear of the 193 °C Curie limit; a −196 °C variant uses single-crystal PMN-PT for cryogenic operation. An accelerometer-plus-switch coincidence mode requires inertial onset and switch closure within 250 ms to reject accidental actuation.

flowchart LR
    A["Actuation envelope"] --> B["10 mN light touch, 90 nW sleep"]
    A --> C["50 N hard press, gold contacts"]
    A --> D["10 to 800 ms hold windows"]
    A --> E["minus 40 to plus 150 C"]
    B --> F["Capacitance-to-digital, 4 aF noise"]
    C --> G["Graphene contacts below 50 mOhm"]
    D --> H["Two-point coincidence rule 100 mm and 300 ms"]
    E --> I["Accelerometer plus switch coincidence"]

D-2.3 — Cross-Domain Application (Firearms, Medical, Industrial Safety)

Dual-approval transplanted to safety-critical systems.

Enabling description. (a) Firearms. The firing circuit is AND-gated by a fingerprint match in a grip-integrated sensor (capacitive, 508 dpi) and a secondary mechanical cross-bolt safety whose position is read by a Hall sensor at 12 mT; a 3.0 V lithium cell sustains 10,000 authorization cycles, and loss of either input within 250 ms disarms the firing circuit. (b) Medical. A patient-controlled analgesia pump requires, for each dose increment, a nurse fingerprint match on the badge plus a physical key-switch turn on the pump housing; doses are limited to 0.05 mg increments with hard hourly ceilings, and the authorization event is written to the device's audit log with a monotonic counter. (c) Industrial safety. A lockout/tagout pendant for a 5 kV disconnect requires a biometric match plus a captured physical key; per IEC 60947 the pendant holds the disconnect in the open state by a mechanical latch that a firmware fault cannot release.

flowchart TD
    A["Dual-approval core"] --> B["Firearm firing circuit"]
    A --> C["Analgesia pump"]
    A --> D["5 kV LOTO pendant"]
    B --> E["Fingerprint match AND cross-bolt Hall state"]
    C --> F["Nurse match AND keyswitch, 0.05 mg increments"]
    D --> G["Biometric AND captured key, mechanical latch"]
    E --> H["Disarm on any input loss within 250 ms"]
    F --> I["Audit log with monotonic counter"]
    G --> J["Firmware cannot release latch"]

D-2.4 — Integration with Emerging Tech (AI, IoT, Blockchain)

Intent discrimination, tamper-evident logs, threshold authorization.

Enabling description. A 3-axis accelerometer sampled at 200 Hz feeds a threshold-free gradient-boosted classifier that separates intentional actuation (0.25–2.0 g, 20–150 ms envelope) from involuntary tremor (4–7 Hz band, ≤ 0.05 g), achieving AUC 0.99 and a 3 % false-reject rate at the 0.1 % false-accept point; the classifier runs in 8 kB of RAM on the sensor hub. For IoT, each switch and biometric event is appended to an RFC 9162-style append-only hash chain stored in the secure element, whose head (hash and monotonic counter) is published to the device fleet over MQTT; any counter regression is treated as rollback and quarantines the device. For authorization, the two approval paths each derive an independent key share, and the transaction is signed with a FROST threshold-Schnorr signature using a 2-of-2 policy over the curve secp256k1 (or ECDSA for the P-256 stack), so that either single factor is cryptographically insufficient and the signed artifact is independently verifiable by the merchant.

sequenceDiagram
    participant U as User
    participant S as Sensor hub
    participant C as Classifier
    participant E as Secure element
    participant M as Merchant
    U->>S: Actuate switch and present finger
    S->>C: 200 Hz accelerometer window
    C-->>E: Intent confirmed, tremor rejected
    E->>E: Derive key share 1 and share 2
    E->>E: Append event to hash chain
    E->>M: FROST 2-of-2 threshold signature
    M->>M: Verify against group public key

D-2.5 — Inverse / Failure Mode

Dead-man authorization and a deliberately reduced-functionality tier.

Enabling description. (a) Dead-man authorization. The secure element holds a 64-bit authorization timer that is refreshed only by a keep-alive pulse train from the switch (1 kHz, 25 % duty). Loss of the pulse train for more than 20 ms aborts the in-flight transaction, zeroizes the ephemeral session key, and forces the reader to restart the exchange, so an abandoned or snatched device cannot complete a payment. A two-handed variant requires the coincidence of two switches 100 mm apart within 300 ms. (b) Switch-only floor-limit tier. If the biometric sensor is unavailable (self-test fail, contamination flag, or unreachable secure element path), the switch alone authorizes only offline transactions at or below a configurable floor limit (default 50 units), for at most five consecutive authorizations, with the offline counter held in a 32-cell monotonic bit-flip fuse array so that power loss cannot reset it. Exceeding the counter or the floor limit forces an online authorization on next network contact.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Idle
    Idle --> Armed : biometric match plus switch steady
    Armed --> Aborted : keep-alive gap over 20 ms
    Aborted --> Idle : session key zeroized
    Armed --> FloorTier : biometric path unavailable
    FloorTier --> FloorTier : offline count up to 5 under floor limit
    FloorTier --> OnlineRequired : count exceeded or amount above limit
    OnlineRequired --> Idle : online authorization completed

---

3. Derived Subject Matter for CC-3 (transaction execution across the two modes and the WAN)

D-3.1 — Material & Component Substitution

Substituting the radios, the substrate, and the subscriber identity.

Enabling description. The second-mode radio may be replaced by: 802.11ah (sub-GHz, 1 km line of sight), 802.11bb light communication (Li-Fi), or a non-terrestrial-network modem for direct satellite access. The antenna may be a four-element metamaterial leaky-wave structure switched by a single-pole-four-throw switch in 100 µs, or a liquid-metal (EGaIn) reconfigurable element, or a varactor-loaded parasitic that retunes 700–960 MHz. The substrate is PTFE laminate (εr 2.2, tan δ 0.0009) rather than FR-4 where insertion loss must be minimized. Subscriber identity moves from a removable SIM to an integrated iSIM inside the modem die, provisioned by remote SIM provisioning under GSMA SGP.32 so that profile changes do not require physical media. A policy engine chooses the bearer from {transaction amount, reader proximity, RTT, congestion, remaining battery} with the ranking rules published in the disclosure so the combination is reproducible.

flowchart LR
    A["Policy engine"] --> B["NFC at 13.56 MHz under 5 cm"]
    A --> C["BLE 5.3 coded PHY under 50 m"]
    A --> D["Wi-Fi 6 under 100 m"]
    A --> E["Cellular or NTN WAN"]
    F["Metamaterial switched antenna"] --> B
    F --> C
    F --> D
    G["Integrated iSIM profile"] --> E
    A --> H["Selection inputs: amount, RTT, congestion, battery"]

D-3.2 — Operational Parameter Expansion

Spectral extremes and delay tolerance.

Enabling description. The same transaction envelope (256 bytes, CBOR-encoded) is disclosed across a band set spanning 125 kHz through 60 GHz. At the low end, 125 kHz and 134.2 kHz are used with amplitude-shift keying and a 4 kbit/s line rate for rugged industrial media. At the high end, the 60 GHz band is used for a 5 cm data-only transfer at 100 Mbit/s. Where no backhaul exists, the device accumulates ECDSA-signed offline authorization tokens of the form {counter, amount, currency, merchant_id, nonce, timestamp} into a monotonic flash log written 8 bytes atomically with wear leveling rated 1 × 10⁵ cycles; tokens are settled on reconnection, and nonce reuse is detected centrally. Delay tolerance is disclosed to 14 days, with a double-spend probability bounded at 2⁻⁴⁰ given a 20-bit counter and a per-merchant ceiling. Power budgets from 100 µW (harvested) to 2 W (active WAN) are disclosed with corresponding duty-cycle tables.

flowchart TD
    A["Transaction envelope 256 bytes CBOR"] --> B["125 kHz rugged link"]
    A --> C["13.56 MHz proximity link"]
    A --> D["60 GHz 5 cm link at 100 Mbit/s"]
    A --> E["No backhaul detected"]
    E --> F["Append signed offline token to flash log"]
    F --> G["8-byte atomic write, 100k cycle wear leveling"]
    G --> H["Settle on reconnection"]
    H --> I["Central nonce reuse detection"]

D-3.3 — Cross-Domain Application (ITS, Clinical, Yard Logistics)

Transport selection transplanted to three regulated environments.

Enabling description. (a) Intelligent transport systems. A gantry interrogator triggers the vehicle unit; the driver's biometric gate binds a hash of {plate, vehicle class, axle count} into the settlement record, and the response is transmitted over 5.9 GHz C-V2X PC5 sidelink where available, with a fallback to 5.8 GHz dedicated short-range communications. (b) Clinical device telemetry. A clinician's biometric gate opens an ISO/IEEE 11073 Service-oriented Device Connectivity session from a tablet to an infusion pump over 2.4 GHz; the session is scoped to a single parameter with a hard ceiling and expires after 120 s of inactivity. (c) Yard logistics. Active 433.92 MHz tags with 100 mW transmit power and a 1/3 duty cycle provide 300 m read range; the gate controller requires the operator's biometric gate before a trailer is released, and the release writes a UTC-stamped event with the trailer's odometer-equivalent yard moves.

flowchart TD
    A["Domain transport core"] --> B["ITS gantry link"]
    A --> C["Clinical SDC session"]
    A --> D["Yard active tag network"]
    B --> E["C-V2X PC5 at 5.9 GHz with DSRC fallback"]
    C --> F["IEEE 11073 SDC over 2.4 GHz, 120 s expiry"]
    D --> G["433.92 MHz, 100 mW, 300 m range"]
    E --> H["Biometric-bound settlement record"]
    F --> I["Single parameter scope with hard ceiling"]
    G --> J["Operator gate before trailer release"]

D-3.4 — Integration with Emerging Tech (AI, IoT, Blockchain)

Predictive bearer selection, mesh routing, ledger settlement.

Enabling description. A gradient-boosted model consumes modem PHY counters (CRC error rate, RSSI, clear-channel-assessment busy fraction, retry count) and predicts the best available channel 200 ms ahead with 92 % accuracy on a held-out trace, switching bearers pre-emptively rather than reactively. The device participates as a non-router node in an IEEE 802.15.4/Thread mesh whose border router advertises the reader's service, so that a transaction can traverse two hops when the direct link is obstructed. Settlement messages are encoded as ISO 20022 pacs.008 and hashed into a permissioned ledger; an escrow smart contract releases funds when the merchant submits a signed proof-of-delivery, and the contract retains a 24-hour dispute window during which either party may submit a counter-proof.

sequenceDiagram
    participant D as Device
    participant P as PHY predictor
    participant M as Thread border router
    participant L as Permissioned ledger
    D->>P: PHY counters every 100 ms
    P-->>D: Bearer switch decision for t plus 200 ms
    D->>M: Transaction over 802.15.4 mesh
    M->>L: ISO 20022 pacs.008 digest
    L->>L: Escrow holds funds 24 hours
    L-->>D: Release on merchant proof-of-delivery

D-3.5 — Inverse / Failure Mode

Restricted operation under total link failure.

Enabling description. If all WAN bearers fail and biometric matching fails three consecutive times, the device enters restricted mode: it accepts only locally pre-loaded signed tokens, capped at a cumulative 200 units and a 3-day horizon, and never transmits a PAN; receipts are rendered as an ISO/IEC 18004 QR symbol that the merchant batches to the acquirer out of band. A poisoned modem is recovered by a watchdog that detaches and re-attaches after four consecutive failed attachment attempts, with a 30 s cool-down and no more than three recoveries per hour to prevent a reset loop. Throughout restricted mode the monotonic counter is preserved in the fuse array, and any counter regression forces the device to a hard software-disable that only an authenticated service action can clear.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Normal
    Normal --> Restricted : all WAN bearers lost
    Restricted --> Restricted : token count up to 200 units in 3 days
    Restricted --> Normal : bearer restored
    Normal --> ModemRecovery : four failed attach attempts
    ModemRecovery --> Normal : detach then attach succeeds
    ModemRecovery --> HardDisable : counter regression detected

---

4. Derived Subject Matter for CC-4 (switchable RFID tag with state memory and key comparison)

Claim-mapping flag. The derivative families below are anchored to the switchable-tag subject matter that is disclosed in the specification. The mapping to claims 10–17 (if any) is inferred, because claims 10–20 were not retrievable. These disclosures stand on their own as defensive publications regardless of the mapping.

D-4.1 — Material & Component Substitution

Non-volatile state cell, PUF-based key, bulk-acoustic resonator, optical gate.

Enabling description. The ON/OFF state bit is held in a 1T-1MTJ spin-transfer-torque MRAM cell (5 ns write, 1 × 10¹⁵ endurance, 40 µA at 1.2 V) rather than in EEPROM or ferroelectric memory, which removes the write-endurance ceiling that otherwise caps how often a user may toggle a tag. The comparison key is not stored at all: a 128-bit SRAM start-up PUF response is reconstructed at each power-up with BCH(127,64) error correction, and only helper data (no key material) lives in one-time-programmable memory, so a de-lidded tag yields nothing. Where the tag must operate in a metallic cavity, the LC loop is replaced by a 2.4 GHz thin-film bulk acoustic resonator (Q ≈ 1200), reducing detuning from nearby conductive media. The switch function is performed optically: a 20 mm² amorphous-silicon photodiode charges a 1 pF MIM capacitor that gates a series FET, so illumination at 850 nm above 10 mW/cm² opens the tag, and charge retention holds it open for 200 ms after the light is removed.

classDiagram
    class StateCell {
      +int stt_mram_bit
      +int write_ns
      +int endurance_cycles
    }
    class KeySource {
      +int puf_width_bits
      +int bch_correction
      +int helper_data_otp
    }
    class Resonator {
      +int freq_ghz
      +int quality_factor
    }
    class OpticalGate {
      +int photodiode_area_mm2
      +int wavelength_nm
      +int hold_ms
    }
    StateCell --> KeySource : state gated by key match
    KeySource --> Resonator : match enables modulator
    OpticalGate --> StateCell : illumination sets state

D-4.2 — Operational Parameter Expansion

From 100 µm dust to 30 m container tags, and to hostile environments.

Enabling description. At the small extreme, a 100 µm × 100 µm "dust" tag is fabricated in a 22 nm SOI process with a 2.4 GHz folded dipole formed in the top copper (0.5 µm thick), harvested from a −12 dBm interrogator field, and returns a 96-bit EPC at 10 cm; the state bit is a single MRAM cell. At the large extreme, a 433.92 MHz active container tag uses a 250 mW power amplifier, a coiled quarter-wave whip, and a CR2450 cell (620 mAh) to deliver 30 m read range at one interrogation per minute for seven years of service. Thermal variants are disclosed: an SOI plus tungsten metallization stack qualified at 220 °C for 1,000 h with AuSn die attach, and a −60 °C variant for cold-chain and polar deployments. A radiation-hardened variant is qualified to 300 krad(Si) total ionizing dose with single-event-latchup immunity to 80 MeV·cm²/mg, and the state bit is triplicated with 2-of-3 voting so a single-event upset cannot flip tag readability.

flowchart TD
    A["State-memory tag core"] --> B["100 um dust tag at 2.4 GHz"]
    A --> C["433.92 MHz container tag"]
    A --> D["220 C high-temperature variant"]
    A --> E["Radiation-hardened variant"]
    B --> F["96-bit EPC at 10 cm"]
    C --> G["30 m range, 7 year CR2450 life"]
    D --> H["SOI plus tungsten, AuSn die attach"]
    E --> I["Triplicated state with 2-of-3 voting"]

D-4.3 — Cross-Domain Application (Pharmaceutical, Aerospace, Utility)

One state/key engine, three regulatory wrappers.

Enabling description. (a) Pharmaceuticals. An ISO/IEC 18000-63 inlay on a carton carries a GTIN/SGTIN/SSCC aggregation hierarchy and a tamper-responsive state bit that is rewritten when the seal is broken; a broken-seal read returns the serial with a "compromised" qualifier so downstream systems can quarantine the case. (b) Aerospace. An SAE AS5678-compliant tag is bonded to a nacelle component and survives 150 °C and the specified vibration profile; the state bit is toggled by an authorized maintenance action and the key comparison uses the airline's rotated provisioned secret, so a tag read by an unauthorized handheld returns only a part number. (c) Utility. A 433 MHz tag in a pad-mounted transformer enclosure gates readability on the crew's badge-based biometric verification and toggles state on enclosure opening; the enclosure contains a 2 pF interdigitated tamper mesh so that a forced opening is recorded as a distinct event class. In all three, the state cell, key comparison logic, and conditional-transmission rule are identical; only enclosure, environmental qualification, and data dictionary change.

flowchart TD
    A["Common state and key engine"] --> B["Pharma carton inlay"]
    A --> C["AS5678 aerospace part tag"]
    A --> D["Utility pad-mount tag"]
    B --> E["GTIN SGTIN SSCC aggregation"]
    B --> F["Tamper-responsive state bit"]
    C --> G["Rotated provisioned secret per airline"]
    D --> H["Crew badge biometric gate"]
    D --> I["2 pF tamper mesh event class"]

D-4.4 — Integration with Emerging Tech (AI, IoT, Blockchain)

Clone detection at the fleet level, OTA maintenance, state-channel evidence.

Enabling description. A reader fleet streams EPC read events with millisecond timestamps to an anomaly detector that computes a 128-feature vector per event (inter-arrival statistics, per-reader RF fingerprints, read-to-read latency, sequence entropy, geographic separation per unit time) and applies an isolation forest; cloned tags are detected by implausible spatial-temporal correlation, e.g. reads separated by less than 5 ms at locations 40 km apart, achieving 98.5 % true-positive rate at 0.1 % false-positive rate. Reader firmware is distributed over CoAP block-wise transfer with SUIT manifests and delta encoding. Each ON/OFF transition is modeled as a state-channel update in which the tag's ephemeral key signs the transition and the reader countersigns, and the channel's Merkle root is committed periodically to a base ledger; a dispute is resolved by a fraud proof demonstrating two conflicting transitions signed by the same tag key, which slashes the tag's bond.

sequenceDiagram
    participant T as Tag
    participant R as Reader fleet
    participant A as Anomaly detector
    participant L as Base ledger
    T->>R: Signed ON/OFF transition
    R->>R: Countersign and timestamp
    R->>A: Event stream with RF fingerprint
    A-->>R: Clone alert at 0.1 percent FPR
    R->>L: Periodic Merkle root of channel state
    L-->>R: Fraud proof slashes tag bond on conflict

D-4.5 — Inverse / Failure Mode

Kill, privacy, and tamper-voiding behaviors.

Enabling description. (a) Kill. A 32-bit access-password-protected EPC Gen2 kill command is implemented hardware-wise so that it also opens a polysilicon one-time-programmable fuse; a firmware compromise cannot resurrect the tag because the fuse physically removes the modulator bias. (b) Privacy mode. The tag returns a 12-byte rotating identifier computed as the truncation of H(tag_secret ‖ epoch), where epoch = floor(T/900 s) and T comes from an on-tag RC timekeeper trimmed to within ±3 s/day by a factory calibration constant; legitimate readers that know the secret can enumerate expected values across ±2 epochs, while a third-party observer sees unlinkable pseudonyms. (c) Tamper voiding. A capacitive tamper mesh (interdigitated copper traces on a flexible cover lamina, nominal 2 pF) triggers the same fuse when ΔC exceeds 15 %, after which the tag emits a permanently static "voided" EPC that downstream systems classify as a compromised asset rather than a missing one — a deliberate design so that an attacker gains no benefit and a custodian gains an alarm.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Active
    Active --> PrivacyMode : privacy command or shield event
    PrivacyMode --> PrivacyMode : epoch rotates every 900 s
    PrivacyMode --> Active : authenticated reader with epoch drift window
    Active --> Voided : tamper mesh delta C over 15 percent
    Active --> Killed : 32-bit password kill plus OTP fuse
    Voided --> Voided : static voided EPC emitted
    Killed --> [*]

---

5. Derived Subject Matter for CC-5 (state-dependent shielding, embedded membrane switch, reader geometry)

Claim-mapping flag. As with CC-4, the claim mapping for these families to claims 17–20 (if any) is inferred. The technical disclosures are independent of that mapping.

D-5.1 — Material & Component Substitution

Shield materials and a tuned, switchable stopband.

Enabling description. Four substitute shield chemistries are disclosed at equivalent electromagnetic performance. (a) MXene. A Ti₃C₂Tₓ spray coating 10–15 µm thick with 15,000 S/cm film conductivity yields 45 dB shielding effectiveness at 13.56 MHz on a paper or polymer lamina and tolerates repeated flexing to a 20 mm bend radius. (b) Silver nanowire. A 30 nm-diameter nanowire network at 60 % optical transmittance and 25 Ω/sq provides a transparent shield so that a photograph or license may remain legible through the shielding layer. (c) Carbon nanotube/PDMS composite. A 200 µm cast film gives 30 dB with a 200 % elongation at break for applications where the shield must survive extreme deformation. (d) Varactor-tuned frequency-selective surface. Two stacked layers of 8 mm split-ring resonators on flexible PET, each loaded by a varactor bank, shift the stopband between 8 MHz and 30 MHz on command from 0 to 12 V, so shielding can be enabled or disabled electronically rather than mechanically. A Nitinol clasp with austenite finish at 65 °C closes the shield automatically and is released by a 1 A, 200 ms pulse.

flowchart TD
    A["Shield requirement"] --> B["MXene spray 45 dB"]
    A --> C["AgNW transparent 25 Ohm per square"]
    A --> D["CNT PDMS 200 percent elongation"]
    A --> E["Varactor FSS 8 to 30 MHz"]
    B --> F["Flexible lamina bond with 25 um PSA"]
    C --> F
    D --> F
    E --> G["Electronic enable or disable at 0 to 12 V"]
    F --> H["Nitinol clasp auto-close at 65 C"]

D-5.2 — Operational Parameter Expansion

Extreme effectiveness, thickness, band coverage, and scale.

Enabling description. A tri-layer stack (AgNW / CNT / MXene) at 20 µm total thickness delivers 62 dB at 13.56 MHz and 48 dB at 915 MHz with a 1.8 Ω/sq surface resistance, verified from −196 °C (liquid nitrogen immersion) to 200 °C with less than 6 % change in sheet resistance. A cryogenic variant uses gold-plated copper mesh for superconducting-adjacent environments. For multi-band operation, the FSS elements are nested so that the same lamina attenuates 125 kHz, 13.56 MHz, and 860–960 MHz simultaneously, which matters where a single document carries tags at more than one band. At industrial scale, a 6 m × 2.4 m lining of nickel-copper ripstop fabric (80 dB at 900 MHz) encloses a full pallet or a shipping container interior, and the same chemistry can be laser-cut at 355 nm, 50 W, at 1 m/s into shield inserts sized to a passport, a driver's license, or a credit card.

flowchart LR
    A["Tri-layer shield stack"] --> B["20 um total thickness"]
    A --> C["62 dB at 13.56 MHz"]
    A --> D["48 dB at 915 MHz"]
    A --> E["minus 196 C to plus 200 C"]
    F["Nested FSS lamina"] --> G["125 kHz and 13.56 MHz and 860 to 960 MHz"]
    H["Container-scale Ni-Cu ripstop"] --> I["80 dB at 900 MHz over 6 m by 2.4 m"]
    J["355 nm laser cutting"] --> K["Passport, license, and card insert formats"]

D-5.3 — Cross-Domain Application (Nuclear Transport, Cold Chain, Agriculture)

State-dependent shielding in three custody regimes.

Enabling description. (a) Nuclear and hazardous material transport. A shield pouch encloses a container tag so that the container is unreadable except during a supervised 30-second inspection window, which opens only under a two-person biometric rule and logs an audit record naming both verifiers, the timestamp, and the window duration. (b) Cold chain. A shielded tote keeps a pallet-level UHF tag dark in transit; opening the tote is detected by an ambient-light sensor (ALS-PT19 class, 1 lx threshold with a 50 ms debounce), which posts an event with a temperature reading from a firmware-calibrated thermistor (±0.2 °C) and a UTC timestamp, so any warm excursion is attributable to a specific opening. (c) Agriculture. A shielded grain-bin liner prevents unauthorized reads of a seed-lot tag, and the person who opens the bin is biometrically verified against a farm management information system API before the lot's chain-of-custody record is advanced; a second, deliberately readable tag on the bin exterior carries only the lot category, so that casual inventory scanning does not require opening the shield.

flowchart TD
    A["State-dependent shield"] --> B["Nuclear transport pouch"]
    A --> C["Cold-chain tote"]
    A --> D["Grain bin liner"]
    B --> E["30 s window under two-person biometric rule"]
    C --> F["Light sensor plus thermistor event"]
    D --> G["FMIS biometric verification before custody advance"]
    E --> H["Audit record with both verifiers"]
    F --> I["Excursion attribution to specific opening"]
    G --> J["Exterior category-only decoy tag"]

D-5.4 — Integration with Emerging Tech (AI, IoT, Blockchain)

Second-signal verification and provable custody.

Enabling description. A 5 MP camera in the reader slot runs a two-class segmentation network (≈ 3 MB weights, 12 ms per frame on an embedded NPU) that asserts "open" or "closed" from the visible page geometry; the assertion is corrupted with the RF RSSI reading so that a physical shield bypass that leaves the document closed is caught by the vision signal and vice versa. The container's module (NB-IoT, LTE Cat-M1, 23 dBm) publishes state on change only, with a 5-minute heartbeat, and buffers 500 events through outages. Each state change is issued as a W3C Verifiable Credential (Data Model 2.0) signed by the authority's DID key, with a selective-disclosure proof so that a downstream party can verify "no unauthorized open in the last 30 days" without learning the itinerary; the credential chain is anchored to a permissioned ledger supporting electronic consignment notes aligned with MLETR, giving the custodian a cryptographic chain rather than a paper one.

sequenceDiagram
    participant S as Shielded container
    participant V as Vision model
    participant N as NB-IoT module
    participant I as Issuer authority
    participant L as Permissioned ledger
    S->>V: Page geometry frame
    V-->>S: Open or closed assertion with RF RSSI
    S->>N: State change event
    N->>I: Request credential issuance
    I->>L: Signed Verifiable Credential anchored
    L-->>S: Selective disclosure proof for customs

D-5.5 — Inverse / Failure Mode

Deliberate de-shielding, safety fail-open, and decoy signaling.

Enabling description. (a) Inspection override. A service mode keyed to a rotating six-digit code opens the shield for 60 s; the event is logged in a distinct class so that a regulator can distinguish an inspection from an intrusion, and the override counter is capped at 10 per device lifetime. (b) Safety fail-open. For medical and emergency applications, a shock/tilt sensor (ADXL345-class, ±16 g range) combined with the absence of a detected heartbeat for 60 s triggers shield release so that first responders can read critical information; the release is powered by a 0.1 F electric double-layer capacitor that holds sufficient charge for 30 minutes at −20 °C, so the mechanism does not depend on the primary cell. (c) Decoy signaling. A second tag 3 mm from the shielded tag returns a plausible-but-invalid UID with a deliberately stronger backscattered response (≈ 5 dB), so that a skimmer harvests the decoy first; the decoy's reads are reported to a federated threat exchange keyed on the interrogator's RF fingerprint, and the decoy UID is rotated weekly from a per-lot seed.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Shielded
    Shielded --> InspectionWindow : rotating six-digit service code
    InspectionWindow --> Shielded : 60 s elapsed
    Shielded --> FailOpen : shock plus no heartbeat for 60 s
    FailOpen --> Shielded : responder reset with EDLC reserve
    Shielded --> DecoyActive : interrogator fingerprint unknown
    DecoyActive --> Shielded : decoy UID presented and reported

---

6. Summary of enabling parameter deltas (for examiner and POSITA reference)

---

7. Combination Prior-Art Scenarios (patent-plus-open-standard)

Each scenario below is a combination prior-art disclosure: it discloses the specific practice of using the subject patent's mechanism together with a named, publicly documented standard, so that a later claim to that combination is anticipated or rendered obvious by the combination of the patent and the standard alone.

C-1 — CC-1 with ISO/IEC 14443-4 + FIDO2 CTAP2 over NFC + W3C Web NFC

Enabling description. The phone exposes a host-card-emulation endpoint at ISO/IEC 14443-4, and the biometric gate is bound to a FIDO2 CTAP2 getAssertion call whose hmac-secret extension derives a per-credential secret; the payment application derives its diversified key from that secret rather than storing one. A web page uses the W3C Web NFC NDEFReader interface to write a signed NDEF challenge to the tag, and the platform refuses to release the assertion unless the biometric match has completed. The observable result is that a browser-initiated tap transaction cannot be completed without the OS biometric prompt, and the credential is bound to the device rather than to a bearer token. Standards invoked: ISO/IEC 14443-4, FIDO2/CTAP2, W3C Web NFC. Publishable as a specification plus reference implementation.

sequenceDiagram
    participant W as Web page via Web NFC
    participant P as Phone platform
    participant B as Biometric gate
    participant S as Secure element
    W->>P: NDEFReader writes challenge tag
    P->>B: Require CTAP2 getAssertion
    B-->>P: Match confirmed
    P->>S: hmac-secret derives diversified key
    S->>W: Signed assertion, transaction completes

C-2 — CC-2 with Bluetooth LE Secure Connections + Matter door-lock cluster + Thread

Enabling description. A door lock is a Matter endpoint implementing the Door Lock cluster over Thread, with commissioning performed over Bluetooth LE Secure Connections using numeric comparison. The patent's dual-approval mechanism is layered as a Matter-level "double factor required" policy: the commissioner must complete the LESC pairing (or a later credential check) and a local physical actuation on the phone before the lock's UnlockDoor command is accepted, and the local actuation is proven by a monotonically increasing counter carried in the command's TLV extension field. The disclosure specifies the encoding of the counter (uint32, little-endian), the TLV tag number reserved for it, and the rejection behavior (lock responds with UNSUPPORTED_COMMAND and logs a failed attempt).

flowchart LR
    A["Matter commissioner over BLE LESC"] --> B["Thread mesh to lock node"]
    B --> C["Door Lock cluster command"]
    D["Local physical actuation on phone"] --> E["Monotonic counter in TLV tag"]
    E --> C
    C --> F["Lock verifies both factors"]
    F -->|"both present"| G["UnlockDoor accepted"]
    F -->|"one missing"| H["Rejected and logged"]

C-3 — CC-4 with GS1/EPC Gen2 v2 (ISO/IEC 18000-63) + OPC UA PubSub (IEC 62541) + TSN

Enabling description. A switchable tag implements the ISO/IEC 18000-63 (Gen2 v2) optional commands Untraceable, Authenticate, and Kill, and additionally maps the ON/OFF state to the Hide behavior so that a hidden tag answers only to an Authenticate'd reader. The reader publishes tag events on an OPC UA PubSub publisher using the JSON encoding with a DataSetWriter whose field set is {EPC, state_bit, reader_id, assertion_counter, timestamp}, transported over time-sensitive networking with an IEEE 802.1Qbv time-aware schedule allocating 200 µs windows every 1 ms to RFID traffic, so that tag events carry bounded latency into the controller. This discloses the combination of a gated state-memory tag with an industrial publish/subscribe stack, including the reserved field order.

flowchart TD
    A["State-memory tag"] --> B["Gen2 v2 Authenticate command"]
    B --> C["Hidden tag answers authenticated reader only"]
    C --> D["OPC UA PubSub JSON DataSet"]
    D --> E["Fields: EPC, state_bit, reader_id, counter, timestamp"]
    E --> F["802.1Qbv TSN schedule, 200 us per 1 ms"]
    F --> G["Controller receives bounded-latency event"]

C-4 — CC-3 with GSMA SGP.32 eSIM + 3GPP 5G SA/RedCap + ISO 20022 + W3C Payment Request API

Enabling description. The transaction is initiated through the W3C Payment Request API in a browser running on the device, which invokes a payment handler backed by an eSIM-provisioned profile (GSMA SGP.32 consumer/eSIM IoT profile, IPA/ eIM architecture) over a 5G standalone connection using NR RedCap for reduced complexity. Settlement uses ISO 20022 pacs.008 with an EndToEndIdentification populated from the FIDO-derived credential reference, and the local short-range leg uses ISO/IEC 14443 with the biometric gate as the assertion source. The disclosure specifies the mapping table from Payment Request API PaymentResponse fields to ISO 20022 message elements, so the combination is reproducible end to end.

sequenceDiagram
    participant B as Browser Payment Request
    participant P as Payment handler
    participant E as eSIM profile via SGP.32
    participant N as 5G SA NR RedCap
    participant C as Clearing via ISO 20022
    B->>P: PaymentRequest initiated
    P->>E: Profile selection and identity assertion
    E->>N: Established data path
    P->>P: Biometric gate closes local ISO 14443 leg
    N->>C: pacs.008 with EndToEndIdentification
    C-->>B: PaymentResponse completed

C-5 — CC-5 with ICAO Doc 9303 LDS2 + BAC/PACE + W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0 + Digital Product Passport

Enabling description. A shielded identity booklet implements ICAO Doc 9303 logical data structure with password-authenticated connection establishment (PACE) and the LDS2 addendum for travel and visa records; the shield interlock prevents any RF field from reaching the chip until the booklet is opened, and the reader must complete PACE within the 30-second shield-release window (see D-5.3). On top of the travel-document layer, the same device issues a W3C Verifiable Credential 2.0 asserting residence or product provenance for a Digital Product Passport, with the credential's credentialStatus pointing to a revocation list anchored in a Merkle tree so that revocation can be proven without disclosing the holder's identity. The disclosure specifies the credential schema fields and the shield state precondition for issuance.

flowchart TD
    A["Shielded booklet with interlock"] --> B["Shield release window 30 s"]
    B --> C["ICAO 9303 PACE session established"]
    C --> D["LDS2 travel and visa records read"]
    D --> E["W3C VC 2.0 issuance"]
    E --> F["credentialStatus revocation anchored in Merkle tree"]
    F --> G["Digital Product Passport or residence assertion"]

---

8. Recommended publication protocol

1. Vehicle. Deposit this document with a timestamping service that assigns a persistent identifier and a verifiable publication date (DOI or equivalent), and file a deliberately non-prosecuted U.S. non-provisional application directed to at least one of the derivative families above so that publication under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b) fixes an effective filing date independent of the archival deposit.
2. Content-control rule. Do not narrow the disclosure by deleting alternate parameters after filing; the value of a defensive publication is inversely proportional to the specificity of a single embodiment. Publish the enumerated ranges, the substitution tables, and the negative examples (the failure modes in D-1.5, D-2.5, D-3.5, D-4.5, D-5.5).
3. Standards hooks. File C-1 through C-5 as separate, citeable items with their own identifiers, because their defensive value runs against standards-implementing defendants, who will argue that the standards themselves are the prior art.
4. Do not rely on this document against subject matter entitled to the 2005-05-06 priority date claimed by the subject patent family. Its defensive effect is on filings made on or after the publication date, and on subject matter not entitled to that priority.

---

9. Verification gaps and explicit confidence bounds

• Claims 10–20 of US 12,039,396 were not retrieved. The pre-grant publication US 2024/0160867 A1 reproduces claims 1–9 only. All CC-4 and CC-5 derivatives are therefore mapped to spec-disclosed subject matter, not to verified claim language. Confidence in the CC-4/CC-5 mapping: low to moderate; confidence in the technical disclosures themselves as standalone prior art: high.
• Claim 18 remains unretrieved and is the one claim omitted from the litigation's asserted set. It is a blind spot for this derivation exercise and should be pulled from the printed patent.
• I used no authenticated USPTO system. The patent was confirmed literally by number through Google Patents and Justia; no similar-number record was substituted.
• The technology in §1–§5 is disclosed as constructively enabled. The numeric parameters are engineering-realistic and internally consistent; they are not drawn from a laboratory record, and they should be read as disclosure content, not as measured data.
• Date basis used: April 26, 2026, per this task. An earlier section of this workstream used 2026-09-23; that difference does not change any derivative in this document, but it does change whether the subject patent is described as near expiry or expired, and that distinction should be resolved before this document is relied on in any litigation-facing argument.