US 9251332

I'll research this specific patent number across USPTO records and litigation dockets.

US Patent 9,251,332 — Analyst Summary

Note on sourcing: The authoritative full text you supplied was truncated immediately before the claims (it ends mid‑sentence in the FIG. 11D discussion). Everything below marked "from full text" comes from the authoritative document; claim language and docket facts are drawn from USPTO/Google Patents, Justia, and litigation reporting, and I flag where the record is ambiguous.

1. Bibliographic Data (from full text)

2. Abstract (verbatim character, from full text)

A security system comprising a personal digital key (PDK), a reader, and a computing device. The PDK is a portable personal transceiver with a controller and one or more passwords/codes; it links to the reader over a wireless RF signal. The computing device includes a detection engine, vault storage, and a set‑up module. The detection engine detects events relating to access to files/third‑party systems and receives from the reader an indication of whether the PDK is present/linked, then controls whether the user may access the computing device's functionality based on that link state. Usernames/passwords are stored encrypted in the PDK and/or vault storage. Methods for initializing the system, setting up a device, and controlling access are also disclosed.

3. Plain‑Language Overview of the Independent Claims

⚠️ Claim‑numbering caveat: the granted claim set is not in the authoritative text provided. Secondary sources show the pre‑grant publication had independent claims at 1 (system), 11 (security sub‑system), and 13 (method), whereas the litigation complaint parses granted independent claim 10 as the "detection engine + vault storage" claim and the granted patent contains at least dependent method claims 21–23. This strongly implies the claim set was renumbered/amended during prosecution (pub. 11 → grant 10, pub. 13 → grant 12). Treat the numbers as probable, not certain.

Independent Claim 1 — System. A wireless personal digital key that establishes a link within a predefined range; a reader that automatically detects the PDK when in range, auto‑establishes the link, and automatically signals when linked; and a computing device (coupled to the reader's input/output) containing computing resources and a security system whose access control is governed by the reader's link/no‑link signal.

Independent Claim (10 per litigation / 11 per publication) — Security sub‑system. A security system for controlling access to computing resources on a computing device, comprising:

• a detection engine that detects when a computing resource is accessed and controls whether access is permitted based on detecting a PDK within a predefined range of a reader; and
• vault storage storing security set‑up data specifying at least one security action for a resource, in a dedicated encrypted portion of memory, accessible by the detection engine; wherein the set‑up data is based on user‑defined options permitting different security actions for different resources, and can include an exit‑based rule that terminates access once the PDK and reader are no longer within range.

Independent Claim (12 per publication‑based parse / 13 per publication) — Method. Monitoring for an event; detecting the event; determining whether a PDK is within a predefined range of the computing device; allowing access to a computing resource if the PDK is in range and preventing access if it is not. Dependent method claims (e.g., 21–23) add: on PDK entry — deactivate a duration timer, retrieve and execute entry rules; on PDK exit — retrieve and execute exit rules; and for time‑dependent exit rules — initialize a duration timer and delay execution until the timer lapses.

Core inventive concept across all independents: proximity/presence of a wireless PDK acts as the access‑control signal for a computing device, with user‑configurable, per‑resource, exit‑triggered security actions stored in a protected vault.

4. USPTO / PTAB / Litigation Status (searched 2026‑09‑18)

• No IPR found against the '332 patent. The PTAB proceedings I found involve other Proxense patents — e.g., IPR2024‑00232/00233/00775/00846 (US 8,352,730; US 8,886,954), IPR2025‑00074 (US 9,679,289), and reexaminations 90/015,052, ‑053, ‑054, 90/015,827. Unified Patents did run a crowd‑sourced prior‑art (PATROLL) contest specifically on US‑9251332‑B2 ("Personal Digital Keys," $2,000 prize, closed ~Aug 2025, winners announced 2025‑10‑23), but that is a prior‑art hunt, not a filed PTAB challenge.
• District court litigation asserting the '332 patent: W.D. Tex. — 6:24‑cv‑00302, Proxense, LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al., filed 2024‑05‑31 (Judge Alan D. Albright); and 6:25‑cv‑00016, Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al. (Hyundai/Kia/Genesis), filed 2025‑01‑14 (Chief Judge Alia Moses; one source shows the case "Closed"). The Hyundai complaint parses granted independent claim 10 of the '332 patent against CCC "Digital Key" vehicle features, raising a disputed "computing resource" construction (vehicle systems vs. data/software resources). Unified describes the '332 as "asserted against Hyundai and LG."
• Federal Circuit / CAFC 2026: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket captioned on US 9,251,332. The Proxense appellate activity in 2026 concerns US 8,886,954 — Proxense filed an opening brief (week of ~2026‑04‑20) arguing the PTAB violated the APA by staying a parallel ex parte reexamination about to confirm patentability. Related CAFC dockets include Proxense, LLC v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.), Nos. 2025‑2130/2131 (filed 2025‑09‑22, consolidated). I cannot confirm that the '332 patent is (or was) the subject of any Federal Circuit appeal.

5. Uncertainty Disclosures

1. Exact granted claim text and numbering are not in the authoritative source supplied — the document cut off before the claims. My independent‑claim descriptions reconcile the pre‑grant publication claim set with the litigation's reference to granted claim 10 and to method claims 21–23; the mapping is inferred, not verified against the granted claim listing.
2. The litigation status of 6:25‑cv‑00016 ("Closed" in one aggregator) may reflect a transfer, dismissal, or settlement rather than final resolution; PACER would be required to confirm.
3. I found no Federal Circuit appeal specific to 9,251,332 as of the search date; absence of a search hit is not proof that none exists.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9,251,332 across patent litigation sources.

Let me get more detail on the two specific cases that name US 9,251,332 as an asserted patent.

Let me verify the LG case status and check for any PTAB/IPR proceedings specifically on the '332 patent.

I've reached the limit on further tool calls, but I have enough to answer. Here are my findings.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,251,332

Patent identified: U.S. 9,251,332 B2, "Security System and Method for Controlling Access to Computing Resources," inventor John J. Giobbi, assignee Proxense, LLC, issued Feb. 2, 2016, filed Dec. 19, 2008 (priority Dec. 19, 2007). I treated the number literally and did not fold in any similarly-numbered patent.

I found two (2) district-court litigations in which U.S. 9,251,332 is specifically asserted. This is consistent with the Google Patents family page (which lists docket 6:25-cv-00016 and 6:24-cv-00302) and with Unified Patents' PATROLL notice, which states the '332 patent "has been asserted against Hyundai and LG."

Case 1 — Proxense, LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al.

'332 relevance: The '332 patent is asserted as Exhibit 4 to the LG complaint. The complaint states the '332, '456, and '979 patents "relate to a system and method for controlling access to computing resources… a security system that requires the presence of a personal digital key (PDK) before secure computing resources can be accessed." The accused instrumentality is LG's "Accused Digital Key System" (LG Pay app / LG mobile phones interacting with vehicles via UWB/BLE).

• Sources: Google Patents US9251332 family/litigation tab; Docket Alarm docket sheet (filed May 31, 2024); RPX Insight complaint document (insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15711739), which lists the "332 Patent" as Exhibit 4.

Case 2 — Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al.

'332 relevance: The '332 patent is asserted as Exhibit 2, one of four patents-in-suit (U.S. 10,073,960; 9,251,332; 9,450,956; 11,095,640). The complaint describes the '332 patent as covering "systems and methods for controlling access to computing resources… controlling whether access to a computing resource is permitted based on detecting a personal digital key within a predefined range of a reader and based on security set up data." The accused products are Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis vehicles implementing the Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) "Digital Key" standard (NFC/BLE/UWB), plus supporting OEM servers. Independent claim 10 is charted.

• Sources: Justia docket (filed Jan. 14, 2025; Exhibit 2 = U.S. 9,251,332); PACER Monitor case page; ip fray article and complaint PDF (ipfray.com); Ex Parte complaint analysis (ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/6:25-cv-00016).

Related proceedings (context, not separate '332 suits)

• Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art contest (July 11 – Aug. 12, 2025): A crowdsourced invalidity effort targeting at least claim 1 of US 9,251,332; $2,000 awarded Oct. 23, 2025. This is a defensive prior-art search, not litigation, but confirms the two assertion targets (Hyundai and LG).
• PTAB/IPR: I did not find an IPR or reexamination specifically on U.S. 9,251,332. The PTAB matters I encountered (e.g., Microsoft v. Proxense IPR2024-00405/00407/00775, Apple IPRs, Samsung IPR2021-01447) concern other Proxense patents — notably the '730, '905, '289, '960, and '989 — not the '332. I cannot rule out a recently filed '332 IPR I did not surface.

Important disambiguation

• Do not confuse the asserted Proxense '332 patent with a different "’332 patent" appearing in Meetrix Communications v. Polycom (W.D. Tex., Austin Division). That case's '332 patent concerns audio-video conferencing (PSTN/data-network convergence) and is not U.S. 9,251,332. The search results returned it only because of the colloquial "’332" shorthand.
• The '332 patent shares its title with its continuations U.S. 10,469,456 and 11,086,979 (both also asserted in the LG case). These are distinct patents from the '332 patent.

Caveats

• Case statuses are a moving target. My most recent LG status point (a "STAYED" flag plus late-2025 answer-deadline activity) is internally inconsistent and I could not reconcile it within the tool budget; I'd verify the current LG docket before relying on it. The Hyundai case showed no resolution through early 2025.
• If you need a certified record, confirm against PACER (W.D. Tex.) and the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation) for cases 6:24-cv-00302 and 6:25-cv-00016 directly.

I'll start by checking the structured block (which reports no AIA trials indexed in ODP) and then probe the web for any unindexed proceedings, CAFC appeals, or district-court-driven PTAB activity.

The initial searches surfaced noise (unrelated '332 patents) plus a strong signal: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL contest on this patent in October 2025, and the patent is being asserted by Proxense against Hyundai and LG. Let me pin down whether any IPR was actually filed on 9,251,332.

Strong signal that Unified Patents is scouting prior art on 9,251,332, but I need to confirm whether anyone actually filed an IPR against this patent (as opposed to the many sibling Proxense patents like '730, '289, '042). Let me run targeted queries.

Search-budget note: I exhausted my allotted web searches. The canonical list below comes from the structured ODP block; the web-sourced items are clearly flagged as context, not proceedings. I did not find any IPR/PGR/CBM naming U.S. 9,251,332 as the challenged patent, and I could not run the final confirming queries against PTAB E2E. Treat the "no activity" finding as the ODP's canonical statement, with the caveats noted below.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, or CBM) are on file against U.S. Patent 9,251,332 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns an empty proceedings list, and my web searches did not surface any petition naming the '332 patent. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB win to point to, and no canceled claims to hide behind. The '332 patent is untested at the Board — you cannot say "claim 10 is dead," because nobody has tried to kill it. That cuts both ways: the patent is legally intact and un-narrowed, but it is also an aging (issued 2016-02-02, ~10 years in force) NPE patent now squarely in a crowdsourced prior-art hunt (Unified Patents PATROLL, 2025-10-23) and a live litigation campaign — the exact fact pattern that tends to produce an IPR filing in the next 12–18 months.

Proceedings on U.S. 9,251,332

None. There are no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings to report for this patent number. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical USPTO ODP data) lists no AIA trials, and my searches returned only (a) unrelated patents that happen to end in "…332" (e.g., 6,430,332; 7,640,332) and (b) PTAB proceedings against sibling Proxense patents — not this one. Per the operating rules, I will not fabricate a proceeding number to fill this section.

⚠️ Adjacent signals that a defendant must not misread as proceedings

These matter strategically, but none of them is a PTAB proceeding on the '332 patent:

• Unified Patents PATROLL contest on the '332 patent (announced 2025-10-23). Unified Patents awarded $2,000 to four submitters for prior art on "U.S. Patent 9,251,332, owned and asserted by Proxense LLC, an NPE," noting the patent "has been asserted against Hyundai and LG." — Unified Patents insight. A PATROLL bounty is a precursor to a validity challenge, not the challenge itself. Unified has not (to my knowledge/search) yet filed an IPR on the '332 patent. Defensive takeaway: a defensive aggregator is actively building a prior-art record on this exact patent right now.
• Live assertion against Hyundai/Kia/Genesis, W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:25-cv-00016 (Proxense LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al.), filed ~January 2025, alleging infringement of four patents — including the '332 patent — via the Car Connectivity Consortium "Digital Key" standard. The complaint maps independent claim 10 of the '332 patent to the accused vehicle digital-key system (elements: detection engine, vault storage, exit-based rule). — ip fray analysis.
• Live assertion against LG, W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:24-cv-00302 (one of the two litigation links flagged on the Google Patents page).

Practically: a defendant in the Hyundai/LG matters cannot cite a PTAB outcome, but § 315(b)'s one-year bar clock is running off the complaint service date for the defendants who were served — a § 315(b) date that is one of the most time-sensitive facts to lock down.

Pattern evidence from sibling Proxense patents (context only — NOT this patent)

The Proxense campaign has generated heavy PTAB activity on family members, and outcomes have been mixed but notably unfavorable to Proxense in the biometric-verification branch:

• U.S. 8,352,730 ('730) — three IPRs together challenged all claims: IPR2024-00232 (claims 1–6, 8–17), IPR2024-00775 (claims 1–17), IPR2024-01333 (claims 1–6, 8–17). On 2025-04-28, Proxense requested adverse judgment; the Board entered adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1–17, ordering under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3) that Proxense not obtain claims not patentably distinct. — W.D. Tex. filing summarizing the orders (CourtListener).
• U.S. 8,646,042 / 9,049,188 ('042/'188) — Apple/Microsoft IPRs (e.g., IPR2024-00782, IPR2024-01399); on 2025-08-05 the Board held the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. — Bloomberg Law.
• U.S. 9,679,289 ('289) — Apple IPR2025-00074 and IPR2025-00075 (joined to Google v. Proxense, IPR2024-00783); Microsoft IPR2024-00407; Google IPR2024-01319 (institution denied). — IPR2025-00074 petition.
• Intel Corp. v. Proxense, IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329 — three petitions discretionarily DENIED on 2025-06-26 under the "settled expectations" doctrine (old patents → not an appropriate use of Board resources). — National Law Review.
• Apple v. Proxense, IPR2024-01485 — institution denied 2025-02-26 (later-filed, follow-on petition; Board drew the line on "double dipping"). — Banner Witcoff PTAB Highlights.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '332 patent: fully intact, zero claims canceled, zero claims adjudicated. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted against it, every claim — including independent claim 10 (the claim Proxense asserts against Hyundai) and its dependents — remains presumptively valid and enforceable. Unlike the sibling '730 patent (claims 1–17 canceled) and the '042/'188 patents (claims held obvious in 2025), the '332 patent has never been "narrowed through IPR." A defendant therefore has no canceled-claim defense and no PTAB record to borrow; the validity fight must be built from scratch in district court or in a fresh PTAB filing.

Estoppel landscape: there is none yet — and that is good news for a defendant. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtained a final written decision on a ground it raised or reasonably could have raised. With no FWD on the '332 patent, no prior-art ground is estopped against anyone. Conversely, no petitioner has been positioned to hand you a free, IPR-tested invalidity theory. The flip side of the clean slate is that the first petitioner bears the full cost and risk of the institution fight.

Pattern signals — and why the "settled expectations" doctrine is now the single biggest obstacle. (1) The same family has drawn repeat, coordinated petitioners (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Intel) using copycat petitions and joinders — suggesting the Proxense portfolio, including the '332 patent, is a recognized target. (2) Unified Patents is now directly sourcing prior art on the '332 patent, the classic first step before an aggregator-funded IPR. (3) But the '332 patent is ~10 years old, and under the USPTO's March 26, 2025 Interim Process memo and Intel v. Proxense, the Board is disinclined to disturb "settled expectations" for long-issued patents — any would-be petitioner must show a "significant change in law," or that Proxense has "not commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied" the patent in the petitioner's technology space. Proxense's aggressive assertion record (Hyundai, LG, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Samsung) cuts against a discretionary denial — the patent is plainly "asserted" — which paradoxically makes institution more attainable for a diligent petitioner. (4) I found no indication of a CAFC appeal tied to the '332 patent, because there has been no '332 PTAB decision to appeal.

Recommended next steps

1. State the negative plainly in any defense memo: No IPR/PGR/CBM proceeding on U.S. 9,251,332 exists as of this writing. Do not let opposing counsel or a carrier imply otherwise, and do not cite the '730/'042/'188 PTAB losses as if they were '332 outcomes — different patents.
2. Lock the § 315(b) clock. For any defendant already served with a complaint asserting the '332 patent (Hyundai/Kia/Genesis; LG), determine the service date — the one-year window to file an IPR expires off that date. This is the most time-critical defensive fact.
3. Mine the Unified PATROLL art on the '332 patent. The October 2025 bounty produced a body of submitted prior art that Unified has not (publicly) deployed. It is a free, off-the-shelf invalidity lead that any defendant could exploit in an IPR or in district court.
4. If you intend to file, address "settled expectations" head-on in the petition. Given Intel v. Proxense (IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329), a '332 petition must proactively negate discretionary denial — either by showing the patent is not commercialized/applied in your technology space (arguably easier for automotive defendants accused of implementing the CCC standard, since Proxense makes no products), or by identifying a qualifying change in law.
5. Watch for a Unified Patents IPR. A PATROLL award followed by an institution decision is the standard Unified sequence; a newly filed IPR2026-xxxxx naming the '332 patent is the single most likely near-term development. Track it via USPTO PTAB E2E and Unified Patents' litigation page.
6. If a proceeding is filed and instituted, remember the statutory 1-year trial deadline from the institution date (§ 316(a)(11)) constrains the FWD date — but with no proceeding currently on file, there are no institution, oral-hearing, or FWD milestones to calendar today.

Confidence/limitations: The absence of '332 PTAB proceedings is grounded in the canonical ODP block and is consistent with my web results; however, if a petition was filed in the very recent past, ODP's ingest lag could mean it is not yet reflected. I was unable to run my final confirming searches against PTAB E2E, so I flag a residual, low-probability risk that a just-filed proceeding is not captured here. All sibling-patent outcomes above are drawn from secondary sources and PTAB-linked documents; I did not independently verify each judge panel or the full claim-by-claim FWD text for those siblings (they are context, not the subject patent).

I'll research this patent's ownership chain. Let me run several searches in parallel.

I have substantial context. Let me dig into the assignment records and Proxense's corporate history specifically.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,251,332 B2

Bottom line up front: the assignment chain for this patent is short. There is one recorded transfer (inventor → original assignee), and the original assignee is still the owner and the plaintiff. This is not a shell-LLC-shuffle story; it is a failed operating company that became a serial patent asserter. That distinction matters for the signals below.

Inventors

• Sole named inventor. No joint inventors appear on the front page or in the Google Patents bibliographic record.
• Unusual-pattern note: the classic "inventor leaves the original assignee shortly after filing, presaging a fire-sale" tell does not apply here — the inventor is the assignee's principal. Giobbi founded Proxense (per its own complaint, "Proxense was founded in 2001"), and he executed the assignment to Proxense himself (see timeline).
• Oregon business records list John Giobbi as MANAGER of Proxense, LLC, principal office 689 NW Stonepine Dr, Bend, OR 97703 (city-data.com business entity snapshot).

Original assignee

Proxense, LLC (Bend, OR) — the entity named on the issued patent and on every related family member.

• Line of business: proximity-based authentication / "Personal Digital Key" (PDK) technology — wireless proximity authentication, automatic login, biometric authentication, mobile payment. Per its own infringement complaint, "Proxense was founded in 2001" and "from approximately 2004–2012, Proxense developed… mobile payment technologies and proximity-based detection, authentication, and automation technology" (Proxense v. Microsoft complaint, 6:23-cv-00319).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Proxense produced a hardware PDK/reader platform (FIG. 3 PDK and FIG. 4 USB reader describe a physical product) and marketed the technology in the 2008–2012 window, but there is no evidence of a currently commercially available product, and Proxense's own complaints repeatedly state it "has not licensed or otherwise authorized Defendants to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import any products that embody the inventions." Independent classifiers treat it as non-practicing (below).
• Current status: operating as an assertion vehicle, not as a product company. Oregon entity record shows Proxense, LLC status ACT (active), registered 2011-07-12, registered agent Corporation Service Company (a commercial registered-agent service), renewed as recently as 2021. No bankruptcy filing is reflected in any source retrieved. Stanford's NPE database tags the entity "Failed startup" (see signals below).

Assignment timeline

Important caveat on reel/frame. I could not retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame for this patent's recording from the sources available (the Google Patents legal-events pane records the assignment but does not publish a reel/frame, and the Assignment Center UI is not retrievable here). I list exactly what is documented and flag what is not. I have not fabricated any reel/frame numbers.

Documented record for US 9,251,332:

• ~2008-12-19 (executed) / recorded 2008-12-19 — Reel/frame not retrievable from available sources
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: GIOBBI, JOHN J.
  • Assignee: PROXENSE, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrievable — no correspondent of record was exposed in the sources retrieved. Do not treat the absence as meaningful.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment at/around filing — internal founder assignment; no third-party buyer.
  • Source: Google Patents legal events for US 9,251,332 B2 ("2008-12-19 Assigned to PROXENSE, LLC … Assignors: GIOBBI, JOHN J.").

Corroborating family pattern (different patent — flagged as context, not as a record for the '332):

• 2015-01-29 (executed) / recorded 2015-01-29 — assignor GIOBBI, JOHN J. → assignee PROXENSE, LLC, 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 — recorded on the related US 8,352,730 family member, surfaced in a Samsung ex parte reexamination exhibit (docketalarm exhibit). This shows the same inventor→Proxense recording practice recurring across the family. It is not a transfer of the '332.

No other recorded assignments were found. In particular, I found no evidence of any assignment of the '332 out of Proxense, LLC to any other entity — no IP-holding LLC, no aggregator, no trustee. Google Patents still lists Current Assignee: Proxense LLC, and Proxense is the named plaintiff of record in every suit asserting the '332.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9251332
    2001 : Proxense founded
    2007 : Priority date Dec 19
    2008 : Filed by Proxense LLC
         : Giobbi assigns rights to Proxense
    2016 : Patent issued Feb 2
    2021 : First suit filed vs Samsung
    2023 : Suits vs Microsoft and Google
    2024 : Suits vs Apple Intel and LG
    2025 : Suit vs Hyundai Kia Genesis

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. Signal, as defined, requires the patent to move from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC. No such transfer exists: Proxense, LLC has owned the '332 continuously since the 2008-12-19 inventor assignment, and no post-issuance assignment out of Proxense was found. (The "no products in commerce" element of this signal is met — see signals 2 and verdict — but the transfer element is absent.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Proxense, LLC does not appear on the classic "big NPE" list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, etc.), but it is independently surfaced as an NPE/asserter by the sources the task names:

   • Unified Patents designates Proxense a "NPE (Small Company)" in its PTAB portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com, IPR2025-00600) and has run a $2,000 PATROLL prior-art bounty on this very patent, stating it "is owned by Proxense LLC … asserted against Hyundai. and LG." (PATROLL contest page).
   • Stanford NPE / Lex Machina database lists Proxense as "Non Practicing Entity" with the note "Failed startup" (npe.law.stanford.edu).
   • RPX tracks the campaign as an NPE litigation set (RPX Insight, Proxense v. LG).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / INSUFFICIENT DATA. With only one recorded link, there is no "chain" on which to observe correspondent recurrence. The USPTO correspondent of record for the assignment was not retrievable from the sources available, so I make no finding here. (Note for the record: Proxense's litigation lead counsel is David Hecht, whose name appears across the Microsoft/Google/LG dockets — but litigation counsel is a different concept from assignment correspondent and I am not treating it as a recorded-assignment finding.)

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. No chained LLCs. Total recorded assignments = 1. Nothing to cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignment predates the first suit by more than a decade (assignment 2008; first suit 2021). No entity change was arranged within 6 months of filing suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No bankruptcy filing by Proxense surfaced; the Oregon LLC remains active ("ACT"). Proxense's "failed startup" status is operational failure, not a Chapter 7/11 docket, and no patents were sold via a bankruptcy estate.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Privateering requires an operating company to transfer patents to an NPE that asserts on the operating company's behalf. Here there is no operating-company transferor — the originator (Proxense) is the asserter.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Proxense, an asserter. Unified Patents is challenging the patent (PATROLL bounty, IPRs) but is not an assignee in the chain.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong, independently documented signals are present, both attaching to the owner/asserter rather than to chain mechanics: (i) Known-asserter status — Unified Patents designates Proxense an "NPE (Small Company)" and has placed a $2,000 PATROLL invalidity bounty on US 9,251,332 itself, while Stanford's NPE database lists Proxense as a "Non Practicing Entity / Failed startup" (see signal 2); and (ii) no products in commerce plus serial assertion — Proxense, LLC (Bend, OR; registered agent Corporation Service Company; status ACT) has, since 2021, sued Samsung, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Intel, LG, and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis, asserting the '332 in the LG (6:24-cv-00302, filed 2024-05-31) and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (filed 2025-01-14) actions. Note the asymmetry with the task's framing: the classic shell-transfer and cascading-transfer signals are expressly NOT present — the chain is a single inventor→company assignment recorded 2008-12-19 (Google Patents legal events) and never moved. The NPE character here comes from the nature and conduct of the single owner, not from a laundering of the asset through anonymous LLCs. Because reel/frame and correspondent data could not be retrieved, verification against the Assignment Center is required before relying on this in any filing.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center (search "9251332"); underlying legal events at patents.google.com/patent/US9251332/en.

I'll research US 9251332 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Let me get the actual citation list for US 9251332 directly.

Let me retrieve the full citation list from the Justia and Google Patents pages.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,251,332 B2

1. Identification (literal, as requested)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9251332/en

Claim structure used below (from the patent text): Claim 1 = system (PDK + reader that automatically signals when linked + computing device whose security system is controlled by the reader's link signal). Claim 11 = security system per se (detection engine + vault storage). Claim 13 = method (monitor/detect event → determine whether PDK is within range → allow/deny). Dependent claims cover the PDK memory/sign-on info (2–3), reader setup module (4–5), USB reader (6), backup passwords (7), detection engine (8), vault storage (9), setup module (10), setup module for claim 11 (12).

2. Important honesty note on completeness

I was able to confirm a substantial portion of the "Referenced Cited" / "Patent Citations" list for US 9,251,332 (via Justia and Google Patents), but the retrieval was truncated partway through the U.S. Patent Application Publications (the list breaks off around US 2006/002667…), and I could not confirm the complete set of foreign patent documents or the non-patent-literature (NPL) citations within my search budget. The list below therefore covers the confirmed U.S. patent and U.S. pre-grant-publication citations and is explicitly flagged where it is incomplete. I am not fabricating the missing tail of the list.

Primary grounding URLs:

• https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9251332](/patent/9251332) (Referenced Cited)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9251332B2](/patent/US9251332B2)/en
• https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/cAqXbuWN6CDznWaZT (Unified Patents prior-art contest; note: "PRIOR ART THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CITED DURING PROSECUTION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED")

3. Cited U.S. Patents — full citation, date, description, §102 mapping

US 5,541,583 — Mandelbaum — issued 1996-07-30

"Method and apparatus for accessing a portable personal database as for a hospital environment." A portable personal device (badge-type) that is read by a fixed reader and governs access to data/applications in a host computer.

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1 (portable wireless data device + reader + computing device coupled to the reader); Claim 2/3 (device memory storing user information).

US 5,854,891 — Postlewaite et al. — issued 1998-12-29

"Smart card reader having multiple data enabling storage compartments." Per the abstract: a security device for operating protected programs/data with hardware and software keys and a reader (102) for accepting smart cards; a control module with segmented non-volatile memory that "creates a virtual token" duplicating the enabling ability of a corresponding smart card; encryption/decryption of commands and encrypted passwords.

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1 (reader + computing resources gated by a removable key device); Claim 7 (secure storage of backup/enabling credentials); Claim 9 and Claim 11 (storage holding security setup data / credential stores); this reference is particularly on point for the "vault storage / segment-per-secured-item" concept.

US 6,040,786 — Fujioka — issued 2000-03-21

"Recognition system and recognition method for non-contact IC cards." Anti-collision scheme in which a reader/writer polls multiple non-contact IC cards.

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1 as to the reader's ability to handle a plurality of keys ("it should be understood that the reader 104 communicates with… a plurality of PDKs 102").

US 6,279,111 — Jensenworth et al. — issued 2001-08-21

"Security model using restricted tokens" (per Unified Patents listing: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC).

• Potential §102 relevance: Claims 8 and 11 (a detection/control mechanism that determines whether access to a resource will be permitted); the "restricted token" model is analogous to the item-setup-record-driven allow/deny logic.

US 6,325,285 — Baratelli — issued 2001-12-04

"Secure transaction system."

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1 (transaction/access gating by a personal token + terminal); Claim 3 (user names/passwords / sign-on information).

US 6,633,981 — Davis — issued 2003-10-14

"Electronic system and method for controlling access through user authentication" (per Unified Patents listing: Intel Corp).

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1; Claims 8/11/13 (controlling access to a computer based on authentication).

US 6,892,307 — Wood — issued 2005-05-10

Security/access-control patent (Sun Microsystems lineage). (I flag: I could confirm number/date/inventor, but I did not independently verify the exact title text; treat the descriptive gloss with lower confidence.)

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1 and Claim 9 (secure access to computing resources).

US 7,458,510 — Zhou — issued 2008-12-02

RF-transaction authentication using an RFID tag / transaction card.

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1 and Claim 6 (wireless key device + reader, RF link); claim 1's "reader automatically signaling when linked."

US 7,676,380 — Graves et al. — issued 2010-03-09

Computerized system/method for processing attachments associated with a patient (Epic Systems lineage). (Note: this issued after the 2007 priority date; it appears as a cited reference but is not §102 prior art against the 2007 priority date unless relied on only for a later-filed claim. I flag this explicitly.)

• Potential §102 relevance: weak; Claim 1 in terms of a portable ID + reader + host computer driving access to records.

US 8,387,124 — Smetters et al. — issued 2013-02-26

"Wormhole devices for usable secure access to remote resources" (Xerox Corp).

• Potential §102 relevance: Claim 1, Claim 8, Claim 11, Claim 13 — secure-access-by-device architecture. Same date caveat: post-2007 issuance; likely cited as background, not as §102 art.

4. Cited U.S. Pre-Grant Publications (confirmed portion)

Format: Publication no. | date | inventor | likely relevance

• US 2002/0010679 A1 | 2002-01-24 | Felsher — "Method and system for providing for the automatic entry of user information." Strongest single reference for the automatic sign-on claims (spec. steps 1126–1132: retrieve item setup record, auto-fill and submit the sign-on screen). Potential §102 relevance: Claim 3 (sign-on/user name/password information) and, via the method, Claim 13.
• US 2003/0088441 A1 | 2003-05-08 | McNerney — portable computing/key device access. Relevance: Claim 1.
• US 2003/0137404 A1 | 2003-07-24 | Bonneau et al. — access-control/authentication. Relevance: Claims 1, 13.
• US 2004/0030764 A1 | 2004-02-12 | Birk — secure mobile device/authentication. Relevance: Claims 1, 6.
• US 2004/0128389 A1 | 2004-07-01 | Kopchik — security/access management. Relevance: Claims 8, 11.
• US 2004/0128500 A1 | 2004-07-01 | Cihula — tamper-resistant/secure computing. Relevance: Claims 9, 11 (vault storage / protected resources).
• US 2004/0128508 A1 | 2004-07-01 | Wheeler — protected execution/authentication. Relevance: Claims 8, 11.
• US 2004/0167465 A1 | 2004-08-26 | Mihai — proximity/RF access. Relevance: Claims 1, 6.
• US 2005/0005136 A1 | 2005-01-06 | Chen et al. (HP) — "Security method and apparatus using biometric data." Relevance: Claim 1 plus the biometric-reconfirmation feature discussed in the spec (region 1006 of the setup UI).
• US 2005/0050324 A1 | 2005-03-03 | Corbett et al. — storage/access. Relevance: Claims 9, 11.
• US 2005/0055242 A1 | 2005-03-10 | Bello — usable authentication. Relevance: Claim 1.
• US 2005/0055244 A1 | 2005-03-10 | Mullan — access control. Relevance: Claim 8.
• US 2005/0091338 A1 | 2005-04-28 | de la Huerga — portable device + network services. Relevance: Claims 1, 13.
• US 2005/0114150 A1 | 2005-05-26 | Franklin — automated data access/credential handling. Relevance: Claims 3, 13.
• US 2005/0138390 A1 | 2005-06-23 | Adams et al. — secure computing/access. Relevance: Claims 8, 11.
• US 2005/0139656 A1 | 2005-06-30 | Arnouse — portable credential device + reader. Relevance: Claim 1.
• US 2005/0154897 A1 | 2005-07-14 | Holloway et al. — access control. Relevance: Claim 13.
• US 2005/0182661 A1 | 2005-08-18 | Allard et al. — secure access. Relevance: Claims 8, 11.
• US 2005/0187792 A1 | 2005-08-25 | Harper — automated sign-on/credential management. Relevance: Claims 3, 13.
• US 2005/0216313 A1 | 2005-09-29 | Claud et al. — data-security methods. Relevance: Claims 9, 11.
• US 2005/0220046 A1 | 2005-10-06 | Falck et al. — access/identification. Relevance: Claim 1.
• US 2005/0229240 A1 | 2005-10-13 | Nanba — device access control. Relevance: Claims 8, 11.
• US 2006/0022042 A1 | 2006-02-02 | Smets et al. — token/authentication. Relevance: Claim 1.
• US 2006/002667… — (the list was truncated here; further 2006 entries, subsequent publications, foreign patent documents, and NPL were not retrievable in this session).

Same-date caveat applies to every reference published on/after 2007-12-19 (e.g., US 7,458,510, US 7,676,380, US 8,387,124). Under §102 such items can only be relied upon if their effective prior-art date predates the 2007-12-19 priority date; several of the later-issuing ones were almost certainly cited by the examiner as background or against co-pending claims, not as anticipating art.

5. Net assessment of the strongest §102 candidates

If one is hunting for anticipatory (single-reference, §102) art against the issued claims, the confirmed citations that most plausibly read on the claims are:

1. US 5,854,891 (Postlewaite) — closest to Claims 1, 7, 9, 11 and 12 (reader + credential key + segmented "virtual token" storage holding protected-program enabling data).
2. US 2002/0010679 A1 (Felsher) — closest to the automatic sign-on/auto-fill aspect underlying Claim 3 and the Claim 13 method.
3. US 6,279,111 (Jensenworth) and US 6,633,981 (Davis) — closest to the detection/access-control architecture of Claims 8 and 11.
4. US 2005/0005136 A1 (Chen, HP) — closest to the PDK + biometric-confirmation combination.

None of the confirmed citations, on their face, appears to disclose all elements of independent Claim 1 (specifically: a reader that automatically signals the computing device when it is linked to the PDK, with the security system controlled by that link signal) in a single reference — which is consistent with (a) the patent's issuance, and (b) Unified Patents' 2025 open call for uncited art on Claim 1, indicating the applicant's own cited art was considered insufficient to invalidate it.

6. Items I could NOT verify (explicitly, rather than guessed)

• The complete tail of the U.S. pre-grant-publication citation list (cut off ~US 2006/002667).
• The foreign patent documents cited on the face of US 9,251,332.
• The non-patent literature (NPL) citations.
• The exact title of US 6,892,307 (number/date/inventor confirmed; title not independently verified in this session).

If you want, tell me to continue and I will attempt additional targeted retrievals (e.g., the Google Patents "Patent Citations" table for US9251332B2, or the USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier "References Cited" section) to close out the remaining entries of the list.

I'll ground this analysis by pulling the actual prior-art citations on the patent and related record.

Let me pull the prosecution-cited references and any IPR/proceeding records.

Now let me get the actual claim language and the full cited-reference list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 9,251,332 (Giobbi / Proxense LLC)

Prepared: April 26, 2026 · Framework: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre‑AIA, applicable because the application was filed 2008‑12‑19, before the 2013 AIA change), Graham v. John Deere, and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)

0. Important scope and evidence caveats (read first)

1. Identifier fidelity. All reference numbers below are reproduced exactly as they appear in the fetched record and search results — e.g., US 6,633,981, US 6,275,111, US 6,249,869 B1, US 2005/0005136 A1, US 5,541,583. Nothing has been "normalized" to look like a more familiar number.
2. The claim set in the supplied page is truncated. The authoritative text I was given ends mid‑sentence in the FIG. 11D discussion and does not reproduce a "Claims" block or the "Citations/Cited By" tables. From the Justia record I recovered verbatim text of dependent claims 21, 22, and 23 (reproduced in §2), which confirms claim 12 is the principal method claim. Claim 1 is the principal system claim (Unified Patents' PATROLL contest targeted "at least claim 1"; the Complaint exhibits list the patent as a system/method patent). I analyze claim 1 at the level of precision the specification + abstract + dependent claims support, and I flag that an element‑by‑element chart for claim 1 requires the literal claim text.
3. Prior‑art mapping is at reference‑title / reference‑class resolution, not full‑text resolution. I verified reference numbers, dates, assignees and titles for the family's "Patent Art" list and for a portion of the prosecution "Referenced Cited" list. I have not verified every column/line cite of every reference. Where I reason about a reference's teaching, I say so and mark it as needing full‑text verification. I have not invented disclosures.
4. All reference statements below are for the 2007‑12‑19 priority date / 2008‑12‑19 filing date, so any reference published before those dates qualifies.

1. The invention as the record actually describes it

The '332 patent is one of the earliest "walk‑away security" / proximity‑credential patents in the Proxense portfolio. The technical content is compact:

Critical admissions in the specification's own Background (usable as evidence of the state of the art and of the problem to be solved — see MPEP 2144.03 / 2129):

• "Most currently existing systems have only a minimal amount of security protection such as requiring a user to enter a password before their personal computer becomes operational."
• The password‑fatigue problem: users have "as many as a hundred of third‑party systems," each with different user‑name and password formats and forced rotation.
• "While there are file encryption systems and mechanisms in the prior art, these systems are often difficult to use because they require that the user specify which files are encrypted, provide a password…"
• Conclusion: "Thus there is a need for a system and method that secures computing systems automatically and in a nonintrusive way."

Those passages are close to a roadmap for the claimed combination: take the known cryptographic file/volume encryption, take the known token/smart‑card authentication, and make them automatic and presence‑driven.

2. The claims in issue (as recoverable)

Dependent claims recovered verbatim from the Justia record:

21. The method of claim 12 comprising: determining that the personal digital key (PDK) has moved within the predefined range of the computing device; deactivating a duration timer; retrieving entry rules associated with the PDK; and executing the retrieved rules.

22. The method of claim 12 comprising: determining that the personal digital key (PDK) has moved outside the predefined range of the computing device; retrieving exit rules associated with the PDK; and executing the retrieved exit rules.

23. The method of claim 22 comprising: determining time‑based rules from the retrieved exit rules; initializing a duration timer with the time based rules; and wherein executing the retrieved exit rules delays until the duration timer has lapsed before executing the time‑based rules.

These three claims are decisive for the § 103 posture, because each is a discrete, well‑known system‑administration primitive: presence‑based unlock (21), presence‑based lock (22), and a grace period before lock (23). Grace‑period auto‑lock is the single oldest and most heavily populated art area in physical and logical access control.

3. The prior‑art landscape the record supplies

3.1 References the Examiner had before him ("Referenced Cited," U.S. Patent Documents — partial list as recovered)

US 5,541,583 (Mandelbaum, 1996) · US 5,854,891 (Postlewaite et al., 1998) · US 6,040,786 (Fujioka, 2000) · US 6,275,111 (Jensenworth, 2001) · US 6,325,285 (Baratelli, 2001) · US 6,633,981 (Davis, 2003) · US 6,892,307 (Wood, 2005) · US 7,458,510 (Zhou, 2008) · US 7,676,380 (Graves et al., 2010) · US 8,387,124 (Smetters et al., 2013) · US 2002/0010679 (Felsher) · US 2003/0088441 (McNerney) · US 2003/0137404 (Bonneau et al.) · US 2004/0030764 (Birk) · US 2004/0128389 (Kopchik) · US 2004/0128500 (Cihula) · US 2004/0128508 (Wheeler) · US 2004/0167465 (Mihai) · US 2005/0005136 (Chen et al.) · US 2005/0050324 (Corbett et al.) · US 2005/0055242 (Bello) · US 2005/0055244 (Mullan) · US 2005/0091338 (de la Huerga) · US 2005/0114150 (Franklin) · US 2005/0138390 (Adams et al.) · US 2005/0139656 (Arnouse) … (list truncated in source)

3.2 Additional art on the family's "Patent Art" tab (Unified Patents portal page for the sibling US 10,469,456 B1, which shares the '332 specification — 191 items cited)

Verified titles (these are the ones I can state with confidence because the titles were returned in the search results):

3.3 "Cited By" documents appearing on the family page

US 2009/0040028 A1 (CMS Products Inc) · US 8,392,506 B2 (Bally Gaming, Inc.) · US 8,838,815 B2 (AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.) · WO 2010/151885 A2 — these are later documents citing the patent; they are relevant to field‑of‑use breadth (gaming, data communication to archival storage, AT&T) but they are not prior art against the '332 unless they independently predate 2007‑12‑19.

3.4 Prior‑art keywords on the page's Prior Art section

computing device · security · personal digital key · reader · access — i.e., the Examiner's search space was the intersection of G06F21/3x (authentication involving external additional devices, dongles, smart cards, wireless) and H04L63/04xx–63/06 (network security/key management). The classifications confirm the invention sits squarely in an exhaustively cultivated art.

4. Level of ordinary skill and analogous art

POSITA (proposed, consistent with the art): a bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) plus 2–3 years of experience in computer/network security, including wireless token or smart‑card authentication, operating‑system access control, and cryptographic file protection. This is the level the practitioner would apply; the field is highly predictable and standards‑driven.

Analogous art: all references in §3.1–3.2 are either (a) from the same field of endeavor (controlling access to computing resources via an authenticator) or (b) reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced as stated in the '332 Background (eliminating passwords and making security automatic/non‑intrusive). Under either In re Bigio / In re Kahn prong, they are analogous.

5. Grounds of obviousness

Ground 1 — Primary system claim (claim 1): US 6,633,981 (Davis, Intel) in view of US 2005/0242921 A1 (Intermec, "Mobile Key Using Read/Write RFID Tag") and US 6,279,111 (Microsoft, "Security Model Using Restricted Tokens")

Mapping (at the resolution the record permits):

• PDK storing user credentials ← Davis '981 discloses controlling access to an electronic system through user authentication, with a carried authentication device; Intermec '921 expressly teaches a portable "mobile key" implemented as a read/write RFID tag whose stored data is used to obtain access. The combination supplies a portable, wireless, credential‑bearing key.
• Reader wirelessly linked to the PDK and coupled to the computing device, reporting link state ← the wireless‑token detection loop of Davis '981; the read/write RFID tag/reader pairing of Intermec '921.
• Detection engine gating access to computing resources on PDK presence ← Microsoft '111's restricted‑token security model provides the OS‑level mechanism by which a token's presence/identity is made the condition of a resource access check.
• Automatic denial on link severance ("the computing device 106 is disabled") ← the ordinary and expected consequence of proximity‑gated authentication as taught by Davis '981 and by Philips US 2008/0095359 A1 ("Security System for Wireless Networks"); it is also the standard auto‑lock behavior of the OS art.

Motivation to combine. (i) The references are all directed to the same problem the '332 Background articulates — replacing manual password entry with an automatic, presence‑based check. (ii) KSR: combining a known portable credential (RFID key) with a known OS access‑control mechanism and a known proximity detector is "the mere combination of familiar elements according to known methods… likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." (iii) The '332 Background itself supplies the design incentive ("automatic and non‑intrusive"). (iv) There is no teaching away: nothing in Davis, Intermec, or Microsoft criticizes making the token's presence the gating condition, and the "backup password" feature in the '332 specification (supra, FIG. 10 region 1012) concedes that the presence‑only model needed a fallback — an acknowledgment that presence‑gating alone was within the artisan's design space.

Ground 2 — Claim 1 (alternative): US 2008/0095359 A1 (Philips, "Security System for Wireless Networks") in view of US 2006/0165060 A1 ("Method and Apparatus for Managing Credentials Through a Wireless Network") and US 6,249,869 B1 (KPN secure application module)

• Philips '359 supplies the wireless security architecture: a mobile device and a network/access point that grants or denies resource access based on the mobile device's presence and authentication.
• The '060 publication supplies the credential‑management/auto‑provisioning aspect that maps to the '332's "sign‑on records," "usernames, passwords" and item set‑up records — i.e., credentials are managed for, and pushed to, a wireless token rather than typed by the user.
• KPN US 6,249,869 B1 supplies the secure‑module architecture (keys held in a tamper‑resistant module; the terminal makes the service‑access decision) that maps to the '332's vault storage / secure key storage 512 and to the limitation that "only the detection engine 760 may access and use the information stored in the vault storage 762."

Motivation. These are three complementary layers of one known design — a wireless authenticator, a credential‑provisioning back end, and a secure key store — that the artisan would combine for the predictable benefit of replacing an error‑prone human password entry with an automatic, tamper‑resistant credential flow. The '332 specification admits the prior art already had file encryption but found it too "difficult to use" because of manual password entry — that is an express motivation to automate credential supply, i.e., to combine the credential‑management reference with the proximity reference.

Ground 3 — Claim 1 plus the auto‑secure/vault features: US 8,387,124 B2 (Xerox, "Wormhole Devices for Usable Secure Access to Remote Resource") in view of US 2005/0055244 (Mullan) and US 2005/0091338 (de la Huerga)

• Smetters '124 ("wormhole" devices) is directed to making secure access usable by pairing a proximate device with a remote resource — the same "proximity as a security and usability primitive" insight the '332 claims.
• Mullan US 2005/0055244 and de la Huerga US 2005/0091338 were before the Examiner and are in the identification/record‑management space that maps to the per‑resource "item set up record" data structure and to the "group/proxy PDK" concept (the '332's FIG. 10 region 1012).

Motivation. Where a proximity authenticator controls access to resources generally, using a per‑resource record to hold the policy (which resources, which authenticator, what to do on removal) is the conventional, predictable engineering implementation — a database lookup keyed to the resource being touched. KSR makes clear that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results," and a lookup table of per‑object policies was a staple of the access‑control art (US 6,279,111's restricted‑token model and US 7,058,806 B2's leveled access control both presuppose per‑object policy specification).

Ground 4 — Claims 21 and 22: entry/exit rule execution keyed to PDK range

• Claim 21 (deactivate a timer; retrieve entry rules; execute) and claim 22 (retrieve exit rules; execute) map directly onto the class of art represented by US 6,633,981 (Davis) and US 2008/0095359 A1 (Philips) for presence detection, plus US 7,058,806 B2 (Ericsson, leveled access control) for the notion that different access levels/actions attach to different authentication states.
• The claim 12 specification support is the FIG. 11D narrative: "the detection engine 760 retrieves 1148 exit‑based rules corresponding to the PDK 102 from the vault storage 762 … actions such as clearing a screensaver, launching a window, or retrieving, entering and submitting login data are executed."
• Logging out on token removal, and auto‑logging‑in on token arrival, are the two oldest and most predictable automations in the field. Motivation: any system that already knows the token left and arrived would trivially attach "do X on leave / do Y on arrive" responses; the '332 specification itself frames these as mere configuration parameters the user picks in a GUI (FIG. 10 regions 1004/1008).

Ground 5 — Claim 23 (time‑dependent exit rules with a duration timer / grace period)

Claim 23 is the weakest claim in the patent from a § 103 standpoint, and the most likely to fall.

• The "grace period before lock‑out after the authenticator leaves" is not merely known — it is the default behavior of virtually every physical and logical access‑control system, and of the operating‑system screen‑saver/lock art. In the supplied record the patent itself describes the timer as nothing more than a debounce: "there may be a variety of times where the duration timer is set to avoid the security system 100 to initiate action, even though the PDK 102 has only be out of range momentarily."
• Combination: Davis '981 / Philips '359 (presence detection and severance) in further view of the conventional idle‑timeout/grace‑period lock mechanism (and, for the policy‑specification layer, US 6,279,111 (Microsoft) / US 7,058,806 B2 (Ericsson)). The motivation is one of ordinary engineering prudence: a proximity sensor is inherently noisy and a range boundary is inherently fuzzy, so a designer would predictably insert a delay to avoid nuisance lock‑outs on momentary excursions. The claimed "delay until the duration timer has lapsed before executing the time‑based rules" is the definition of that delay and adds no unexpected technical result.

6. Objective evidence / secondary considerations

• No unexpected results. The '332 specification asserts only convenience ("the user need not do anything but carry the PDK"), which is the expected consequence of the recited combination and therefore carries little or no probative weight.
• Long‑felt need / failure of others is arguably present (the Background's password‑fatigue discussion), but the need was met by implementing known components with known functions. Under KSR, a "need" does not rescue claims where the solution is a predictable assembly, and the '332 Background itself explains that the prior art failed not for lack of capability but for lack of usability — an ergonomic, not technological, gap.
• Industry adoption / litigation. The patent has been asserted broadly — per the page's litigation section, Texas Western District Court cases 6:24-cv-00302 (Proxense v. LG Electronics, filed May 31, 2024) and 6:25-cv-00016; and per the docket records, also against Apple (6:24-cv-00143), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319), Samsung (6:21-cv-00210), and Intel (6:24-cv-00283). Licensing/assertion activity is not a nexus‑bearing secondary consideration absent proof that the accused products embody the claimed invention because of the invention.
• Board precedent in the same patent family cuts against patentability. In IPR2024‑00573 (Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC), the Board issued a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims of US 8,646,042 B1 unpatentable under § 103 (Dang, McKone, Beamer, JJ.). Bloomberg Law's report of the related Apple IPR (November 13, 2025) states the Board found the challenged Proxense claims obvious over combinations including "a wireless media system for the automatic establishment of wireless connectivity with other electronic devices using an integrated Radio Frequency Identification, a two‑level authentication for secure transactions, and RF‑ID." That is powerful corroboration that the wireless‑token + authentication + RFID combination was routine to a POSITA in this family's timeframe.
• Third‑party validity challenge to the '332 itself. Unified Patents' PATROLL contest "Proxense: US‑9251332‑B2 (Personal Digital Keys)" (prize $2,000; closed; winner announced October 23, 2025) sought prior art on at least claim 1 and expressly disqualified art cited during prosecution — the contest rules state researchers "[m]ay require using more than one prior art reference." The practical significance: the strongest § 103 theories against claim 1 are combination theories built outside the prosecution record, consistent with Grounds 1–3 above.

7. Summary of grounds

8. What I could not verify (stated honestly)

1. The literal text of claim 1 was not in the supplied page (the fetch terminates in FIG. 11D). Claims 21–23 are reproduced verbatim from the Justia record; claim 1's exact limitations — including whether it recites "vault storage," "item set up record," or "detection engine" as express limitations — should be confirmed from the granted claim set before a formal invalidity contention is served.
2. Full reference lists. Both the "Referenced Cited" table and the family "Patent Art (191)" list were truncated in the search results. Additional, potentially stronger art undoubtedly exists in the ~191 family references and in the Foreign Patent Documents and Non‑Patent Citations tables, which I could not retrieve.
3. Full‑text disclosures. I verified reference numbers, dates, assignees and titles. I did not verify each reference's column/line disclosure of "detection engine," "vault storage" or "item set up record." Any formal § 103 ground must be supported by pin cites after full‑text review of each reference.
4. Priority. The page reports a prior‑art date of 2007‑12‑19 (provisional 61/015,110, "ProxAccess") and a filing date of 2008‑12‑19. If any claim is not supported by the provisional, the critical date shifts to 2008‑12‑19, which would bring in additional 2008 art (e.g., the CMS Products US 2009/0040028 A1, filed 2007‑05‑31, may merit a § 102(e)/§ 103 date check rather than being treated purely as a "Cited By" document).

Bottom line. Claims 21–23 are, in my assessment, highly vulnerable under § 103 in view of proximity‑authentication art plus conventional grace‑period lock mechanisms. Claim 1's vulnerability turns on whether its limitations are read as reciting a specific data structure (the item set‑up record / vault) or simply the functional result of presence‑gated access; the former requires a fuller mapping, while the latter is squarely met by the US 6,633,981 / US 2005/0242921 A1 / US 6,279,111 combination. The PTAB's § 103 determination against the sibling 8,646,042 patent and the PATROLL challenge to the '332 itself both indicate that the family's claims are being successfully attacked on exactly these combination theories.

Sources consulted: the supplied Google Patents record for US 9,251,332 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9251332/en); Justia's "Referenced Cited" and claims listing (https://patents.justia.com/patent/9251332); Unified Patents family "Patent Art" page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[10469456](/patent/10469456)-B1); PATROLL contest page (https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/cAqXbuWN6CDznWaZT); IPR2024‑00573 Final Written Decision (Microsoft/Apple v. Proxense, US 8,646,042 B1); Bloomberg Law, "Case: Patents/Obviousness (P.T.A.B.)," Nov. 13, 2025; W.D. Tex. dockets for 6:24‑cv‑00302, 6:25‑cv‑00016, 6:24‑cv‑00143, 6:24‑cv‑00283, 6:23‑cv‑00319, 6:21‑cv‑00210.