DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on October 29, 2025, claims 2 and 15 have been canceled and claims 1, 3-14 and 16-24 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1, 3-14 and 16-24 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites "according to claim 14 or 15" which appears to be a typographical error because claim 15 has been canceled. For the purpose of the examination, the examiner will assume as "according to claim 14". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13-14, 16-20, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Jonsson (US2019/0287329).
Regarding Claim 1, Jonsson teaches an access control device for controlling access within a secure control area by means of a plurality of barriers, a plurality of security perimeters being associated with the one or more barriers the access control device (Fig. 1, 15a-d, 7a-d and claim 10: a lock controller for controlling a lock configured to control access to a restricted physical space ….) comprising:
one or more ultra-wideband transceivers (Fig. 1, 15a-d and 5a-b) configured to execute one or more ultra-wideband transmissions with an authentication device (par 35, 38, 51 and par [0074] The lock controller 18 further comprises an I/O interface 63 for communicating with other external entities such as a lock 12, the activation device and a portable key device 2, … over a wireless interface using one or more antennas 25. The I/O interface 63 comprises necessary circuitry (e.g. transceivers, etc.) for supporting wireless communication over any suitable wireless interface, e.g. …UWB) and
a processing unit configured to:
determine a physical location of the authentication device within the secure control area by processing signal properties of the one or more ultra-wideband transmissions (Par 35, The antennas 5a-b may also be used in determining a position of the portable key as an example of a first positioning procedure device 2, e.g. using angle of arrival. Par [0037] Using the second positioning procedure, the lock controller then determines a intent to open the lock associated with the lock controller. Par 56, UWB and Fig. 3, step 44 and Par 58) and
determine the security perimeter where the authentication device is located based on the physical location, and identify the barrier from the plurality of barriers associated with the security perimeter where the authentication device is located, wherein the access control device is configured to execute an access control process with respect to the barrier associated with the security perimeter where the authentication device is located (Par 35 and Par [0036] Each combination of barrier 15a-d, lock 12a-d and lock controller 18a-d has a respectively associated active space 7a-d. Each active space 7a-d is defined such that when a user (or more accurately the portable key device 2 of a user) is located in an active space and Fig. 3, steps 46-48 and Par [0060] In a conditional intent to open step 46, the presence or not of intent to open is determined based on the second indication of position. In here, intent is associated with the second indication of position … and Par [0067] In the transmit unlock signal step 48, an unlock signal is transmitted to the lock associated with the lock controller. And par58, the second positioning procedure can have a much shorter range of positioning than the first positioning procedure, since this is only activated once the portable key device 2 is within the active area of the lock controller and Par 69 ).
Regarding claim 14, the claimed steps of the method correspond with the elements of the device as addressed in claim 1. Since the device has been anticipated, the steps of using the device in its intended manner are also anticipated.
Claim 23 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 1 as set forth above (see also Jonsson: Par 77 ).
Claim 24 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 1, wherein the access control device is further configured to deny, disregard and/or block authentication requests from the authentication device if the authentication device is not located within one or more of the plurality of security perimeters (Jonsson: Fig. 3 and par 66 and Par 69, 0069] By using the first positioning procedure to identify a general position of the portable key device, the second positioning procedure does not need to be activated until the portable key device is within the active area.).
Claim 16 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 3 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers each configured to execute one or more ultra-wideband transmission with the authentication device, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the physical location of the authentication device within the secure control area by multilateration and/or multiangulation using the plurality of ultra-wideband transmissions (Jonsson: Fig. 1,2, and 4 and Par 35 and Par38 and Par 51; AoA and Par 74).
Regarding Claim 5, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing of the signal properties comprises processing one or more of: a propagation time, an amplitude variation, or a phase difference of signals of the one or more ultra-wideband transmission (Jonsson: Fig. 1,2, and 4 and Par 38, RSSI, ToA).
Regarding Claim 6, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 1, configured to execute the access control process by: receiving authentication data from the authentication device; verifying the authentication data in order to determine whether the authentication device is authorized access through the barrier associated with the security perimeter where the authentication device is located; and if the authentication device is authorized, granting access using the barrier associated with the security perimeter where the authentication device is located (Jonsson: FIG. 3 and Par 33, credential interface and Par 35, challenge and response scheme and Par 55, the position of the portable key device (as determined using the first positioning procedure) can be used to determine which lock to evaluate access for. and Par 56, lock controller authenticates the portable key device ).
Claim 17 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 6 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 6, configured to grant access only upon receipt of a trigger signal from a trigger control associated with the respective barrier (Jonsson: Par 66).
Claim 18 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 7 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 6, configured to grant access only after the one or more ultra-wideband transmission with an authentication device has been maintained for longer than a threshold time period (Jonsson: par 60, longer than 5 seconds).
Regarding Claim 9, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 6, further configured to:
distinguish, based on the authentication data, between a first-type and a second-type authorization; and grant access only upon receipt of a trigger signal from a trigger control associated with the respective barrier if the authorization is of the first-type; grant access irrespective of a trigger signal being received if the authorization is of the second-type (Jonsson: Fig. 3, steps 42, 47, Par 55, whether the grant indication is obtained and Par 66, strong intent trigger signal of user pressing the activation user element is required to unlock i.e. first-type. Par 60, steps 44-46 does not require the strong intent trigger signal of user pressing ).
Claim 19 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 9 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 10, The access control device according to claim 6, for controlling access within a secure control area wherein a first security perimeter and a second security perimeter are associated with each of the plurality of the barriers, wherein the access control device is further configured to: distinguish, based on the authentication data, between a first-type and a second-type authorization; if the authorization is of the first-type, grant access using the barrier associated with first security perimeter where the authentication device is located; if the authorization is of the second-type, grant access using the barrier associated with second security perimeter where the authentication device is located (Jonsson: Par 55, he indication that the portable key device is granted access forms part of the activation signal, in which case it is the activation device (or other device in communication with the activation device) which performs the determination whether the portable key device is to be granted access or not. In this case, the position of the portable key device (as determined using the first positioning procedure) can be used to determine which lock to evaluate access for. And see also Par 61; the lock controller can determine that the identity of the portable key device has a connection with the particular lock, e.g. the lock controls access to the user's office or hotel room ).
Claim 20 is also rejected for the same reasons for claim 10 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 13, Jonsson teaches the access control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the physical location of the authentication device as a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional location within the secure control area (Jonsson: Par 46 and Par 51, position determination in three dimensions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that “according to Jonsson, a first positioning procedure is performed using a "shared" activation device and a second positioning procedure is performed by each lock controller. The first positioning procedure only serves the purpose to wake up the respective lock controller. UWB technology is only mentioned with respect to the second positioning, performed by each dedicated lock controller, wherein the second positioning is considered by Jonsson as having a high energy consumption and therefore only used in conjunction with the wake-up mechanism provided during the first positioning procedure. In contrast to the present disclosure, where a lock is opened by a lock controller dedicated to the respective lock. The "shared" activation device 13 does not grant access through a barrier. Jonsson is fundamentally different in that it does not provide one of the benefits of the present disclosure where each barrier does not need to be equipped with a position determination device. Amended Claim 1 has been clarified to recite a configuration in which a single access control device is shared amongst a plurality of barriers, each barrier having its own associated security perimeter, with the processing unit identifying the appropriate barrier based on the determined location of the authentication device. In contrast to amended claim 1, Jonsson describes a system in which each barrier is equipped with its own dedicated lock controller, responsible solely for that lock. In Jonsson, a "shared" activation device merely initiates communication but never directly controls access through any barrier. Consequently, Jonsson does not achieve nor even suggest one of the advantages of the present claims, namely that multiple barriers can be managed by a single access control device without each barrier requiring its own position determination hardware. Additionally, the inventive aspects of the present disclosure provide a configuration in which multiple barriers, each with its own security perimeter, share a single access control device. This arrangement significantly reduces installation effort and cost by eliminating the need to mount and cable individual control units at each barrier, simplifies system expansion and reconfiguration through the mere definition of additional perimeters, and lowers maintenance complexity by reducing the number of hardware components. It further enhances flexibility and scalability, allowing a single device to dynamically manage multiple barriers, and achieves substantial cost efficiency proportional to the number of controlled barriers”.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Jonsson teaches the two steps of positioning the portable key i.e. authentication device. After the activation device activates the lock controller, the lock controller clearly perform the positioning of the portable key by communication (Fig. 3, steps 40, 44, 46 and Par 58) for accuracy by eliminating inadvertent unlocking by the presence of the key from inside (Par 59) or walking past (Par 62). Such determination leads to the determination of unlocking the correct door/barrier that the user chooses to open among the doors. Therefore, the activation device and the lock controllers collectively determine that the location of the portable key 2 i.e. authentication device is in the zone/perimeter outside (but not inside nor just passing by) of the door among the multiple doors for unlocking. It is noted that the claim does not require access device to be “single” as argued nor exclude the involvement of the door controller in position determination. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688