Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 15/545,983

CONTROL OF ACCESS TO THE EQUIPMENT OF A SITE SECURED BY BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 04, 2023
Examiner
MAYE, AYUB A
Art Unit
2436
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Atos SE
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
5y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
377 granted / 652 resolved
At TC average
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
684
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
57.5%
+17.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 652 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (2003/0001722) in views of De Arruda (2007/0192608) and Sparkes et al (2012/0221811). For claim 1, Smith teaches a method for controlling access of a user to a set of equipment (computer equipment’s) of a secure site (secure areas as Smith teaches in par.1) from a communication terminal (par.16)(abstract), the user being associated with a communicating portable device (badge) containing an identifier of the user (sensor that identify the badge user) (par.16, lines 3-8)(abstract), the method comprising the steps of: opening of a temporary session (Smith teaches of periodically of checking of the badge if the badge is the area that is allowed to be or not by activating or deactivating as Smith teaches in par.21) by a biometric activator (identification system 14 as shown in fig.1) for said user by utilizing of a biometric authentication of said user (par.17, lines 1-6); said biometric activator being configured to read the identifier of the user received from the communicating portable device utilizing wireless communication (the user wearing badge that includes sensor that the identifier reads the sensor for the position of the user and identification system may also include a database having information known only to user 20, which may be utilized in generating queries that only user 20 would know how to answer received from the communicating portable device through wireless communication means as Smith teaches in par.40 and 41-42 and 44), said biometric authentication being performed based on said identifier of the user received from the communicating portable device (Smith teaches that the system can utilize any type of transceiver to generate the communication link between the badge and the relevant computer terminals as Smith teaches in par.39 and 40) and digital fingerprints of personnel authorized on the site stored in a database accessible to the biometric activator (Smith teaches that the biometric identification hardware such as the fingerprint scanner, microphone, pulse detector, or temperature detector can be part of the badge, and that information is loaded using an encryption system that assures that an eavesdropper cannot gain access to the stored information in a manner that would allow the eavesdropper to communicate with the various terminals in the system as Smith teaches in par.13); said data representing an activation of the communication portable device (Smith teaches that The badge includes a data processor having a non-volatile and a volatile memory, a transceiver, and an attachment sensor, once the badge is activated, that information is loaded on the badge which means data which includes the activating information is loaded into the badge as Smith teaches in par.27-30) and authorizing the access by the user to equipment of the set following verification that communicating portable device is activated comprising verifying that the temporary session is open based on the stored data (Smith teaches that user 20 can approach the terminals that are authorized to serve user 20 such as terminal 12 and gain access thereto as Smith teach in par.20 and 22, lines 1-5). Smith fails to teach stored in database of an access control server, storing data of the temporary session in the database of the access control server, said data comprising an opening date and a duration or a termination date; authorizing by the access control server the access by the user to equipment of the set said verification comprising comparing the stored data with a current date in such a way as to terminate the temporary session when the time conditions are fulfilled, and authentication of said communication terminal through comparison between a signature determined at a time of access and a reference signature stored in a database within said secure site. De Arruda teaches, similar system, stored in database of an access control server (De Arruda teaches that Authentication Server has both an interactive and a storage function and storing the access attempt history (successful or not) of each SERVICE user as De Arruda teaches par.21), authorizing by the access control server the access by the user to equipment of the set (De Arruda teaches that Authentication Server gives the access authorization to the user as De Arruda teaches par.20) and authentication of said communication terminal through comparison between a signature determined at a time of access and a reference signature stored in a database within said secure site (par.8, lines 1-8, whenever user tries to access a service…signature is compared) (abstract). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Smith’ controlling access system to include comparison between a signature determined at the time of access and a reference signature stored in a database within said secure site as taught and suggested by De Arruda for the purpose of protecting the system even more against anyone who attempts to intercept the communication between the user device and the Authentication Server and improving its security level (De Arruda, par.9). Smith, as modified by De Arruda, does not explicitly teach storing data of the temporary session in the database of the access control server, said data comprising an opening date and a duration or a termination date; said verification comprising comparing the stored data with a current date in such a way as to terminate the temporary session when the time conditions are fulfilled. Smith in view of De Arruda fails to explicitly teach, however, Sparkes teaches similar system, Sparkes storing data of the temporary session in the database of the access control server (Sparkes teaches that the ability to set a given dataset for retention for a particular retention period by storing a corresponding retention date in an attribute of the dataset as Sparkes teaches in abstract), said data comprising an opening date and a duration or a termination date (Sparkes teaches of provided is the ability to determine expiry of the retention period for the given dataset, and then to remove the stored retention date and change the WORM attribute of the dataset to indicate that it is no longer a WORM dataset as Sparkes teaches in abstract); said verification comprising comparing the stored data with a current date in such a way as to terminate the temporary session when the time conditions are fulfilled (Sparkes teaches the retention manager 16 accesses the inode metadata of the first/next file to be checked; in particular, the retention date stored in the atime attribute is read, The retention manager 16 compares the retention date read with the current time value retrieved, If the retention date is equal to, or less than (that is, earlier than) the current time value, then is executed next; otherwise processing continues next step, the retention manager 16 adds an identifier of the current file to an `expired` list and processing continues, processing in respect of the current file is now complete and the retention manager 16 proceeds by checking whether it has processed all files in the current group; if this is the case, the expiry-checking process terminates as Sparkes teaches in par.51-54). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date to modify Smith, as modified by De Arruda, to include storing data of the temporary session in the database of the access control server as taught and suggested by Sparkes for the purpose of having the ability to store non-WORM files is useful as it allows some delay to be permitted between when a file is passed to the system and when its retention date is set and the file committed to WORM status (Sparkes, par.19). For claim 2, Smith in view of De Arruda and Sparkes discloses method of claim 1, Smith further teaches wherein the biometric authentication is carried out by interacting with the biometric activator (Smith par.17 and par.20). For claim 3, Smith in view of De Arruda and Sparkes discloses method of claim 1, Smith further teaches wherein the equipment, the communication terminal, the database and the biometric activator are connected via a private communication network (Smith par.13, lines 1-10). For claim 5, Smith in view of De Arruda and Sparkes discloses method of claim 1, Smith further teaches wherein the equipment stores the temporary session data of the user in a local memory for use during a next access authorization for the user (Smith par.13, lines 5-15 and par.22, lines 1-6). For claim 6, Smith in view of De Arruda and Sparkes discloses method of claim 1, Smith further teaches wherein the communicating portable device communicates with the biometric activator and with the communication terminal utilizing wireless communication (Smith par.23, lines 2-6). For claim 7, Smith in view of De Arruda and Sparkes discloses method of claim 1, Smith further teaches wherein the communicating portable device initiates the closure of the temporary session in event of a break in the physical association between the user and the communicating portable device (Smith par.21, lines 1-6). For claim 8, Smith in view of De Arruda and Sparkes discloses method of claim 1, Smith further teaches wherein the communicating portable device performs the biometric authentication by utilizing an internal sensor (Smith par.16, lines 2-8). For claim 9, claim 9 recite commensurate subject matter as claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 above. For claim 10, claim 10 recite commensurate subject matter as claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 3 above. Response to Amendments/Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 on page 1 of the remarks that Smith does not disclose any temporary session representing an activation of the communication portable device said data being opened, stored or terminated. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because Smith teaches that The badge includes a data processor having a non-volatile and a volatile memory, a transceiver, and an attachment sensor, once the badge is activated, that information is loaded on the badge which means data which includes the activating information is loaded into the badge. However, Smith does not explicitly teach that data being opened, stored or terminated. However, the secondary reference, Sparkes, teaches that the retention manager 16 accesses the inode metadata of the first/next file to be checked; in particular, the retention date stored in the time attribute is read, The retention manager 16 compares the retention date read with the current time value retrieved, If the retention date is equal to, or less than (that is, earlier than) the current time value, then is executed next; otherwise processing continues next step, the retention manager 16 adds an identifier of the current file to an `expired` list and processing continues, processing in respect of the current file is now complete and the retention manager 16 proceeds by checking whether it has processed all files in the current group; if this is the case, the expiry-checking process terminates Therefore, the combination of the prior arts of Smith with Sparkes meets the claim limitation. Applicant's arguments on page 2 of the remarks that Smith fails to disclose “opening of a temporary session and is not to handling any session state, opening date, duration or time based termination.” However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because Smith teaches to gain access to the computer system, user 20 puts on badge 21 and approaches terminal 11, which loads the information into badge 21 needed for the user to access one or more of the other workstations in the network, terminal 11 includes a user identification system 14 that is utilized to verify the identity of user 20, Identification system 14 may include physical sensors such as those needed to make a voice print, retinal scan, or fingerprint scan which represents biometric system , the identification system may also include a database having information known only to user 20, which may be utilized in generating queries that only user 20 would know how to answer, the badge utilizes some form of biometric measurement to assure that the badge is still on the authorized individual's body can be constructed, However, Smith does not explicitly teach that any session state, opening date, duration or time based termination. However, the secondary reference, Sparkes, teaches that the retention manager 16 accesses the inode metadata of the first/next file to be checked; in particular, the retention date stored in the time attribute is read, The retention manager 16 compares the retention date read with the current time value retrieved, If the retention date is equal to, or less than (that is, earlier than) the current time value, then is executed next; otherwise processing continues next step, the retention manager 16 adds an identifier of the current file to an `expired` list and processing continues, processing in respect of the current file is now complete and the retention manager 16 proceeds by checking whether it has processed all files in the current group; if this is the case, the expiry-checking process terminates Therefore, the combination of the prior arts of Smith with Sparkes meets the claim limitation. Applicant's arguments on page 2 of the remarks that De Arruda fails to disclose the technical features of amended claim 1. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because Smith teaches to gain access to the computer system, user 20 puts on badge 21 and approaches terminal 11, which loads the information into badge 21 needed for the user to access one or more of the other workstations in the network, terminal 11 includes a user identification system 14 that is utilized to verify the identity of user 20, Identification system 14 may include physical sensors such as those needed to make a voice print, retinal scan, or fingerprint scan which represents biometric system , the identification system may also include a database having information known only to user 20, which may be utilized in generating queries that only user 20 would know how to answer, the badge utilizes some form of biometric measurement to assure that the badge is still on the authorized individual's body can be constructed, and sensor's that detect body heat or pulse can be utilized for this function, the biometric identification hardware such as the fingerprint scanner, microphone, pulse detector, or temperature detector can be part of the badge. The measurements made by these elements would then be communicated to the computer terminal, and the computer terminal would then compare the received measurements with data identifying the various authorized users. The secondary prior art, De Arruda, is used to teach that authentication server gives the access authorization to the user and authentication of communication terminal through whenever user tries to access a service and signature is compared. the secondary reference, Sparkes, teaches that the retention manager 16 accesses the inode metadata of the first/next file to be checked; in particular, the retention date stored in the time attribute is read, The retention manager 16 compares the retention date read with the current time value retrieved, If the retention date is equal to, or less than (that is, earlier than) the current time value, then is executed next; otherwise processing continues next step, the retention manager 16 adds an identifier of the current file to an `expired` list and processing continues, processing in respect of the current file is now complete and the retention manager 16 proceeds by checking whether it has processed all files in the current group; if this is the case, the expiry-checking process terminates. Therefore, the combination of the prior arts of Smith with Sparkes and De Arruda meets the claim limitation. Applicant's arguments on page 4 of the remarks that nowhere does Sparkes disclose or suggest anything involving verifying whether a session representing an activation of a communicating portable device of user is open or terminating/closing a session when time condition are fulfilled. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant because the retention manager 16 accesses the inode metadata of the first/next file to be checked; in particular, the retention date stored in the time attribute is read, The retention manager 16 compares the retention date read with the current time value retrieved, If the retention date is equal to, or less than (that is, earlier than) the current time value, then is executed next; otherwise processing continues next step, the retention manager 16 adds an identifier of the current file to an `expired` list and processing continues, processing in respect of the current file is now complete and the retention manager 16 proceeds by checking whether it has processed all files in the current group; if this is the case, the expiry-checking process terminates. Therefore, the combination of the prior art Sparkes meets the claim limitation. Applicant's arguments on page 4 of the remarks that the technical features are not obvious in view of the cited references. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because Smith teaches to gain access to the computer system, user 20 puts on badge 21 and approaches terminal 11, which loads the information into badge 21 needed for the user to access one or more of the other workstations in the network, terminal 11 includes a user identification system 14 that is utilized to verify the identity of user 20, Identification system 14 may include physical sensors such as those needed to make a voice print, retinal scan, or fingerprint scan which represents biometric system , the identification system may also include a database having information known only to user 20, which may be utilized in generating queries that only user 20 would know how to answer, the badge utilizes some form of biometric measurement to assure that the badge is still on the authorized individual's body can be constructed, and sensor's that detect body heat or pulse can be utilized for this function, the biometric identification hardware such as the fingerprint scanner, microphone, pulse detector, or temperature detector can be part of the badge. The measurements made by these elements would then be communicated to the computer terminal, and the computer terminal would then compare the received measurements with data identifying the various authorized users. The secondary prior art, De Arruda, is used to teach that authentication server gives the access authorization to the user and authentication of communication terminal through whenever user tries to access a service and signature is compared. the secondary reference, Sparkes, teaches that the retention manager 16 accesses the inode metadata of the first/next file to be checked; in particular, the retention date stored in the time attribute is read, The retention manager 16 compares the retention date read with the current time value retrieved, If the retention date is equal to, or less than (that is, earlier than) the current time value, then is executed next; otherwise processing continues next step, the retention manager 16 adds an identifier of the current file to an `expired` list and processing continues, processing in respect of the current file is now complete and the retention manager 16 proceeds by checking whether it has processed all files in the current group; if this is the case, the expiry-checking process terminates. Therefore, the combination of the prior arts of Smith with Sparkes and De Arruda meets the claim limitation. Applicant's arguments on page 5 of the remarks that Smith and De Arruda fail to disclose or suggest opening, storing, and managing a temporary access session representing an activation of a communication portable device of a user with explicit temporal parameters. However, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant because Smith teaches to gain access to the computer system, user 20 puts on badge 21 and approaches terminal 11, which loads the information into badge 21 needed for the user to access one or more of the other workstations in the network, terminal 11 includes a user identification system 14 that is utilized to verify the identity of user 20, Identification system 14 may include physical sensors such as those needed to make a voice print, retinal scan, or fingerprint scan which represents biometric system , the identification system may also include a database having information known only to user 20, which may be utilized in generating queries that only user 20 would know how to answer, the badge utilizes some form of biometric measurement to assure that the badge is still on the authorized individual's body can be constructed, and sensor's that detect body heat or pulse can be utilized for this function, the biometric identification hardware such as the fingerprint scanner, microphone, pulse detector, or temperature detector can be part of the badge. The measurements made by these elements would then be communicated to the computer terminal, and the computer terminal would then compare the received measurements with data identifying the various authorized users. The secondary prior art, De Arruda, is used to teach that authentication server gives the access authorization to the user and authentication of communication terminal through whenever user tries to access a service and signature is compared. the secondary reference, Sparkes, teaches that the retention manager 16 accesses the inode metadata of the first/next file to be checked; in particular, the retention date stored in the time attribute is read, The retention manager 16 compares the retention date read with the current time value retrieved, If the retention date is equal to, or less than (that is, earlier than) the current time value, then is executed next; otherwise processing continues next step, the retention manager 16 adds an identifier of the current file to an `expired` list and processing continues, processing in respect of the current file is now complete and the retention manager 16 proceeds by checking whether it has processed all files in the current group; if this is the case, the expiry-checking process terminates. Therefore, the combination of the prior arts of Smith with Sparkes and De Arruda meets the claim limitation. Regarding dependent claims arguments, said arguments are moot because the applied references are not considered to have alleged differences, and therefore are considered to properly show that for which they were cited. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYUB A MAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-5037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at 571-272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AYUB A MAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2436 /SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2017
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 24, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 26, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 10, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12574211
PERSONAL PRIVATE KEY ENCRYPTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574247
DEVICE FOR COMPUTING SOLUTIONS OF LINEAR SYSTEMS AND ITS APPLICATION TO DIGITAL SIGNATURE GENERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547740
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICES AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12526274
Geolocated Portable Authenticator for Transparent and Enhanced Information-Security Authentication of Users
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12373573
Vulnerability Processing Method, Apparatus and Device, and Computer-readable Storage Medium
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 29, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.6%)
5y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 652 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month