DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/21/2025
Claims 1, 12, 14, and 16 are currently amended
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are pending
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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims in the arguments filed on 10/21/2025. Claims 1, 12, 14, and 16 are amended. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 remain pending in the application. Examiner has withdrawn the outstanding 112(b) rejections of Claims 1-16 based on the amendments. Some of the outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, some outstanding claim objections are upheld and additional claim objections arise herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 and their respective dependent claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the previously applied references from Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi, in addition to a newly applied reference from Lee (KR 101414960 B1), hereinafter Lee. Specifically, Lee teaches the amended limitation “and the first sensor and the secondary sensor are disposed to detect a completion time of the security inspection”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In independent Claims 1, 12, and 16, the terms “search inspection” and “security inspection” appear to be used interchangeably. Therefore, each instance of “security inspection” should read: “search inspection” for clarity, unless the terms are intended to represent separate processes.
In line 17 of Claim 1, “the subject of search inspection” should read “the subject of the search inspection” in accordance with the correction of the prior objection
Claims 12 and 16 include similar limitations and are each objected to for the same reasons as those listed above
In each of claims 1, 12, and 16, the limitation “and the first sensor and the secondary sensor are disposed to detect a completion time of the security inspection” (different wording but similar limitation in Claim 16) should read: “and the primary sensor and the secondary sensor are disposed to detect a completion time of the search inspection” for consistency with the established antecedent bases of the primary sensor and the search inspection
Claims 1 and 12 are identical automatic access control system claims with identical limitations. Please further amend the claims to distinguish the independent system claims
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab et al. (US 20050249382 A1), hereinafter Schwab, in view of Diaz-Lopez (US 5694867 A), hereinafter Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi (US 20100161241 A1), hereinafter Manneschi, and Lee (KR 101414960 B1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 1:
Schwab teaches an automatic access control system for handling search inspection exception during security check comprising (Schwab – Paragraph [0002]: This invention relates to security systems that permit controlled access to a secured area. Specifically, this invention relates to automatic door control in a secured area using a mantrap portal): a search controller which opens a door (Schwab – Paragraph [0036]: A controller 310 of the type conventionally known in the art of access control for security applications is used to control the airside door lock 160 and the landside door lock 150. The controller can be any device that is capable of reading inputs, processing simple logic, and controlling the landside door and airside door. The controller may have the capability for performing automatic door control, i.e., opening and closing, in addition to actuation of the respective door locks) so that a subject of a search inspection enters a security check area (Schwab – Figure 2: The mantrap 100 represents the security check area wherein the person 105 performs an entry request to gain access to secured airside region 140; and Paragraph [0037]: Each of the entry request 155 and exit request 165 being of the type conventionally known in the art of access control for security, including, but not limited to, card readers, keypad terminals, or biometric input stations, such as finger- or palm-print readers, retinal scanners, or voice recognition stations); a primary sensor which generates a primary detection signal by primarily detecting the subject of the search inspection (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone) to identify whether or not there is an occurrence of a preset search inspection exception handling during the security check (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: when the primary zone has exactly one or zero people present, and at the same time the secondary zone has exactly zero people present, the mantrap door locking/unlocking cycle can commence to permit access/egress to/from the secured area; and Paragraph [0014]: When used in conjunction with a door access control system, alarm conditions can be generated when unexpected conditions are detected); a secondary sensor which generates a secondary detection signal (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: If there are no people or objects detected in the secondary zone 220, the secondary sensor outputs a signal indicating that no such people or objects are detected) by performing secondary detection to determine whether or not a preset search completion condition is satisfied (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: When the primary zone has exactly one or zero people present, and at the same time the secondary zone has exactly zero people present, the mantrap door locking/unlocking cycle can commence to permit access/egress to/from the secured area; and Paragraph [0015]: embodiments of the present invention use a three-dimensional machine vision sensor to monitor the primary zone in combination with one or more presence/absence detectors to monitor the secondary zone; Examiner’s Comment: The teaching from Schwab Paragraph [0015] is intended to highlight the use of at least a primary and secondary sensor), and which has a different detection method from that of the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0015]: embodiments of the present invention use a three-dimensional machine vision sensor to monitor the primary zone in combination with one or more presence/absence detectors to monitor the secondary zone); and a control unit (Schwab – Figure 3: Block diagram illustrating the access control system with Controller 310 communicatively couple with primary (230) and secondary (240) sensor; Examiner’s Comment: The Controller 310 functions as both the search controller and the control unit) which performs the primary detection and the secondary detection again if there is the occurrence of the search inspection exception handling (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: If the primary sensor does not output a signal indicating that one person is in the primary zone, or if the secondary sensor does not output a signal indicating that no objects or people are detected in the secondary zone, processing continues by looping in place, as shown by processing path 455, until both conditions are met).
Schwab does not expressly teach wherein the search inspection exception handling is a procedure for exceptionally handling the case where exceptions such as a situation where the subject of security inspection must go through a door-type gate again during the security check or a situation where inspection of prohibited items is required again, and the secondary sensor performs a function of detecting search completion when the subject of search inspection leaves the primary sensor after being detected by the primary sensor; and a process executed by the secondary sensor is not activated in case of the occurrence of the preset search inspection exception handling.
However, Diaz-Lopez further teaches a primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 34-39: FIG. 8B shows the entrance chamber metal detector mode of operation in block diagram form. The interface is triggered when a person opens door No. 1 and enters the entrance chamber 12 as indicated by block 506. The person then proceeds through the metal detector 60, see block 507. If no metal is present, the alarm does not sound) which generates a primary detection signal (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 42-43: If metal is present, the alarm is triggered, per block 508 by the metal detector) by primarily detecting the subject of search inspection to identify whether or not there is an occurrence of a preset search inspection exception handling during security check (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman) a secondary sensor which generates a secondary detection signal by performing secondary detection to determine whether or not a preset search completion condition is satisfied (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 61-65: The person then passes through the metal detector and proceeds onto mat B, see block 519, the person may open the inner No. 2 entry door 30 and enter the secured facility, as indicated by block 520 if the metal detector is not activated), and which has a different detection method from that of the primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Figure 5A: Mat B/Element #92; and Col. 5, Lines 52-54: Arrangements such as floor contact pads and other sensors in the entrance chamber to determine if a person has passed through the metal detector); wherein the search inspection exception handling is a procedure for handling an exception comprising a situation where the subject of security inspection must go through a door-type gate again during security check or a situation where inspection of prohibited items is required again (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman), and the secondary sensor performs a function of detecting search completion when the subject of search inspection leaves the primary sensor after being detected by the primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 12, Lines 28-32: Normally, of course, when the entering person steps from the first mat onto the second mat 92, without activating the metal detector 60, the second inference door 30 is unlocked; but this action is blocked by a positive response from the metal detector 60), and a process executed by the secondary sensor is not activated in case of the occurrence of the preset search inspection exception handling (Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman; and Col. 12, Lines 28-32: Normally, of course, when the entering person steps from the first mat onto the second mat 92, without activating the metal detector 60, the second inference door 30 is unlocked; but this action is blocked by a positive response from the metal detector 60).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, further incorporating Diaz-Lopez to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Diaz-Lopez’s teachings of primary and secondary sensors that work in sequence to identify occurrence of a search inspection exception handling and to signify or not signify search completion into Schwab’s automatic access control system. This combination would result in a simple, streamlined process for checking search subjects efficiently and thoroughly before allowing their entry to some restricted area.
The combination of Schwab and Diaz-Lopez does not expressly teach a detector for pre-determining presence or absence of possession of metals is disposed between the search controller and the primary sensor, and the detector, the primary sensor, and the secondary sensor are disposed in order of precedence.
However, Manneschi teaches a detector for pre-determining presence or absence of possession of metals is disposed between the search controller and the primary sensor, and the detector, the primary sensor, and the secondary sensor are disposed in order of precedence (Manneschi – Figures 1b and 1c: Illustrations of conventional “control stations” including a search controller, detector, and two more sensors positioned in sequential order).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab and Diaz-Lopez, further incorporating Manneschi to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Manneschi’s structural and functional organization of a security check area into Schwab and Diaz-Lopez’s combined automatic access control system. This addition of a default pre-detection of metal to the primary and secondary sensors taught by Schwab and Diaz-Lopez would enhance the security capabilities of the system as a whole while streamlining the process by establishing a clear order of search operations.
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi does not expressly teach and the first sensor and the secondary sensor are disposed to detect a completion time of the security inspection.
However, Lee teaches and the first sensor and the secondary sensor are disposed to detect a completion time of the security inspection (Lee – P. 11: Referring to FIG. 4, the automatic access control system recognizes an entrance pass, receives pass information, and confirms whether there is a preceding passenger by confirming the preceding passenger information indicating the presence or absence of a preceding passenger … when the leading passenger information indicates that there is a preceding passenger, the access right information corresponding to the pass information of the passenger is checked, and when the passenger has the access right, the state of the control device is changed from the absence of the preceding passenger to the presence of the preceding passenger. Next, the access means is opened to allow the passenger to enter the security zone (3), and the security search for the passenger is performed (4). Specifically, the preceding passenger waits on the detection completion time detection means in order to inspect the security search by the security personnel, and when the security search is completed, the preceding passenger descends from the search completion time detection means in accordance with the instruction of the security officer (5).Next, when the security search for the preceding passenger is completed and the preceding passenger comes down from the search completion time detection means, it recognizes it as the security search completion time and transmits a search completion signal to the control device; Examiner’s Comment: the first/primary sensor (access means) taught by Lee performs a detection of a passenger and corresponding access right, the confirmation of which indicates that the passenger is allowed to enter a security zone for a security search. Then, the secondary sensor (detection completion time detection means) detects and signals the search completion time after the security search. Without the detection performed by the first sensor, the security search would not ensue and the search completion time could not be detected. Thus, the combination of the sensors is interpreted as being disposed cooperatively to detect a completion time of a security inspection).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi, further incorporating Lee to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Lee’s multi-sensor security check system capable of detecting a completion time per security check into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi’s combined automatic access control system. This functionality would enhance the combined multi-sensor checking systems by automatically detecting when a security check of a subject has been complete, ensuring that no unauthorized subjects could enter a secured area without completing their own security check.
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 1.
Schwab further teaches wherein the primary sensor is any one of a pressure sensor, a contact sensor, and a touch sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0008]: The basic operation of a mantrap portal becomes increasingly complex as security of the portal is enhanced. For example, mantrap portals are commonly equipped with IR sensors, pressure mats, to prevent piggyback and tailgate violations).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 1.
Schwab further teaches wherein the secondary sensor is any one of an infrared ray sensor (IR) sensor, a laser sensor, and a smart sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0008]: The basic operation of a mantrap portal becomes increasingly complex as security of the portal is enhanced. For example, mantrap portals are commonly equipped with IR sensors, pressure mats, to prevent piggyback and tailgate violations; and Paragraph [0035]: A secondary sensor 240 monitors the secondary zone to determine whether or not a person or object exists within the secondary zone 220).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Schwab teaches an automatic access control system for handling search inspection exception during security search comprising (Schwab – Paragraph [0002]: This invention relates to security systems that permit controlled access to a secured area. Specifically, this invention relates to automatic door control in a secured area using a mantrap portal): a search controller which opens a door (Schwab – Paragraph [0036]: A controller 310 of the type conventionally known in the art of access control for security applications is used to control the airside door lock 160 and the landside door lock 150. The controller can be any device that is capable of reading inputs, processing simple logic, and controlling the landside door and airside door. The controller may have the capability for performing automatic door control, i.e., opening and closing, in addition to actuation of the respective door locks) so that a subject of a search inspection enters a security check area (Schwab – Figure 2: The mantrap 100 represents the security check area wherein the person 105 performs an entry request to gain access to secured airside region 140; and Paragraph [0037]: Each of the entry request 155 and exit request 165 being of the type conventionally known in the art of access control for security, including, but not limited to, card readers, keypad terminals, or biometric input stations, such as finger- or palm-print readers, retinal scanners, or voice recognition stations); a primary sensor which generates a primary detection signal by primarily detecting the subject of the search inspection (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone) to identify whether or not there is an occurrence of a preset search inspection exception handling during security check (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: when the primary zone has exactly one or zero people present, and at the same time the secondary zone has exactly zero people present, the mantrap door locking/unlocking cycle can commence to permit access/egress to/from the secured area; and Paragraph [0014]: When used in conjunction with a door access control system, alarm conditions can be generated when unexpected conditions are detected); a secondary sensor which generates a secondary detection signal (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: If there are no people or objects detected in the secondary zone 220, the secondary sensor outputs a signal indicating that no such people or objects are detected) by performing secondary detection to determine whether or not a preset search completion condition is satisfied (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: When the primary zone has exactly one or zero people present, and at the same time the secondary zone has exactly zero people present, the mantrap door locking/unlocking cycle can commence to permit access/egress to/from the secured area; and Paragraph [0015]: embodiments of the present invention use a three-dimensional machine vision sensor to monitor the primary zone in combination with one or more presence/absence detectors to monitor the secondary zone; Examiner’s Comment: The teaching from Schwab Paragraph [0015] is intended to highlight the use of at least a primary and secondary sensor), and which has the same detection method as that of the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0109]: In a second alternative embodiment of the present invention, both the primary sensor 230 and the secondary sensor 240 are a single three-dimensional machine vision sensor configured to observe both the primary zone and the secondary zone); and a control unit (Schwab – Figure 3: Block diagram illustrating the access control system with Controller 310 communicatively couple with primary (230) and secondary (240) sensor; Examiner’s Comment: The Controller 310 functions as both the search controller and the control unit) which performs the primary detection and the secondary detection again if there is the occurrence of the search inspection exception handling (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: If the primary sensor does not output a signal indicating that one person is in the primary zone, or if the secondary sensor does not output a signal indicating that no objects or people are detected in the secondary zone, processing continues by looping in place, as shown by processing path 455, until both conditions are met).
Schwab does not expressly teach wherein the search inspection exception handling is a procedure for exceptionally handling the case where exceptions such as a situation where the subject of the security inspection must go through a door-type gate again during security check or a situation where inspection of prohibited items is required again, and the secondary sensor performs a function of detecting search completion when the subject of the search inspection leaves the primary sensor after being detected by the primary sensor; and a process executed by the secondary sensor is not activated in case of the occurrence of the preset search inspection exception handling.
However, Diaz-Lopez further teaches a primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 34-39: FIG. 8B shows the entrance chamber metal detector mode of operation in block diagram form. The interface is triggered when a person opens door No. 1 and enters the entrance chamber 12 as indicated by block 506. The person then proceeds through the metal detector 60, see block 507. If no metal is present, the alarm does not sound) which generates a primary detection signal (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 42-43: If metal is present, the alarm is triggered, per block 508 by the metal detector) by primarily detecting the subject of search inspection to identify whether or not there is an occurrence of a preset search inspection exception handling during security check (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman) a secondary sensor which generates a secondary detection signal by performing secondary detection to determine whether or not a preset search completion condition is satisfied (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 61-65: The person then passes through the metal detector and proceeds onto mat B, see block 519, the person may open the inner No. 2 entry door 30 and enter the secured facility, as indicated by block 520 if the metal detector is not activated), and which has a different detection method from that of the primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Figure 5A: Mat B/Element #92; and Col. 5, Lines 52-54: Arrangements such as floor contact pads and other sensors in the entrance chamber to determine if a person has passed through the metal detector); wherein the search inspection exception handling is a procedure for handling an exception comprising a situation where the subject of the security inspection must go through a door-type gate again during security check or a situation where inspection of prohibited items is required again (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman), and the secondary sensor performs a function of detecting search completion when the subject of the search inspection leaves the primary sensor after being detected by the primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 12, Lines 28-32: Normally, of course, when the entering person steps from the first mat onto the second mat 92, without activating the metal detector 60, the second inference door 30 is unlocked; but this action is blocked by a positive response from the metal detector 60) and a process executed by the secondary sensor is not activated in case of the occurrence of the preset search inspection exception handling (Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman; and Col. 12, Lines 28-32: Normally, of course, when the entering person steps from the first mat onto the second mat 92, without activating the metal detector 60, the second inference door 30 is unlocked; but this action is blocked by a positive response from the metal detector 60).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, further incorporating Diaz-Lopez to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Diaz-Lopez’s teachings of primary and secondary sensors that work in sequence to identify occurrence of a search inspection exception handling and to signify or not signify search completion into Schwab’s automatic access control system. This combination would result in a simple, streamlined process for checking search subjects efficiently and thoroughly before allowing their entry to some restricted area.
The combination of Schwab and Diaz-Lopez does not expressly teach a detector for pre-determining presence or absence of possession of metals is disposed between the search controller and the primary sensor, and the detector, the primary sensor, and the secondary sensor are disposed in order of precedence.
However, Manneschi teaches a detector for pre-determining presence or absence of possession of metals is disposed between the search controller and the primary sensor, and the detector, the primary sensor, and the secondary sensor are disposed in order of precedence (Manneschi – Figures 1b and 1c: Illustrations of conventional “control stations” including a search controller, detector, and two more sensors positioned in sequential order).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab and Diaz-Lopez, further incorporating Manneschi to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Manneschi’s structural and functional organization of a security check area into Schwab and Diaz-Lopez’s combined automatic access control system. This addition of a default pre-detection of metal to the primary and secondary sensors taught by Schwab and Diaz-Lopez would enhance the security capabilities of the system as a whole while streamlining the process by establishing a clear order of search operations.
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi does not expressly teach and the first sensor and the secondary sensor are disposed to detect a completion time of the security inspection.
However, Lee teaches and the first sensor and the secondary sensor are disposed to detect a completion time of the security inspection (Lee – P. 11: Referring to FIG. 4, the automatic access control system recognizes an entrance pass, receives pass information, and confirms whether there is a preceding passenger by confirming the preceding passenger information indicating the presence or absence of a preceding passenger … when the leading passenger information indicates that there is a preceding passenger, the access right information corresponding to the pass information of the passenger is checked, and when the passenger has the access right, the state of the control device is changed from the absence of the preceding passenger to the presence of the preceding passenger. Next, the access means is opened to allow the passenger to enter the security zone (3), and the security search for the passenger is performed (4). Specifically, the preceding passenger waits on the detection completion time detection means in order to inspect the security search by the security personnel, and when the security search is completed, the preceding passenger descends from the search completion time detection means in accordance with the instruction of the security officer (5).Next, when the security search for the preceding passenger is completed and the preceding passenger comes down from the search completion time detection means, it recognizes it as the security search completion time and transmits a search completion signal to the control device; Examiner’s Comment: the first/primary sensor (access means) taught by Lee performs a detection of a passenger and corresponding access right, the confirmation of which indicates that the passenger is allowed to enter a security zone for a security search. Then, the secondary sensor (detection completion time detection means) detects and signals the search completion time after the security search. Without the detection performed by the first sensor, the security search would not ensue and the search completion time could not be detected. Thus, the combination of the sensors is interpreted as being disposed cooperatively to detect a completion time of a security inspection).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi, further incorporating Lee to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Lee’s multi-sensor security check system capable of detecting a completion time per security check into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi’s combined automatic access control system. This functionality would enhance the combined multi-sensor checking systems by automatically detecting when a security check of a subject has been complete, ensuring that no unauthorized subjects could enter a secured area without completing their own security check.
Regarding Claim 15:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 12.
Schwab further teaches wherein the primary and secondary sensors are any one of a pressure sensor, a contact sensor, and a touch sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0008]: The basic operation of a mantrap portal becomes increasingly complex as security of the portal is enhanced. For example, mantrap portals are commonly equipped with IR sensors, pressure mats, to prevent piggyback and tailgate violations).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 16:
Schwab teaches an automatic access control method for handling search inspection exception during security check comprising the steps of (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: The present invention provides for improved methods and systems for restricting access to a secured area): opening a door by a search controller (Schwab – Paragraph [0036]: A controller 310 of the type conventionally known in the art of access control for security applications is used to control the airside door lock 160 and the landside door lock 150. The controller can be any device that is capable of reading inputs, processing simple logic, and controlling the landside door and airside door. The controller may have the capability for performing automatic door control, i.e., opening and closing, in addition to actuation of the respective door locks) so that a subject of a search inspection enters a security check area (Schwab – Figure 2: The mantrap 100 represents the security check area wherein the person 105 performs an entry request to gain access to secured airside region 140; and Paragraph [0037]: Each of the entry request 155 and exit request 165 being of the type conventionally known in the art of access control for security, including, but not limited to, card readers, keypad terminals, or biometric input stations, such as finger- or palm-print readers, retinal scanners, or voice recognition stations); generating a primary detection signal by primarily detecting the subject of search inspection by a primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone) to identify whether or not there is an occurrence of a preset search inspection exception handling during the security check (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: when the primary zone has exactly one or zero people present, and at the same time the secondary zone has exactly zero people present, the mantrap door locking/unlocking cycle can commence to permit access/egress to/from the secured area; and Paragraph [0014]: When used in conjunction with a door access control system, alarm conditions can be generated when unexpected conditions are detected); generating a secondary detection signal by performing secondary detection by a secondary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: If there are no people or objects detected in the secondary zone 220, the secondary sensor outputs a signal indicating that no such people or objects are detected) which has a different detection method from that of the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0015]: embodiments of the present invention use a three-dimensional machine vision sensor to monitor the primary zone in combination with one or more presence/absence detectors to monitor the secondary zone) to determine whether or not a preset search completion condition is satisfied (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: When the primary zone has exactly one or zero people present, and at the same time the secondary zone has exactly zero people present, the mantrap door locking/unlocking cycle can commence to permit access/egress to/from the secured area; and Paragraph [0015]: embodiments of the present invention use a three-dimensional machine vision sensor to monitor the primary zone in combination with one or more presence/absence detectors to monitor the secondary zone; Examiner’s Comment: The teaching from Schwab Paragraph [0015] is intended to highlight the use of at least a primary and secondary sensor); and performing the primary detection and the secondary detection again by a control unit (Schwab – Figure 3: Block diagram illustrating the access control system with Controller 310 communicatively couple with primary (230) and secondary (240) sensor; Examiner’s Comment: The Controller 310 functions as both the search controller and the control unit) if there is the occurrence of the search inspection exception handling (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: If the primary sensor does not output a signal indicating that one person is in the primary zone, or if the secondary sensor does not output a signal indicating that no objects or people are detected in the secondary zone, processing continues by looping in place, as shown by processing path 455, until both conditions are met).
Schwab does not expressly teach wherein the search inspection exception handling is a procedure for exceptionally handling the case where exceptions such as a situation where a subject of security inspection must go through a door-type gate again during security check or a situation where inspection of prohibited items is required again, and the secondary sensor performs a function of detecting search completion when the subject of search inspection leaves the primary sensor after being detected by the primary sensor.
However, Diaz-Lopez further teaches generating a primary detection signal by primarily detecting the subject of search inspection by a primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 42-43: If metal is present, the alarm is triggered, per block 508 by the metal detector; and Col. 13, Lines 34-39: FIG. 8B shows the entrance chamber metal detector mode of operation in block diagram form. The interface is triggered when a person opens door No. 1 and enters the entrance chamber 12 as indicated by block 506. The person then proceeds through the metal detector 60, see block 507. If no metal is present, the alarm does not sound) by primarily detecting the subject of search inspection to identify whether or not there is an occurrence of a preset search inspection exception handling during the security check (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman) generating a secondary detection signal by performing secondary detection by a secondary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 61-65: The person then passes through the metal detector and proceeds onto mat B, see block 519, the person may open the inner No. 2 entry door 30 and enter the secured facility, as indicated by block 520 if the metal detector is not activated) which has a different detection method from that of the primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Figure 5A: Mat B/Element #92; and Col. 5, Lines 52-54: Arrangements such as floor contact pads and other sensors in the entrance chamber to determine if a person has passed through the metal detector) to determine whether or not a preset search completion condition is satisfied (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 13, Lines 61-65: The person then passes through the metal detector and proceeds onto mat B, see block 519, the person may open the inner No. 2 entry door 30 and enter the secured facility, as indicated by block 520 if the metal detector is not activated); wherein the search inspection exception handling is a procedure for handling an exception comprising a situation where the subject of the security inspection must go through a door-type gate again during security check or a situation where inspection of prohibited items is required again (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman), and the secondary sensor performs a function of detecting search completion when the subject of search inspection leaves the primary sensor after being detected by the primary sensor (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 12, Lines 28-32: Normally, of course, when the entering person steps from the first mat onto the second mat 92, without activating the metal detector 60, the second inference door 30 is unlocked; but this action is blocked by a positive response from the metal detector 60) and a process executed by the secondary sensor is not activated in case of the occurrence of the preset search inspection exception handling (Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman; and Col. 12, Lines 28-32: Normally, of course, when the entering person steps from the first mat onto the second mat 92, without activating the metal detector 60, the second inference door 30 is unlocked; but this action is blocked by a positive response from the metal detector 60).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, further incorporating Diaz-Lopez to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Diaz-Lopez’s teachings of primary and secondary sensors that work in sequence to identify occurrence of a search inspection exception handling and to signify or not signify search completion into Schwab’s automatic access control system. This combination would result in a simple, streamlined process for checking search subjects efficiently and thoroughly before allowing their entry to some restricted area.
The combination of Schwab and Diaz-Lopez does not expressly teach a detector for pre-determining presence or absence of possession of metals is disposed between the search controller and the primary sensor, and the detector, the primary sensor, and the secondary sensor are disposed in order of precedence.
However, Manneschi teaches pre-determining, by a detector, presence or absence of possession of metals is disposed between the search controller and the primary sensor, and the detector, the primary sensor, and the secondary sensor are disposed in order of precedence (Manneschi – Figures 1b and 1c: Illustrations of conventional “control stations” including a search controller, detector, and two more sensors positioned in sequential order).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab and Diaz-Lopez, further incorporating Manneschi to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Manneschi’s structural and functional organization of a security check area into Schwab and Diaz-Lopez’s combined automatic access control method. This addition of a default pre-detection of metal to the primary and secondary sensors taught by Schwab and Diaz-Lopez would enhance the security capabilities of the system as a whole while streamlining the process by establishing a clear order of search operations.
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi does not expressly teach wherein the preset search completion condition is that after a plurality of primary detection signals is generated by the primary sensor, the secondary detection signal is sequentially generated singly by the secondary sensor; and disposing of the first sensor and the secondary sensor to detect a completion time of the security inspection.
However, Lee teaches wherein the preset search completion condition is that after a plurality of primary detection signals is generated by the primary sensor, the secondary detection signal is sequentially generated singly by the secondary sensor (Lee – P. 8: The pass recognition unit 110 can recognize the pass information inputted from the passenger. For example, the pass recognition means 110 may include an RFID reader that receives frequencies emitted from the RFID tags attached to the pass. On the other hand, the pass recognition unit 110 can be attached to the access means 120 to be described later. The access means 120 may physically control access to and from the security area of the visitor. For example, the access means 120 may be a gate that controls a visitor. The access means 120 can be opened and allowed to enter and exit the security zone under the control of the control means 190, which will be described later, when the accessing person has an access right to the security zone; and P. 10: the automatic access control system receives the pass information from the pass(eng)er by the pass recognition unit 110 … when the accessing means 120 is opened, the data control device 193 receives a control signal from the accessing means 120 indicating that the accessing means 120 has been opened (8), and sends the control signal to the control device 191; and Lee – P. 8: The search completion time detecting means 130 can generate the preceding accessing person information indicating the presence or absence of the preceding accessing person who enters the security area and receives the security search through the accessing means 120 before the accessing person waiting for the current accessing. For example, the search completion time detecting means 130 can detect the presence or absence of a preceding passenger entering and exiting the passenger by using a pressure sensor; and Lee – P. 11: when the security search for the preceding passenger is completed and the preceding passenger comes down from the search completion time detection means, it recognizes it as the security search completion time and transmits a search completion signal to the control device) and disposing of the first sensor and the secondary sensor to detect a completion time of the security inspection (Lee – P. 11: Referring to FIG. 4, the automatic access control system recognizes an entrance pass, receives pass information, and confirms whether there is a preceding passenger by confirming the preceding passenger information indicating the presence or absence of a preceding passenger … when the leading passenger information indicates that there is a preceding passenger, the access right information corresponding to the pass information of the passenger is checked, and when the passenger has the access right, the state of the control device is changed from the absence of the preceding passenger to the presence of the preceding passenger. Next, the access means is opened to allow the passenger to enter the security zone (3), and the security search for the passenger is performed (4). Specifically, the preceding passenger waits on the detection completion time detection means in order to inspect the security search by the security personnel, and when the security search is completed, the preceding passenger descends from the search completion time detection means in accordance with the instruction of the security officer (5).Next, when the security search for the preceding passenger is completed and the preceding passenger comes down from the search completion time detection means, it recognizes it as the security search completion time and transmits a search completion signal to the control device; Examiner’s Comment: the first/primary sensor (access means) taught by Lee performs a detection of a passenger and corresponding access right, the confirmation of which indicates that the passenger is allowed to enter a security zone for a security search. Then, the secondary sensor (detection completion time detection means) detects and signals the search completion time after the security search. Without the detection performed by the first sensor, the security search would not ensue and the search completion time could not be detected. Thus, the combination of the sensors is interpreted as being disposed cooperatively to detect a completion time of a security inspection).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi, further incorporating Lee to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Lee’s multi-sensor security check system capable of detecting a completion time per security check based on sequential detection signals from at least two sensors into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, and Manneschi’s combined automatic access control system. This functionality would enhance the combined multi-sensor checking systems by automatically detecting when a security check of a subject has been complete, ensuring that no unauthorized subjects could enter a secured area without completing their own security check. The particular spatial and temporal arrangement of the system processes would further enhance the efficiency of the security checks.
Claim(s) 2-4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab, in view of Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Charych (US 20110001606 A1), hereinafter Charych.
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 1.
Schwab further teaches wherein the search completion condition is that after a [plurality of] primary detection signal[s] is generated by the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone), the secondary detection signal is sequentially generated singly by the secondary sensor (Paragraph [0109]: In a second alternative embodiment of the present invention, both the primary sensor 230 and the secondary sensor 240 are a single three-dimensional machine vision sensor configured to observe both the primary zone and the secondary zone at the same time, or in rapid succession; Examiner’s Comment: This teaching from Schwab suggests the first and second detection signals may occur sequentially).
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee does not expressly teach a plurality of the primary detection signals is generated by the primary sensor.
However, Charych teaches a plurality of the primary detection signals is generated by the primary sensor (Charych – Paragraph [0036]: As shown, the entrance side sensor 15, middle sensor 19, and exit side sensor 17 send signals (shown in the dotted lines) into the gate space 9 to determine the position of the user 3 as he moves through the gate space 9; and Figure 5: illustration of a top-down view of an access gate with sensors generating a plurality of detection signals).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee, further incorporating Charych to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Charych’s teaching of a primary sensor which generates a plurality of detection signals before a secondary sensor subsequently generates one or more detection signals into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee’s automatic access control system. This combined functionality would enhance the system by increasing the detection capabilities of the primary sensor and establishing a linear structure for a detection of an entrant.
Regarding Claim 3:
Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Charych combine to teach the automatic access control system of claim 2.
Schwab further teaches wherein the [plurality of the] primary detection signal[s] includes a primary sub-detection signal generated when the subject of search inspection contacts the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: Once an entry request is made, processing continues to step 450 where the output of the primary sensor 230 and secondary sensor are considered by the controller 310; and Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone) and a secondary sub-detection generated when the subject of search inspection leaves the primary sensor after contacting the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0043]: If an exit request is detected at step 440, processing continues to step 460, where the signals from the primary sensor 230 and secondary sensor 240 are considered by the controller 310; and Paragraph [0044]: the primary sensor detects that zero people are present in the primary zone 210).
Charych further teaches the plurality of the primary detection signals (Charych – Paragraph [0036]: As shown, the entrance side sensor 15, middle sensor 19, and exit side sensor 17 send signals (shown in the dotted lines) into the gate space 9 to determine the position of the user 3 as he moves through the gate space 9; and Figure 5: illustration of a top-down view of an access gate with sensors generating a plurality of detection signals).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4:
Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Charych combine to teach the automatic access control system of claim 3.
Schwab further teaches wherein the search inspection [exception handling] is performed when a sudden security check occurs (Schwab – Paragraph [0013]: When the primary zone has exactly one or zero people present, and at the same time the secondary zone has exactly zero people present, the mantrap door locking/unlocking cycle can commence to permit access/egress to/from the secured area; and Paragraph [0014]: When used in conjunction with a door access control system, alarm conditions can be generated when unexpected conditions are detected; Examiner’s Comment: the unexpected conditions taught by Schwab are interpreted to represent the claimed sudden security check) during generation of the primary sub-detection signal and the secondary sub-detection signal are generated (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: Once an entry request is made, processing continues to step 450 where the output of the primary sensor 230 and secondary sensor are considered by the controller 310; and Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone).
Diaz-Lopez further teaches wherein the search inspection exception handling is performed when a sudden security check occurs (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 12.
Schwab further teaches wherein the search completion condition is that after a [plurality of] primary detection signal[s] is generated by the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone), a [plurality of] secondary detection signal[s] is sequentially generated by the secondary sensor (Paragraph [0109]: In a second alternative embodiment of the present invention, both the primary sensor 230 and the secondary sensor 240 are a single three-dimensional machine vision sensor configured to observe both the primary zone and the secondary zone at the same time, or in rapid succession; Examiner’s Comment: This teaching from Schwab suggests the first and second detection signals may occur sequentially).
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee does not expressly teach a plurality of primary detection signals is generated by the primary sensor, and a plurality of secondary detection signals is sequentially generated by the secondary sensor.
However, Charych teaches a plurality of primary detection signals is generated by the primary sensor (Charych – Paragraph [0036]: As shown, the entrance side sensor 15, middle sensor 19, and exit side sensor 17 send signals (shown in the dotted lines) into the gate space 9 to determine the position of the user 3 as he moves through the gate space 9; and Figure 5: illustration of a top-down view of an access gate with sensors generating a plurality of detection signals), and a plurality of secondary detection signals is sequentially generated by the secondary sensor (Charych – Paragraph [0036]: As shown, the entrance side sensor 15, middle sensor 19, and exit side sensor 17 send signals (shown in the dotted lines) into the gate space 9 to determine the position of the user 3 as he moves through the gate space 9; and Figure 5: illustration of a top-down view of an access gate with sensors generating a plurality of detection signals).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee, further incorporating Charych to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Charych’s teaching of sensors that generate a plurality of detection signals sequentially into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee’s automatic access control system. This combined functionality would enhance the system by increasing the detection capabilities of the primary and secondary sensors and establishing a linear structure for a detection of an entrant.
Regarding Claim 14:
Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Charych combine to teach the automatic access control system of claim 13.
Schwab further teaches wherein the plurality of the primary detection signals includes a primary sub-detection signal generated when the subject of search inspection contacts the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: Once an entry request is made, processing continues to step 450 where the output of the primary sensor 230 and secondary sensor are considered by the controller 310; and Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone) and a secondary sub-detection generated when the subject of search inspection leaves the primary sensor after contacting the primary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0043]: If an exit request is detected at step 440, processing continues to step 460, where the signals from the primary sensor 230 and secondary sensor 240 are considered by the controller 310; and Paragraph [0044]: the primary sensor detects that zero people are present in the primary zone 210) and the plurality of the secondary detection signals includes a secondary sub-detection signal generated when the subject of the search inspection contacts the secondary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: Once an entry request is made, processing continues to step 450 where the output of the primary sensor 230 and secondary sensor are considered by the controller 310; and Paragraph [0041]: When the person seeking access is in the primary zone 210, shown in FIG. 2 as person 105, the primary sensor outputs a signal indicating that one person is detected in the primary zone; Examiner’s Comment: Examiner submits that, in a case in which the primary and secondary sensor are using the same method of detection, the secondary sensor would be equally capable to detect when a subject contacts the secondary sensor) and a secondary sub-detection generated when the subject of the search inspection leaves the secondary sensor after contacting the secondary sensor (Schwab – Paragraph [0043]: If an exit request is detected at step 440, processing continues to step 460, where the signals from the primary sensor 230 and secondary sensor 240 are considered by the controller 310; and Paragraph [0044]: the primary sensor detects that zero people are present in the primary zone 210; Examiner’s Comment: Examiner submits that, in a case in which the primary and secondary sensor are using the same method of detection, the secondary sensor would be equally capable to detect when a subject leaves or is not in contact with the secondary sensor).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 13.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab, in view of Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Baczek (US 20200312070 A1), hereinafter Baczek.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 1.
Schwab further teaches processes for the primary detection and the secondary detection are performed again (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: If the primary sensor does not output a signal indicating that one person is in the primary zone, or if the secondary sensor does not output a signal indicating that no objects or people are detected in the secondary zone, processing continues by looping in place, as shown by processing path 455, until both conditions are met).
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee does not expressly teach wherein the search inspection exception handling is that if the secondary detection does not occur for a preset time after the primary detection.
However, Baczek teaches wherein the search inspection exception handling is that if the secondary detection does not occur for a preset time after the primary detection (Baczek – Paragraph [0029]: The above examples disclose door authorization protocols that may require defining the chain of credentials needed to be presented on the sensor/reader and time-frame tolerance between presenting such credentials. The sequence and time-frame tolerance identified by the protocols may become part of the credentials. The above disclosed door authorization protocols are not intended to be limiting. Activities may be scheduled in a serial, a parallel or a mixed form, but still use one sensor, or more sensors as may be predetermined).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee, further incorporating Baczek to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Baczek’s teaching of one or more sensors whose detections are required to occur within a predetermined time-frame in order to be valid into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee’s automatic access control system. This combined functionality would enhance both the efficiency and the security of the automatic access control system by ensuring that sequential detections occur in a timely manner.
Regarding Claim 6:
Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Baczek combine to teach the automatic access control system of claim 5.
Schwab further teaches the process for the secondary detection will proceed immediately only after the primary detection (Paragraph [0109]: In a second alternative embodiment of the present invention, both the primary sensor 230 and the secondary sensor 240 are a single three-dimensional machine vision sensor configured to observe both the primary zone and the secondary zone at the same time, or in rapid succession; Examiner’s Comment: This teaching from Schwab suggests the first and second detection signals may occur sequentially) is performed again (Schwab – Paragraph [0040]: If the primary sensor does not output a signal indicating that one person is in the primary zone, or if the secondary sensor does not output a signal indicating that no objects or people are detected in the secondary zone, processing continues by looping in place, as shown by processing path 455, until both conditions are met).
Diaz-Lopez further teaches wherein if the search inspection exception handling occurs (Diaz-Lopez – Col. 9, Lines 52-58: The control panel 110 may also include a door No. 2 release button 130 to release door No. 2 if the metal detector 60 is activated. The door No. 2 release button 130 would allow an operator to enter the entrance chamber 12 to inspect and/or remove the object which triggered the metal detector 60, or to permit the entry of a known wheel chair customer or a known armed policeman).
The motivation to combine the arts is the same as that of Claim 5.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab, in view of Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Tiso et al. (US 20220228419 A1), hereinafter Tiso.
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 1.
Schwab further teaches the control unit (Schwab – Figure 3: Block diagram illustrating the access control system with Controller 310 communicatively couple with primary (230) and secondary (240) sensor; Examiner’s Comment: The Controller 310 functions as both the search controller and the control unit).
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee does not expressly teach comprising a central server which compares pass information with a previously stored authentication information database to determine whether the subject of search inspection is an authorized subject of search inspection, and transmits a determination result to the control unit.
However, Tiso teaches comprising a central server which compares pass information with a previously stored authentication information database (Tiso – Paragraph [0050]: The database 18 contains the information of the authorized subjects AU and is connected to the electronic control unit 14, so that it can search the database 18 and compare the information of the user U with that contained in the database 18 to check whether this user U is authorized or not) to determine whether the subject of search inspection is an authorized subject of search inspection (Tiso – Paragraph [0050]: The database 18 contains the information of the authorized subjects AU and is connected to the electronic control unit 14, so that it can search the database 18 and compare the information of the user U with that contained in the database 18 to check whether this user U is authorized or not), and transmits a determination result to the control unit (Tiso – Paragraph [0051]: in the generalized meaning of control unit 14 and database 18, it follows that each of the possible control units can refer to its own specific database to draw information from, or a database can be shared between multiple control units and vice versa. This implies, in a further generalized sense, that the databases 18 and the relative control units 14 can also, in general, be shared with multiple access gates physically positioned remotely in the same site or positioned in other sites in the world (worldwide); Examiner’s Comment: This teaching from Tiso demonstrates that a plurality of control units (such as control unit 14) may act as central servers which provide other control units (such as Schwab’s controller 310) with access to databases storing authorized subject information).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee, further incorporating Tiso to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Tiso’s teaching of a server to provide a control unit with access to a database of authorized search subject information into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee’s combined automatic access control system. This combination would further increase the efficiency and security of the access control system by rapidly acquiring security information on subjects being searched.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab, in view of Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, Lee, and Schmockmel et al. (US 20130201286 A1), hereinafter Schmockmel.
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee teaches the automatic access control system of claim 1.
The combination of Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee does not expressly teach further comprising a search indicator which displays that an entrance is possible.
However, Schmockmel teaches further comprising a search indicator which displays that an entrance is possible (Schmockmel – Paragraph [0157]: The access control device keeps track of the flow and presence of people and can drive one or more status indicators inside the mantrap (FIG. 6--ref. 14) asking people to leave the mantrap or status indicators (FIG. 6--ref. 13, 15) outside of the mantrap notifying people that the mantrap is occupied; and Figure 6: illustrations of various embodiments of access control systems).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee, further incorporating Schmockmel to arrive at the conclusion of the claimed invention. One would be motivated to incorporate Schmockmel’s teaching to implement an indicator for notifying search subjects to enter a search area into Schwab, Diaz-Lopez, Manneschi, and Lee’s combined automatic access control system. This combination provides the system with an automated feature for maintaining order throughout the access control process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ariyoshi et al. (US 20220244377 A1) teaches a system for performing multi-stage inspection of objects using radio waves
Brinton et al. (US 20050021283 A1) teaches a method and system for automatically overseeing inspection processes, including detecting when inspections are completed
Manneschi (US 20230131216 A1) teaches a method for inspecting an object using multiple detection signals/means
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOSEPH DILUZIO whose telephone number is (703)756-1229. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri -- 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/NICHOLAS JOSEPH DILUZIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2498
/YIN CHEN SHAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2498