US 10171460

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation/docket activity.

Let me search for the specific claims of US10171460 and verify the Federal Circuit docket involvement.

US Patent 10,171,460 — Analyst Summary

⚠️ Scope note up front: I ran web searches against public mirrors of USPTO data (Google Patents, Justia, Espacenet, PTAB/PTACTS, Darts-ip litigation flag) and secondary litigation reporting. I did not get a direct live query of USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the CAFC docket system. Where I am relying on inference rather than retrieved text, I say so explicitly.

1. Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text provided + Google Patents record)

Continuation relationships (from the record): the application claims priority to 2010-03-15 and is in a chain that includes US 16/200,580 → US 11,095,640 B1, and US 17/344,600 → US 12,273,339 B1. Siblings sharing the same specification include US 10,217,339 and US 10,971,251.

2. Abstract (verbatim, as published)

"A system and method provide automatic access to applications or data. A portable physical device, referred to herein as a Personal Digital Key or 'PDK', stores one or more profiles in memory, including a biometric profile acquired in a secure trusted process and uniquely associated with a user that is authorized to use and associated with the PDK. The PDK wirelessly transmits identification information including a unique PDK identification number, the biometric profile and a profile over a secure wireless channel to a reader. A computing device is coupled to the reader. An auto login server is coupled to the reader and the computing device and launches one or more applications associated with a user name identified by the received profile."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims — with a caveat

Caveat on sourcing: The authoritative full text supplied to me is the specification (and it is truncated mid-§FIG. 19, before the claims section). Neither that text nor my searches returned the verbatim claim set of US 10,171,460. What follows is a reasoned reconstruction from the abstract, the specification's stated "Summary" language, and the parallel sibling claims (e.g., US 10,217,339). Treat claim phrasing as approximate; do not rely on it as verbatim claim language.

Based on the title, abstract, and specification, US 10,171,460 appears to carry two principal independent-claim families — a system claim (auto-access) and a tracking claim:

A. System claim (automatic application/data access) — approximately:
A system comprising:

1. a Personal Digital Key (PDK) storing one or more profiles in memory, including a biometric profile acquired in a secure trusted process and uniquely associated with an authorized user;
2. a reader configured to wirelessly communicate with the PDK when in a proximity zone, and to receive a profile (the PDK transmits a unique PDK ID + biometric profile over a secure channel);
3. a computing device coupled to the reader, configured to display data on a display responsive to receiving data associated with the profile; and
4. an auto login server coupled to the reader and to the computing device, configured to receive the profile and launch, on the computing device, application(s) associated with a user name identified by the profile.

B. Tracking-claim family (per the "…and item tracking" title):
A system comprising a PDK with a profile uniquely associated with an object, a reader wirelessly communicating with the PDK and receiving profile information, and a tracking server configured to track and log location information of the PDK/object received from the reader. (This tracking aspect is expressly claimed in sibling US 10,217,339; whether US 10,171,460 carries it as an independent claim or only as dependent/specification support I could not confirm.)

Functional features clearly supported by the specification (likely in dependent claims): profile authentication via biometric / PIN / photo / registry; device authentication (challenge–response/CHAP); time-interval-based "lazy" re-authentication; multi-PDK differentiation within a proximity zone (distance, location, duration metrics); directional proximity zones; auto-logout when the PDK leaves the proximity zone; and third-party registry/service links.

4. USPTO & CAFC 2026 docket findings for 10171460

This is where I need to be precise about what the searches did and did not show:

• No CAFC 2026 docket naming US 10,171,460 as the patent on appeal was found. The live 2026 Federal Circuit activity in this family that surfaced is Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc. / Microsoft (Docket 26-1292, Fed. Cir.), in which Proxense filed its opening brief in early April 2026. The patents actually at issue in that appeal are U.S. 8,886,954 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication") and U.S. 8,352,730 — arising from IPRs IPR2024-00233 / -00846 / -00232 — not 10,171,460. Source: ip fray's April 2026 report and the reproduced opening brief.
• US 10,171,460 does appear in USPTO PTAB/PTACTS records, but as a cited prior-art reference in a search list, in the petition documents for IPR2024-00405 (an IPR of a different patent, U.S. 10,073,960), where "10171460" appears in a long enumerated list of patent numbers. That is not a challenge to 10,171,460 itself.
• Litigation flag: Google Patents identifies this patent's family as having worldwide litigation (Darts-ip family 44559428). Proxense's 2024–2026 enforcement campaign has named Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Intel, and LG, but the identified asserted patents in the reported decisions are the 8,886,954 / 8,352,730 / PDK-RDC families, not 10,171,460.

Bottom line: I found no authoritative 2026 CAFC proceeding in which 10,171,460 specifically is the appealed patent. If such a docket exists, I could not retrieve it.

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. Verbatim claim text for 10,171,460 was not retrievable in accessible sources; the §3 overview is inferential. Independent-claim count and exact wording are unconfirmed.
2. CAFC docket attribution: Docket 26-1292 (Proxense v. Apple) was returned against a search that included "10171460," but the substantive reporting ties it to 8,886,954/8,352,730. I could not confirm whether 10,171,460 is also asserted in the underlying stayed district-court litigations.
3. Abstract source: the abstract quoted matches Proxense-family PDK language; note sibling US 10,217,339 uses a slightly different abstract (explicitly reciting "one or more of an auto login server and a tracking server"), so verify the abstract against the face of the 10,171,460 grant before relying on it.

Sources consulted: Google Patents record for US10171460B2 (patents.google.com/patent/US10171460B2/en); Justia Patents (assignee page for Proxense, LLC); Espacenet original-document record for US10171460 B2; ip fray, "PTAB abused discretion by staying reexamination…" (April 2026) and the Proxense v. Apple/Microsoft opening brief PDF; USPTO PTACTS IPR2024-00405 petition documents; Docket Alarm search result (Fed. Cir. Docket 26-1292); wiki.golden.com abstract listing.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10171460 across patent litigation databases.

Let me dig deeper into the Proxense litigation and the specific patent.

Let me search for whether this specific patent was ever asserted in the Proxense campaigns.

Bottom line

Based on my searches, I could not identify any litigation in which US Patent 10,171,460 ("the '460 patent") was itself asserted as a patent-in-suit. What the record does show is:

1. The '460 patent is a Proxense LLC patent (inventor John J. Giobbi), and Proxense ran an extensive, well-documented infringement campaign from 2021 through 2025; and
2. Google Patents' family record for the '460 patent carries a "Family has litigation" indicator (Darts-IP family ID 44559428) — but that flag is at the family level, not proof that the '460 patent specifically was pleaded in any case.

I want to be explicit about the limits of this answer: my research was cut off before I could fully verify every Proxense docket, so I cannot state with high confidence that the '460 patent has never been asserted. I found no case naming it, but absence of a hit is not the same as proof of absence.

What I searched

• General web search for "10171460" litigation and litigation databases (Unified Patents, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, CourtListener, Justia, ip fray, Patent Progress).
• Proxense-specific searches (dockets, PTAB petitions, complaints).
• Direct queries tying "10,171,460" to a complaint or district-court case number. These returned no litigation hit for the '460 patent specifically.

The "10171460" strings that did appear in other results were unrelated (e.g., an EP priority number 10171460 in a rock-wool patent, a Brazilian exam registration number, a Ukrainian court case number) — I am not treating any of those as relevant, consistent with the instruction to interpret identifiers literally and not conflate similar numbers.

Context: the Proxense campaign (sibling patents)

The '460 patent sits in Proxense's "Proximity-based system…" family (priority date 2010-03-15, granted 2019-01-01). Proxense asserted a large portfolio of related patents in W.D. Tex. (Judge Alan D. Albright) and elsewhere. The patents I confirmed as actually asserted in these cases do not include 10,171,460:

Sources consulted include: Justia Dockets (6:21-cv-00210), the Docket Alarm PTAB filings (IPR2021-01444 re '730; IPR2021-01439 re '700; IPR2024-00573 re '042), CourtListener RECAP documents in W.D. Tex. case 6:23-cv-00319, RPX Insight complaint excerpts, ip fray's coverage of the Hyundai/KIA/Genesis complaint and the USPTO reexamination decision, and PatSnap's case summary of Proxense v. Samsung.

Important caveat and next steps

• I could not definitively rule out that the '460 patent was named in some Proxense pleading (e.g., an amended complaint, a case I could not fully retrieve, or a Darts-IP family-level entry). The Darts-IP "family has litigation" flag (family 44559428) is the strongest signal pointing toward some litigation activity touching this patent family, but a family flag does not establish that 10,171,460 itself was asserted.
• To close the gap, the authoritative checks would be: (a) PACER docket searches for "10,171,460" or "10171460" across Proxense cases; (b) the Unified Patents litigation portal and Darts-IP for the exact patent number; and (c) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's P-TACTS for any IPR/PGR naming 10,171,460 (I saw Proxense IPRs on sibling patents, but none on the '460 patent).

I am flagging this as an open item rather than asserting a negative I cannot fully support.

I'll verify the structured block's "no PTAB activity" finding against live sources before reporting.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,171,460: ZERO. There are no Inter Partes Reviews, no Post-Grant Reviews, and no Covered Business Method reviews on file naming the '460 patent as the challenged patent — the structured USPTO ODP block reports none, and my live searches corroborate that null result. Breakdown by status is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied.

Defensive posture: This is a blank slate, not a hardened patent. Nothing about the '460 patent has ever been tested at the Board, so there is no PTAB estoppel, no claim-cancellation shield, and no Board-construed claim term to work from. That cuts both ways for a defendant: you get to write on a clean page, but you also forfeit the benefit of any prior petitioner's investment, and you face the reality that a 2010-priority Proxense patent asserted in 2026 will run into the PTO's current "settled expectations" discretionary-denial posture. The absence of any IPR on this specific patent is itself meaningful — see the strategic summary.

Proceedings on file

None. Each of the sections below would ordinarily appear here; there is no proceeding to populate them.

I will not manufacture a proceeding number, panel, or FWD to fill this space. The instruction to avoid fabrication controls.

Verified null result — what I checked, and the near-misses

Because a zero-count answer is only useful if it is well-supported, here is the affirmative evidence that the absence is real and not an indexing gap:

Family members that have been challenged at the Board (all Proxense, same inventor, but not the '460 patent):

The pattern is unmistakable: Proxense's 2021–2025 IPR exposure has been concentrated on the PDK authentication / integrated-device patents (the 8,886,954/8,352,730/8,646,042/9,679,289/10,698,989 line) and the '042/'960 hybrid-device line. The "Proximity-Based System for Automatic Application or Data Access and Item Tracking" family (priority 2010-03-15: US 9,418,205 → 9,807,091 → 10,171,460 → 10,217,339 → 11,095,640 → 12,273,339) — the family the '460 belongs to — has not been taken to the Board on the '460 itself.

One important distinction to keep straight: the reexaminations in the record are ex parte reexaminations on sibling patents (90/015,052 on the '730; 90/015,054 on the '905), not AIA trials and not on the '460. Ex parte reexam is a third-party-filed, non-AIA mechanism; do not treat it as PTAB activity.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested — for this patent: all claims are UNTESTED. Not one claim of US 10,171,460 has ever been construed by the Board, cancelled, or confirmed in an AIA trial. For comparison, its sibling US 11,095,640 drew a Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art bounty in 2025 (claim 17 targeted — see https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/6/30/2000-for-proxense-authentication-patent-prior-art), and siblings 8,886,954/8,646,042 have been invalidated — but that sibling activity is a template, not a judgment about the '460's claims. Because the prior-art section did not confirm claim language for the '460 (the supplied specification is truncated before the claims), I cannot tell you which claims would be at risk; that gap needs closing before any petition is drafted.

Estoppel landscape: None. No proceeding means no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, and no petitioner (or privy) is barred from raising any ground. For a defendant presently being asserted on the '460, the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art remains available — including art that failed on sibling patents, provided it is actually mapped to the '460's own claim limitations (which likely differ from the 8,886,954 "integrated device" claims). The one thing to watch is that the adverse FWDs on the sibling patents are now public and are themselves prior art / § 112 and § 103 fodder, and the sibling claim-construction orders (e.g., W.D. Tex. Proxense v. Microsoft, No. 6:23-cv-00319, and Proxense v. Google, No. 6:23-cv-00320) give you the patent owner's own constructions — powerful admissions you can use both in a petition and in district court.

Pattern signals: (1) No petitioner has filed on the '460 — not Apple, not Microsoft, not Google, not Samsung, not Unified. (2) Proxense is an aggressive appellate actor: it took the adverse IPR2024-00233/-00846 decisions up on Fed. Cir. 26-1292 (opening brief filed 2026-04-03), arguing APA violations in the PTAB's stay of the parallel reexam — see https://ipfray.com/ptab-abused-discretion-by-staying-reexamination-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/. Expect the same fight if you petition on the '460. (3) Unified Patents is active in this portfolio only via bounty/PATROLL, not as a petitioner on the '460 — so there is no defensive-aggregator IPR chain to ride. (4) The 2025+ PTO discretionary-denial practice — the "Proxense doctrine" of settled expectations (patents in force ~9+ years "create settled expectations") — is a real headwind: a 2019-granted, 2010-priority patent is exactly the profile that drew denial in Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC (2025). Any petition must pre-empt that with a material-error or change-of-law showing, or with evidence that the '460 sits outside your technology space.

Recommended next steps

1. No FWD to link, because none exists. There is no proceeding, so there is no claims-cancelled argument to press and no FWD disposition to quote. If someone tells you the '460 "has been invalidated" or "survived IPR," that claim is unsupported — the Board has never touched this patent. Ask them for the proceeding number; there isn't one.
2. Priority action — pull the verbatim claim set. The single biggest gap is that the granted claims of US 10,171,460 were not retrievable in the sources used here. Before drafting anything, obtain the claim set from USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB E2E and confirm the independent-claim count against the truncated specification. Do not rely on the analytic reconstruction in the earlier section as claim language.
3. If you are contemplating a petition: budget for the Fintiv/General Plastic/"settled expectations" fight first. Given the new discretionary-denial posture, the most viable framing is either (a) a material examiner error theory tied to the parent 9,807,091/9,418,205 prosecution, or (b) a technology-space argument that the '460 is far outside your accused product. Also confirm no § 315(b) time bar has run from any earlier complaint service.
4. Monitor Fed. Cir. 26-1292. A Proxense win would restore the 8,886,954 claims and signal a receptive court to PTAB-procedure challenges; a loss would confirm the Board's approach and strengthen the argument that this family is invalidatable. Docket via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com — search Fed. Cir. Docket 26-1292 (Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc. / Microsoft Corp.).
5. Set a watch on PTAB E2E and PTACTS for any newly-filed petition naming 10,171,460. The absence of IPRs to date is anomalous for a patent in this portfolio's enforcement footprint, and it is a plausible target — a competitor or defensive aggregator may yet file.

Sources: USPTO ODP/structured PTAB block (no proceedings); PTACTS petition documents (Sisvel IPR2021-00815) showing "10171460" as a cited reference, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558620; Google Patents US10171460B2; Unified Patents PATROLL, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/6/30/2000-for-proxense-authentication-patent-prior-art; ip fray, Proxense appellate coverage, https://ipfray.com/ptab-abused-discretion-by-staying-reexamination-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/; Docket Alarm IPR2024-00846, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00846/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,171,460. Let me run several searches in parallel.

I found a key artifact. Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment record for the '460 and the recurring correspondent.

I have enough to reconstruct the chain. Here is the ownership analysis.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,171,460

Retrieval caveat up front: My live access to the USPTO Patent Assignment Search (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) was cut off by the search budget before I could pull the face of the '460's own recording. I confirmed the existence and dates of the single recorded assignment from the Google Patents legal-events record, and I recovered a verbatim assignment-abstract table for a sibling patent in the same chain (the '905), which supplies the correspondent-of-record and corporate address details. I could not retrieve the '460's own reel/frame number or its named correspondent, and I say so explicitly below rather than guessing a reel number.

Inventors

• The face of US 10,171,460 (per the granted-patent record and the authoritative specification text) lists a single inventor, John J. Giobbi. This is consistent with the abstract/specification's first-person Proxense "PDK" disclosure.
• Note for completeness: other members of this patent family name additional co-inventors — e.g., US 10,374,795 ("Personal Digital Key Initialization and Registration") names John J. Giobbi; David L. Brown (Jupiter, FL); Fred S. Hirt (Brookfield, IL). Those co-inventors are not on the '460. (Source: US10374795B1 face; US 10,197,460 full text.)
• No inventor-departure anomaly. Giobbi did not exit the assignee. He continues to be named on Proxense applications through at least a 2025 publication (last publication date 2025-11-13 per patents-review.com). There is no "all inventors left within 12 months → fire-sale" pattern.
• The only assignee family for Giobbi's work is Proxense, LLC (57 listed applications), plus a single outlier, "Margent Development, LLC" (1). Margent does not appear in the '460 chain.

Original assignee

So the original assignee did ship products embodying the technology historically, but it is no longer a product company — it monetizes the portfolio through licensing and litigation.

Assignment timeline

Only one post-filing assignment is recorded against this patent. There is no LLC-to-LLC cascade.

• Executed on or about 2017-09-28 (unconfirmed) / recorded 2017-10-06 — Reel/Frame: NOT RETRIEVED (see caveat)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: GIOBBI, JOHN J.
  • Assignee: PROXENSE, LLC, 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this patent. The recurring correspondent on the Proxense recording chain is PAIGE M. ALSBURY, 201 S. Main Street, Suite 250, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 — verbatim from the assignment abstract of record for sibling US 9,298,905 (application 14/521,982), Reel/Frame 034843/0145, recorded 2015-01-29, the same Giobbi→Proxense conveyance type. Flag: this Salt Lake City patent-works address (Alsbury / "Patent Law Works-Proxense") recurs across the Proxense family's recordings and prosecution, so the same agent/firm appears to run the Proxense ownership paperwork even though I could not confirm the name on the '460's own sheet.
  • Context: inventor→company assignment (the standard founder-to-entity recording made nine days after the 2017-09-28 filing). Not a sale, not a fire-sale, not a securitization.

Google Patents legal-events confirmation of the above (from the authoritative record supplied):

• 2017-09-28 — Application filed by Proxense LLC
• 2017-10-06 — Assigned to PROXENSE, LLC — reassignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS) — Assignors: GIOBBI, JOHN J"
• 2019-01-01 — Application granted / Publication of US10171460B2

⚠️ Contradiction check vs. the prior sections: the litigation summary stated the '460 sits in the Darts-ip family 44559428 flagged "family has litigation." The assignment record shows no transfer to any asserting vehicle — the litigation, to the extent the family is involved, is brought by Proxense, LLC itself as the named owner (its complaints state it "is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title and interest"). There is no party change in the chain that would explain the litigation flag. That is consistent, not contradictory.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10171460
    2010 : Family priority date
    2017 : Application filed by Proxense LLC
         : Giobbi assigns to Proxense LLC
    2019 : Patent issued
    2021 : Proxense enforcement campaign begins
    2025 : Sibling 640 asserted vs Hyundai

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent moved from inventor Giobbi to Proxense, LLC (Reel 034843/0145-form recording, 2017-10-06) and has stayed with Proxense; there is no transfer to a licensing-only "IP/Holdings/Ventures" vehicle. Proxense's address is its corporate headquarters in Bend, OR (689 NW Stonepine Drive), not a registered-agent service. The "LLC" suffix is incidental — Proxense has been incorporated since 2005 and is the original assignee, not a post-hoc shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (moderate). Proxense does not match the enumerated classic-NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, etc.). However, the signal's catch-all ("any entity surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff") is met: Proxense is documented by RPX Insight litigation records and by ip fray as a serial filer that sued Samsung (6:21-cv-00210, W.D. Tex., filed 2021-03-05), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319), LG, Google, Apple, Intel, and Hyundai/KIA/Genesis between 2021 and 2025. Proxense is the owner of record on all of them.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (leaning present at the family level). Within this chain there is only one link, so intra-chain recurrence cannot be shown. Across the family, the recording/duplicate-work is centralized: Paige M. Alsbury, 201 S. Main St, Suite 250, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 appears as correspondent on the sibling '905 recording (Reel 034843/0145, recorded 2015-01-29), and the same Salt Lake City "Patent Law Works / Proxense" address appears as the family's correspondence address on file histories (e.g. the '954 abstract, 2013) and as Patent Owner's IPR counsel (Greg Sueoka, 4516 South 700 East, Suite 290, Salt Lake City, UT 84107). One recurring Salt Lake City firm handles the Proxense family's ownership/prosecution paperwork — but I could not confirm the specific correspondent named on the '460's own sheet, so I do not upgrade this beyond "unclear."

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One recorded assignment; zero chained LLCs; zero common-correspondent cascades. The "priority to US16/200,580" and "priority to US17/344,600" events on Google Patents are continuation filings, not assignments, and must not be mistaken for ownership transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The recording is dated 2017-10-06; the first Proxense suit in this family (Samsung, 6:21-cv-00210) was filed 2021-03-05 — roughly 3.4 years later. No within-6-months pre-suit transfer exists, and the '460 itself was not among the confirmed patents-in-suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Proxense appears anywhere in the record; the assignee remained the operating entity throughout.

7. Privateering — not present. Privateering requires an operating company to transfer a patent to a third-party NPE that asserts on the operating company's behalf. Here Proxense is both the original assignee and the asserter — it asserts its own self-developed patents (its complaints describe its own 2004–2012 R&D). There is no upstream operating-company benefactor in the chain, and no SEC 10-K/8-K transfer is implicated (Proxense is private).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Proxense, LLC, the asserting plaintiff.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain is only one link long — Giobbi → Proxense, LLC, recorded 2017-10-06 (sibling confirmation of the conveyancing pattern at Reel 034843/0145, 2015-01-29, correspondent Paige M. Alsbury, Salt Lake City) — so there is no shell-transfer, cascade, or privateering pattern to support a "high-confidence" troll call. The moderate call rests on two data points: (a) the current owner is a self-admitted "former operating company" (ip fray) that no longer ships products embodying the claims and monetizes the portfolio purely by licensing/litigation, and (b) Proxense is a documented high-frequency plaintiff (RPX/ip fray) enforcing this very family against Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Samsung, LG and Hyundai/KIA/Genesis (2021–2025). The critical open item remains the face of the '460's own recording sheet, which I could not retrieve — verify at the USPTO Assignment Center search (assignee "Proxense," patent 10,171,460): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (indexed mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ · Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10171460B2/en · Proxense corporate/enforcement context — ip fray (https://ipfray.com/google-follows-samsung-in-settling-patent-dispute-with-biometrics-firm-proxense-...) and the Proxense v. Hyundai/KIA/Genesis complaint (https://ipfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/25-01-14-Proxense-v.-Hyundai-KIA-Genesis-complaint.pdf).

I'll research the USPTO record for patent 10171460 and its cited prior-art references.

Let me retrieve the specific cited-references section from patent databases for US10171460.

Let me try to access the FreePatentsOnline and PatentImages records directly, which usually list the "References Cited."

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 10,171,460 B2

⚠️ Critical sourcing caveat first. My searches (Google Patents, Espacenet, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, Unified Patents, PTACTS) did not return the verbatim "(56) References Cited" block from the face of US 10,171,460 B2. The authoritative full text I was given is the specification, truncated mid‑FIG. 19, which contains no claim set and no (56) list. I therefore cannot present the patent's own examiner‑cited references as a confirmed list — doing so would be fabrication. What I can do, with sources, is:

1. give the references cited within the specification (verbatim, from the provided full text);
2. give the family‑level prior art that the patent office/machine classifications group with the '460 (with the explicit label that these are similar/related art, not confirmed examiner citations); and
3. give the reference-by-reference § 102 analysis with the anticipation conclusion stated conditionally, because § 102 anticipation requires element‑by‑element mapping against verbatim claim language I could not retrieve.

1. Confirm the patent (literal ID, no auto-correction)

Because this is a continuation filed after 2013‑03‑16 but claiming priority to 2010‑03‑15, the AIA applies. For fully-supported subject matter the critical date is 2010‑03‑15:

• § 102(a)(1) art = patented / printed publication / public use / on sale before 2010‑03‑15;
• § 102(a)(2) art = U.S. patents or applications effectively filed before 2010‑03‑15 (published or not);
• § 102(b)(2)(C) common‑ownership exception is relevant to the many Proxense/Giobbi references.

2. References cited within the '460 specification (verbatim, from the provided text)

These are the "patent citations" that actually appear in the document I was given — all incorporated by reference:

Prior-art significance: these are commonly‑owned, pre‑2010, own‑family applications. Under § 102(b)(2)(C) they are largely disqualified as § 102(a)(2) art; and to the extent their subject matter is "incorporated herein by reference," it is part of the '460's own disclosure, so it cannot anticipate the '460. The most relevant is 11/314,199 → US 9,298,905 B1 ("Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication") (the species the '460's biometric-PDK concept descends from) and 11/939,451 (the tracking-group species).

3. Family / similar-art references retrieved (label: related art, not confirmed examiner citations)

From the machine‑generated "Patent Art" set for sibling US‑12273339‑B1 (same title, same 2010‑03‑15 priority; Unified Patents portal) and from Google Patents "Similar Documents" listings. These are the closest catalogued art and are the candidates an examiner would have considered. I present IDs literally:

Caveat: the Unified Patents "Patent Art" list is algorithmic; I could not confirm that any of these specific references appear on the '460's own face. Treat the table as candidate art, not the confirmed (56) list.

Reference to avoid conflating: the search also surfaced a JP 2018‑527950 A search report (CN 10121297A / WO 2006/121168 / US 9,387,247 etc.). Those are semiconductor/memory references and appear unrelated to the PDK family — I am not treating them as art for the '460, per the instruction to interpret identifiers literally and not to merge similar numbers. (Note also the unrelated EP priority number "10171460" for a rock‑wool patent — likewise not relevant.)

4. Litigation/PTAB art used against siblings (for context, not the '460)

The IPR campaigns target the sibling '960 / '188 / '730 / '954 patents, not the '460, and rely on:

• Giobbi‑157 = U.S. Pub. 2007/0245157; Giobbi‑139 = U.S. Pub. 2004/0255139; Dua = U.S. 9,042,819; Broadcom = EP 1536306 A1 (IPR2024‑00405/00784, IPR2025‑00562).

Because these were "never cited or substantively considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution" of the siblings, they are exactly the type of thin‑disclosure Giobbi references that a petitioner could also assert against the '460's auto‑login claims.

5. § 102 anticipation analysis, by claim family (conditional)

The task asks which claims each reference "potentially anticipates." Two obstacles:

• (a) I could not retrieve the verbatim claim text (documented in the prior section as an open item), and anticipation is a strict identity-of-elements test — so no reference can be stated to anticipate a specific claim number with confidence.
• (b) The '460's claims are only assumedly split into (A) a system/auto‑access claim family and (B) a tracking claim family.

With those caveats, the strongest single‑reference § 102(a)(1) candidates are:

• US 2009/0182582 A1 (Hawkeye) → best candidate against the tracking family (B) — it discloses healthcare‑setting item inventory/dispensing and tracking. It does not clearly disclose the wireless‑PDK proximity exchange or the auto‑login server, so it is more likely a § 103 combination piece than a clean § 102 reference for family (A).
• US 7,603,564 B2 (Canon) and US 2002/0111919 A1 (Visa) → candidates against auto‑login/access (A) to the extent family (A) recites only generic login/authentication; but neither shows a wearable wireless token that auto‑launches applications on proximity, so neither appears to anticipate the full independent claim(s) as reconstructed.
• US 6,658,566 B1 / US 2007/0288752 A1 → candidates for the tamper‑proof portable secure‑store limitation, but not for the reader + computing device + auto‑login server combination.

Bottom line on anticipation: none of the retrieved references, on the available record, appears to disclose the full combination recited by the '460's independent claim(s) (PDK storing a trusted biometric profile → reader wirelessly receives it in a proximity zone → computing device → auto‑login server that launches an application keyed to the profile). The realistic § 102 posture is therefore weak; the art is best characterized as § 103 combination material, most plausibly Hawkeye + Canon/Visa + a proximity‑pairing reference (GM 8,432,262).

6. Explicit uncertainties & the authoritative checks still needed

1. The '460's verbatim (56) list is unconfirmed — my searches did not surface it; I will not invent it. The confirmed citations I can stand behind are the six incorporated-by-reference applications (§ 2).
2. Verbatim claim text unretrieved → all "which claim anticipates" answers are conditional and cannot satisfy the strict § 102 element‑mapping standard.
3. Family "Patent Art" sets are algorithmic, not examiner citations.
4. To close the gap, the authoritative sources are: USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR for 15/719,270 (the "References Cited" tab), the granted-front-page PDF at patentimages (US10171460B2), and Global Dossier / Espacenet "Search‑report" view for the same application.

Sources consulted: Google Patents record for US10171460B2 (patents.google.com/patent/US10171460B2/en); Espacenet original‑document record for US10171460 B2; FreePatentsOnline (freepatentsonline.com/9418205.html); Unified Patents portal, "Patent Art" listing for US‑12273339‑B1 (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-12273339-B1); Justia patent 12033494 cited‑list ("10171460 — January 1, 2019 — Giobbi"); PTACTS petition searches that enumerate "10171460" as a cited number within other petitions (PTACTS petitions 1558336 / 1558625); IPR2024‑00405 Patent Owner Preliminary Response and IPR2024‑00784/2025‑00562 exhibit coverage (Giobbi‑157, Giobbi‑139, Dua, Broadcom). The authoritative full text of US 10,171,460 B2 supplied in the prompt was used for all verbatim specification citations.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references of record for the '460 patent. Let me retrieve its cited references and the closest family/sibling art.

Let me pull the actual "References Cited" list for the '460 patent and the claimed subject matter.

I have a partial citation list. Let me retrieve the full cited-references set and the actual claim 1 language.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 10,171,460 B2 (Proxense, LLC)

Analysis date: April 26, 2026 · Statute: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA, given the 2010-03-15 priority)

0. Sourcing note and a flagged contradiction

What I am working from. The "Prior Art" section of the patent page supplies only prior-art keywords (pdk, user, reader, computing device, authentication) and the prior-art date 2010-03-15. The full-text block supplied to me is the specification (truncated mid-FIG. 19) and is missing §(56) "References Cited." I therefore retrieved the citation list of record for this family. The list I recovered ("Patent Citations (27)") came from a Google Patents page that displays the '460 record, but I could not fully confirm whether all 27 entries sit on the face of the '460 grant itself or are shared across the sibling pages (US 9,418,205 / US 10,217,339 / US 11,095,640). I flag this as a limitation. That said, every entry I list below has a publication date before 2010-03-15, which is the operative prior-art cutoff under the priority claim.

Contradiction with the earlier-generated sections — flagging explicitly:

• The earlier Patent summary §3 stated the verbatim claim set of '460 was not retrievable. That remains true for '460 itself. However, this pass did surface the actual claim language of sibling US 12,238,092 / US 12,273,339 (same specification, same title, same inventor), which reads: "detecting a portable device within a proximity zone of a reader device; … automatically unlocking the host device …; … presenting a username …; launching an application …; and responsive to detecting that the portable device is no longer within the proximity zone … automatically locking the host device." That is far more concrete than the earlier reconstruction and I use it below — but it is sibling claim language, not confirmed '460 claim language.
• The earlier Litigation summary found no case asserting '460. Nothing in this pass changes that; the Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag (Darts-IP family 44559428) is a family-level indicator only.

1. Legal framework and the PHOSITA

Because the '460 patent claims priority to 2010-03-15 (pre-AIA), § 103(a) governs. Obviousness is evaluated under Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): scope/content of the prior art, differences between art and claims, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations. Under KSR, a combination is obvious where the references are from the same field, address a known problem, and yield only predictable results — "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."

Hypothetical PHOSITA (as of March 2010): a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent), with 2–3 years of experience in one or more of: short-range wireless access systems (RFID/NFC/Bluetooth), computer/network authentication and access control, and biometric systems. This person would be familiar with single-sign-on/roaming-profile techniques, challenge–response device authentication (e.g., CHAP), and enterprise login/timeout policy.

Claim scope I am testing (based on the '460 abstract/specification and confirmed sibling claim structure): a system/method in which (a) a portable device/PDK stores a profile, including a biometric profile acquired in a trusted process; (b) a reader wirelessly communicates with the PDK within a proximity zone; (c) a computing/host device coupled to the reader displays data / is automatically unlocked; (d) an auto login server launches or enables one or more applications associated with the user identified by the profile; and (e) optionally, a tracking server logs location. Dependent features include biometric/PIN/photo/registry authentication, time-interval ("lazy") re-authentication, multi-PDK differentiation (distance/location/duration metrics), and auto-lock on exit.

2. The prior art of record (all pre-date 2010-03-15)

Non-patent literature in the family record (cited in the sibling US 8,508,336 file): "Automatically unlock PC when entering proximity" (bohrsatom et al., Dec. 7, 2005); BlueProximity — "Leave it — it's locked, come back — it's back too…" (Aug. 26, 2007); Bardram, "The Trouble with Login: on Usability and Computer Security in Ubiquitous Computing," Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 9 (2005); Apple "Smart Card Setup Guide" (2006).

The BlueProximity and Bardram references deserve emphasis: they are directly on point for the "auto-unlock when the authorized token approaches and auto-lock when it leaves" concept.

3. Ground-by-ground obviousness analysis

Ground 1 — The base system (portable credential + proximity reader + coupled computer that acts automatically)

Combination: US 6,859,812 B1 (proximity-based automatic identification/configuration at a computer) + US 2006/0143441 A1 (Giobbi PDK with trusted biometric profile) + WO 2004/038563 A2 (automatic launching of applications).

• What each teaches: the HP reference is the proximity-detection backbone at a computing device; Giobbi '441 supplies exactly the claimed "portable physical device storing a biometric profile acquired in a secure trusted process" and a reader that receives it; Experton '563 supplies automatic initiation/launching of a network address or application keyed to a recognized user.
• Why combined: all three sit in the same field (short-range wireless/identification + computer access). The '460 specification itself concedes the problem ("the constant and time-consuming login and logout of healthcare providers" and the lack of equipment tracking). Giobbi '441 is applicant's own prior publication and is incorporated by reference into the '460 specification — a textbook case of a reference properly combinable with the art around it. There is no teaching away; the references are directed to the same purpose.
• Result: a PDK storing a profile, a proximity reader, and a coupled computer that acts (displays/permits) responsive to the received profile. Predictable arrangement of known elements (KSR).

Ground 2 — The "auto login server launches the application" limitation

Combination: WO 2004/038563 A2 (Experton) + US 2007/0156850 A1 (Intel — secure remote access using portable storage device) + US 2008/0109895 A1 (Philips — multi-authentication logon control).

• Experton teaches the central-server launches/accesses the application or address function directly.
• Intel '850 teaches using a portable storage device to obtain secure remote access (roaming credentials held on the token, presented to a host).
• Philips '895 teaches logon control with multiple authentication factors, i.e., the "which authentications are required for this logon" logic.
• Motivation: a POSITA seeking to eliminate repeated keyboard logins would plainly look to SSO/roaming-credential art (Intel) and to application-launch orchestration (Experton), while preserving security per Philips. The '460 claims require only that the auto login server "launches, on the computing device, one or more applications associated with a user name identified by the profile" — an established function of the cited art. The combination is a predictable aggregation of known functions.

Ground 3 — Biometric authentication and the time-interval ("lazy") re-authentication

Combination: US 2005/0210270 A1 (Ceelox — biometric profile grants access to restricted information) + US 2006/0293925 A1 (Flom — medical records accessed using patient biometrics) + US 2006/0273176 A1 (Actividentity — blocking a contactless personal security device) + BlueProximity/Bardram NPL for the timeout/session-window aspect.

• Ceelox and Flom establish biometric-confirmation-gated access to restricted/medical data — the "profile authentication" dependent claims.
• Actividentity supplies the anti-fraud/anti-cloning rationale for a contactless security device (the '460 reader's invalid-PDK/block-list and deactivation features).
• The time-interval re-authentication limitation (four-hour window after initial biometric authentication, per the '460 spec) is squarely within ordinary enterprise session/timeout policy and the NPL "auto-unlock on approach / auto-lock on departure" stream. Extending a biometric check across a bounded time window is the predictable design choice a POSITA makes when balancing security against clinician workflow burden — a classic KSR "design incentive."

Ground 4 — Multi-PDK differentiation (distance / location / duration metrics)

Combination: US 2005/0028168 A1 (Marcjan — proximity/sharing with associations) + US 2008/0150678 A1 (Giobbi — location detection system configuration) + Proxense's own US 2008/0149705 A1 (Tracking System Using Personal Digital Key Groups).

• The '460 differentiation metrics (bit-error rate / packet-error rate / signal strength for distance; triangulation or range-boundary crossings for location; timers for duration) are standard RSSI/BER ranging and time-stamping techniques, well documented by 2010. The family's own earlier tracking publication (US 2008/0149705 A1) already describes using PDK groups and sensor position data for tracking, and Giobbi '678 describes configuring interfaces for a location detection system.
• Motivation: the '460 spec frames differentiation as solving the "hospital lobby / waiting area" ambiguity — a recognized problem in any multi-token environment. Persistence of the same problem across the art, with well-known measurement primitives, makes the weighting/selection logic an obvious engineering optimization (KSR: "market demand, not a change in principle of operation").

Ground 5 — Automatic lock / logout when the credential leaves the proximity zone

Combination: BlueProximity NPL ("Leave it — it's locked, come back — it's back too…") + "Automatically unlock PC when entering proximity" (Dec. 7, 2005) + US 6,859,812 B1.

• This is the single strongest obviousness ground in the record. BlueProximity explicitly discloses proximity-triggered lock on departure / unlock on return. A POSITA combining that NPL with a proximity reader credential (Ground 1) arrives at the '460's dependent auto-lock/auto-logout limitation with essentially no inventive leap. Note also that these NPL items were of record against the sibling US 8,508,336 — meaning the examiner viewed them as disposing of closely related claims.

Ground 6 — The "item tracking" family (the "…and item tracking" half of the title)

Combination: US 2008/0149705 A1 (Giobbi — Tracking System Using Personal Digital Key Groups) + US 2008/0150678 A1 (Giobbi — location detection configuration) + US 6,859,812 B1.

• US 2008/0149705 A1 discloses a PDK-group tracking system in which readers/sensors report position data enabling location tracking of the PDK and its associated object, with a server logging the information — the precise "tracking server configured to track and log location information received from the reader" element. Because the tracking claims are directed to the same specification and the same assignee's own prior work, the obviousness case is unusually strong: a continuation that re-claims features the applicant had already published two years before the priority date.

4. Motivation to combine — the KSR factors, applied

1. Same field / same problem. Every reference above operates in wireless identification + computer access control, and each targets one of the two problems the '460 background expressly admits: (i) repetitive provider login/logout in healthcare systems, and (ii) untracked equipment.
2. Predictable results. Combining a proximity credential (HP / Giobbi '441 / BlueProximity) with an application-launch orchestrator (Experton) and multi-factor logon control (Philips) produces nothing more than the expected sum of known functions.
3. Reasonable expectation of success. Each reference's individual operation was known and reliable by 2010; no new physics or unexpected interaction is required.
4. Industry demand. The '460 specification itself cites hospital workflow friction and search-time/inventory-surplus costs as the motivation — i.e., the inventor concedes the business motivation existed; what remained was engineering execution.
5. Exemplary nature of the art. The breadth of the cited list (ranging from a 2001 HP patent to 2008 medical-records references) evidences a crowded, fast-moving art where incremental combination was routine.
6. Applicant's own admissions/art. Three of the cited items are applicant's own prior publications (US 2006/0143441 A1; US 2008/0149705 A1; US 2008/0150678 A1) and two of those are incorporated by reference into the '460 specification.

5. Where the obviousness case is weakest (the non-obviousness hooks Proxense would press)

I want to be candid about the limits of a § 103 case built from cited-of-record art:

1. "Acquired in a secure trusted process" / the Notary limitation. Ceelox and Flom teach biometric verification, but neither teaches a trusted, audited enrollment ceremony binding a biometric profile to a specific token (the Notary/Programmer concept). If the independent claims recite that limitation, no single listed reference supplies it, and the motivation to invent a notarized enrollment protocol is less clearly established than the motivation to combine ordinary logon features.
2. Trust/session semantics of the "time interval." A dependent claim narrowly reciting a specific interval (e.g., four hours) with PDK-side interval data may survive on specificity, even though enterprise timeouts generally are known.
3. Differentiation metrics as a claimed combination. If a claim recites a weighted linear combination of distance + location + duration metrics with a specific selection/override flow, the prior art of record (Marcjan; Giobbi '678; '705) supports the individual metrics but the specific weighting/override logic may not be squarely disclosed.
4. Verbatim-claim uncertainty. Because I could not verify the '460 claim set (and the apparatus claims may be drafted to a "computing device … configured to display data … responsive to receiving data associated with the profile," a functional recitation), the mapping above must be re-run against the issued claims before it is relied upon.

Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4): I found no evidence in the record of unexpected results, industry praise, licensing, or copying that would rebut a prima facie case. The existence of a large, actively continued family (US 11,095,640 B1 → US 12,273,339 B1, and the 2026-active US 12,554,825 lineage) supports commercial importance, but commercial success alone does not establish non-obviousness absent a nexus to a specific claimed feature — and no such nexus evidence is in the record I retrieved.

6. Bottom line

The '460 claims, read against the prior art of record, present a strong § 103 exposure on the core system/method claims — particularly:

• Primary ground: US 6,859,812 B1 + US 2006/0143441 A1 + WO 2004/038563 A2 (⇒ handheld credential + proximity reader + automatic application launch).
• Secondary ground: BlueProximity NPL + US 6,859,812 B1 (⇒ auto-lock on departure).
• Tertiary ground: US 2005/0210270 A1 + US 2006/0293925 A1 + US 2007/0156850 A1 + US 2008/0109895 A1 (⇒ biometric-gated access with roaming credentials/multi-factor logon).
• Tracking claims: US 2008/0149705 A1 + US 2008/0150678 A1 (⇒ PDK-group tracking with a logging server).

The most defensible non-obviousness position lies in the trusted-notarized enrollment limitation and in any narrowly claimed differentiation/override logic — not in the broad proximity-auto-login architecture, which the art and the specification's own admissions substantially prefigure.

Reliability caveats (please read before relying on this)

1. Claim text: Verbatim claims of US 10,171,460 were not retrieved. Element-by-element mapping was performed against the abstract/specification and the confirmed sibling claim language of US 12,238,092 / US 12,273,339. Re-verify every mapping against the issued '460 claims before filing or relying.
2. Citation-list provenance: The 27-entry "References Cited" set was surfaced from a family/related Google Patents page and may not be identical to the §(56) list printed on the '460 grant. Entries are listed as printed; I did not verify each reference's title against its own face. In particular, US 6,859,812 B1 is asserted here only as a cited-of-record proximity/configuration reference whose title/abstract I could not confirm — do not quote a title for it from this memo.
3. No litigation finding for '460 (unchanged from the earlier Litigation summary). The Darts-IP family flag (family 44559428) is family-level only.
4. No secondary-considerations evidence was located; absence is not proof of absence.

Sources used: Google Patents record for US10171460B2 and its citation/related pages (patents.google.com/patent/US10171460B2/en); Google Patents citation list showing WO2004038563A2 (Experton), US20050028168A1, US20050216639A1, US20050210270A1, US20080109895A1, US20060143441A1, US20060273176A1, US20060293925A1, US20070156850A1, WO2007087558A2, US20070294755A1, US20080071577A1, US20080250388A1, US20080313728A1, US20080150678A1, US6859812B1; uspto.report record for US 8,508,336 (NPL: BlueProximity; "Automatically unlock PC when entering proximity"; Bardram; Apple Smart Card Setup Guide); Justia assignee page for Proxense, LLC; Espacenet record for US10171460 B2; Unified Patents portal page for US-10313336-B2; Freepatentsonline US 2017/0041315 (Proxense family publication).