Apple Patent Application for Combination Fingerprint Scanner and NFC Circuitry Surfaces

[Rogifan]

They're meant to illustrate what the phone might look like if that ring was real, what's wrong with that? I rather enjoyed those pictures.

If this is real and works as a notification light - definitely a sexy detail.

But I thought it was supposed to be a silver ring. At least that's what it looks like on the box and Apple's invitation.

 

[Oohara]

But I thought it was supposed to be a silver ring. At least that's what it looks like on the box and Apple's invitation.

Ah, then I better understand how you meant that. Nothing in that box pic or the invitation really suggests it's a metal ring rather than a circular light though. The pic is blurry and the ring on the invitation is just a stylized shape.

I think it's more likely that it's actually a light. It makes more sense than a metal ring, from a design perspective. Just putting a metal ring there as decoration wouldn't make sense at all, and if it was a metal ring with some specific function, wouldn't they rather color it black and retain the classic simplicity of their homebutton?

 

[kdarling]

But I thought it was supposed to be a silver ring. At least that's what it looks like on the box and Apple's invitation.

Silver or gray?

A lot of people are obviously hoping that it is a subdued translucent ring that could be lit up in different colors for notifications.

Even the invitation wording made the light seem possible: "This should brighten up your day."

Of course, it's just as likely that the invitation was talking only about the new UI look, and the ring is for an RF fingerprint sensor.

 

[diddl14]

Unfortunately it can't. It's not large enough. NFC is around 13 MHz, pretty low for the wireless communication world. It needs a longer antenna to provide the perfect match to prevent even more loss from what is a lossy interface. To make it work in that space, the line would be much much thinner and more tightly wound, again making it prohibitively lossy. That's why the patent talks about embedding it around the bezel and earpiece. Much more space to get the length optimal.

The passive NFC chip on my keychain is about the size of the black square shown on the picture and works fine. Taking that the iPhone is powered and likely includes some pretty smart signal processing, I would assume that Apple found away to keep the NFC antenna to a minimum. Unlike passive chips, it doesn't need to harvest any power to transmit a signal back.

But than again, I'm not an expert on this stuff so happy to learn more why this might or might nor work.

 

[njytouch]

I'm hoping Apple has a plan to incorporate payments here

 

[Roller]

What's most fascinating to me is that with only a day and a half to go we're still speculating on some of the tech in the 5S. I'm more used to no uncertainty at this stage before an iPhone release.

 

[Diode]

Ironically, biometrics are probably your best defense from intrusion. The government can have your password/passcode in 5 minutes just by calling Apple/Google/Verizon/AT&T/etc, but biometrics requires that they physically obtain your device in order to get into it. Furthermore, biometrics aren't used for anything that can be exploited presently. A thief can't just email your bank a copy of your thumbprint and clear out your account...no institution would ever accept anything other than you being physically present to enter your print. I often wonder if the people warning us about the perils of the fingerprint scanner actually believe what they say, or merely want the rest of us to believe it. Fact of the matter is, even if the government could figure out a way to "use" your prints it would mean that they wouldn't even need to bother as they would probably already have all the info about you that they wanted.

As a person with a clearance, the government has my prints on file....

 

[scar4711]

As a person with a clearance, the government has my prints on file....

also - if you have a DL in California, they already have your thumbprint.. so.. eh.

 

[chrmjenkins]

The passive NFC chip on my keychain is about the size of the black square shown on the picture and works fine. Taking that the iPhone is powered and likely includes some pretty smart signal processing, I would assume that Apple found away to keep the NFC antenna to a minimum. Unlike passive chips, it doesn't need to harvest any power to transmit a signal back.

But than again, I'm not an expert on this stuff so happy to learn more why this might or might nor work.

This would be active, and moreover, need to receive from low powered transmitters such as the one on your keychain.

 

[borgqueenx]

Ah, then I better understand how you meant that. Nothing in that box pic or the invitation really suggests it's a metal ring rather than a circular light though. The pic is blurry and the ring on the invitation is just a stylized shape.

I think it's more likely that it's actually a light. It makes more sense than a metal ring, from a design perspective. Just putting a metal ring there as decoration wouldn't make sense at all, and if it was a metal ring with some specific function, wouldn't they rather color it black and retain the classic simplicity of their homebutton?

You actually make sense..but you cant let light shine through metal...and metal is needed for a capacitive surface so it knows when you hold your finger on it.

 

[kdarling]

You actually make sense..but you cant let light shine through metal...and metal is needed for a capacitive surface so it knows when you hold your finger on it.

A ring would be needed for the antenna in an RF fingerprint sensor, but I think others were right that it could be done in black.

Now, if it is a sensor antenna, then a grey pewter-like color could indicate LiquidMetal. Just because Apple needs to use their investment somewhere, and it sounds cool, even if unnecessary.

Personally I'm hoping for both features. An indicator light ring, AND a hidden fingerprint / gesture sensor off to one side under the glass.

 

[kdarling]

Unfortunately it can't. It's not large enough. NFC is around 13 MHz, pretty low for the wireless communication world. It needs a longer antenna to provide the perfect match to prevent even more loss from what is a lossy interface. To make it work in that space, the line would be much much thinner and more tightly wound, again making it prohibitively lossy. That's why the patent talks about embedding it around the bezel and earpiece. Much more space to get the length optimal.

Yep, which is why NFC doesn't use antennas for RF. It uses them as inductor coils.

You can play with the antenna size using this calculator to see what can be done.

.

 

[Dayv]

"Your", not "You're".

Really? We're still doing this?

Well, it's still wrong, and it still matters...

 

[gnasher729]

IIRC Cook and Schiller were asked about wireless charging and pointed out the need for a pad for such charging, that would often exceed the size and price of a normal cable and adapter. So, it may be easier to put it on charge in a setup environment, but the burden of charging accessories increases, if anything. It's also a pain in the ass to make a device with a metal enclose, antennas, and try to fit a large inductive coil in there for charging and not interfere with all of that. Same issues exists for NFC. Those are the more likely reasons with the accessories route being an explanation of convenience.

Since plenty of people own more than one iOS or Apple device, I think it's time for an official and safe "charging station": Charger with plugs for several devices with USB chargers, possibly plus MacBook charger, so you can charge say at least a MacBook and three iOS devices simultaneously using up only one wall plug.

----------

I didn't know patents were automatically published after 18 months. You learn something new every day. However I don't think the timing is a coincidence. The patent is made public just before the iPhone 5S is announced. That would have been planned by Apple when they filed the patent back in March 2012.

That's the whole idea of patents. The idea is that without patent law, inventors would keep their inventions secret to avoid people copying them, so other people wouldn't learn about these inventions and couldn't improve the ideas in these inventions, thus slowing down progress. Therefore a patent gives you monopoly on the invention, but in exchange for the monopoly you have to make the patent public so that everyone can improve on it.

 

[Jjaro]

If you are carrying the sort of data that makes you worth kidnapping then you have access to the sort of data that makes you worth kidnapping. Most street criminals want the easy money of fencing the device. Your data is unlikely to get them any more money.

As long as the phone can be wiped of all data and resold without the a fingerprint there is no need for the criminal to "up the anti". The problem is if Apple gets the balance wrong and does more than protect your data with the fingerprint.

Haha yeah agreed! If you have anything that bad on your iPhone anyway, then there's a problem. Although, I guess that may not be taking into account businesses, and the potential for corporate secrets to be stolen.
A guy I work with was saying how he's worried that someone could hack his phone through NFC. I just rolled my eyes. It's not turned on all the time I think (if this is what we get). It will likely be involved somehow with the FP sensor.

 

[gnasher729]

When you are hauled into the secret court (since indictments under recent legislation can be confidential), you will not be able to claim that someone snooped / cracked your password, because there is proof that it was you that activated the device prior to that, and your guilt for the infraction you didn't even know took place is assured.

Why would "the secret court" need any evidence? More precise: They either need irrefutable evidence, which the fingerprint sensor doesn't give, or they accept evidence even when it can be refuted, and in that case owning the phone is enough evidence. Especially owning a phone without fingerprint sensor, which clearly proves you've got something to hide.

 

[Krayzie116]

What happen if the wife wants to use your phone with this fingerprint scanner? How would that work?

I hope you can be able to add two people who can unlock it with the fingerprint scanner.

 

[tbrinkma]

Ironically, biometrics are probably your best defense from intrusion. The government can have your password/passcode in 5 minutes just by calling Apple/Google/Verizon/AT&T/etc, but biometrics requires that they physically obtain your device in order to get into it. Furthermore, biometrics aren't used for anything that can be exploited presently. A thief can't just email your bank a copy of your thumbprint and clear out your account...no institution would ever accept anything other than you being physically present to enter your print. I often wonder if the people warning us about the perils of the fingerprint scanner actually believe what they say, or merely want the rest of us to believe it. Fact of the matter is, even if the government could figure out a way to "use" your prints it would mean that they wouldn't even need to bother as they would probably already have all the info about you that they wanted.

----------



LOL. Good point. Hell, if the government really wants your fingerprint and if you've ever touched a doorknob...guess what?

Biometrics are currently being used for the wrong pieces of the security puzzle.

There are 3 aspects of security that need to be handled.
Identification - Who do I say I am?
Authentication - Can I prove it?
Authorization - What am I allowed to do?

Biometrics are passable when used as part of a system for Identification, *bad* for Authentication, and *worthless* for Authorization. Current systems try to use biometrics for combined Identification and Authorization.

The reason to not use biometrics as your *sole* identification factor are pretty simple. It's damned easy to replicate biometric signatures for the vast majority of systems out there.

Fingerprints are simple, just pick up a glass that the person has touched, and you can use the latent prints to create a 3D fingerprint that will fool virtually every fingerprint reader out there. It doesn't even take any exotic materials for all but the best of them. (I'm talking gelatin that you can buy in at the local grocery store.) Iris scans are better, but have still been broken with high resolution images, despite the fact that they are supposed to require the pulse of blood flow through the iris to work.

But why not use them for Authentication?
Because once it's been replicated it can never be changed! Imagine a password that you can set to anything you want, but you can never change it again. If someone manages to guess it *once*, your accounts will be compromised until the end of time. Fingerprints give you up to 9 do-overs over the course of your entire life, assuming you never lose, or significantly damage a finger tip. Iris or retinal scans only give you 1 do-over.

This is also why biometrics are only passable for Identification if they are used as *part* of an Identification system.

 

[tbrinkma]

I understand national debt and global warming are troubling, but high divorce rate?

Compared to a fingerprint scanner in a phone? Yeah, it's a few orders of magnitude more troubling than the existence of a fingerprint scanner. That's not to say it's particularly troubling.

 

[sniffies]

Is this new? I mean my wife's atrix did this 3 years ago.

No one cares about atrix.

It's not considered innovative or revolutionary until Apple does it.

 

[Oohara]

You actually make sense..but you cant let light shine through metal...and metal is needed for a capacitive surface so it knows when you hold your finger on it.

Not quite. An iPhone screen doesn't have a metal surface, does it?

----------

A ring would be needed for the antenna in an RF fingerprint sensor, but I think others were right that it could be done in black.

It could also be put under the glass surface, right? I really have a hard time seeing a metal ring in the middle of an otherwise completely glass front of the iPhone, it just doesn't make sense from an aesthetic viewpoint. And the fact that they're even emphasizing a ring on that invitation graphic, they wouldn't be that proud about a dull metal ring. A glass ring with luminous capabilities, on the other hand...

Either way, I guess we'll all know in a few hours

EDIT: Meh, I guess it's actually in one day and a few hours...

 

[blitzer09x87]

The article states that the patent was originally filled in March 2012. It's only now being made public. Companies can specify that their patent applications are kept secret for a period of time so they can quietly build the idea into their products. This is common practice for Apple.

make a patent public just 3 days before you're bringing the devce, wont that destroy all the anticipation and surprise factor?

 

[borgqueenx]

Not quite. An iPhone screen doesn't have a metal surface, does it?

----------

im talking about the ring around the home button.

 

[ilkanate]

Utility for the sensor technology

The European patent application is Apple's next logical step, but I feel like this is a patent without a real purpose... like most of Apple's preliminary patents. Is Apple really planning to add something like a fingerprint sensor to the new iPhone? I can't see this as a viable addition to an already good-looking product. If it isn't part of the touchscreen itself, I can't imagine why the user would want that sensor taking up more space.

It's also fishy - why has Apple waited until so recently to apply for a patent in Europe for a product that they plan to release in the next two weeks? Near-field communication isn't something that Apple has exclusively dabbled in, but it's something that Apple got to first when it has come to the patents. I highly doubt that Samsung, Nokia, or others will be able to get a patent in on time, considering Apple's new acquisition of AuthenTec (as per this Macworld article (http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3467582&pagtype=allchandate). Once again, very slick acquisition by Apple.

 

[69650]

make a patent public just 3 days before you're bringing the devce, wont that destroy all the anticipation and surprise factor?

Yes. Maybe they had originally intended to announce the phones last week before the patent application was due to be released. Otherwise it seems a bit of a cockup. Mind you we seem to know just about everything else about the new iPhones so I'm not sure this makes much difference. It just adds to the hype surrounding tomorrow.