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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2 and 15 have been cancelled and claims 1, 14, 16, 23 and 24 have has been amended. Therefore, claims 1, 3-14 and 16-24 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, 23 and 24 recite “ the access control device being located, in operation, within at most one of the plurality of security perimeters”. Examiner cannot find the support for the above claimed subject matter in the specification. Specification Paragraph [0044] discloses “an access control device 10 and a barrier 5 arranged within a secure control area A” and Par 45 discloses “the access control device 10 may be located remote from the barrier 5 and/or from the security perimeter I”. Figures 1 and 3 also shows access control device 10 is outside the security perimeters I-IV. The specification only discloses control device is in secure control area but not within any of the security perimeters as claimed. Secure control area ( an entrance area of a building, a hallway, a control section of an airport ) is not the same as security perimeters (I-IV). Please provide the support if Examiner is mistaken.
Claims 3-13 and 16-22 are also rejected since they depend from the rejected claims 1 or 14.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13-14, 16-20, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson (US2019/0287329) in view of Glosch et al. (Glosch: US 2018/0099643).
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 Par 56, lock controller communicates with portable key device using UWB) and
a processing unit configured to:
determine a physical location of the authentication device within the secure control area by processing signal properties (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. 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 ).
Jonsson does not explicitly disclose the access control device being located, in operation, within at most one of the plurality of security perimeters or determining the physical location is by processing signal properties of the one or more ultra-wideband transmissions.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of lock controller devices. Glosch teaches one or more ultra-wideband transceivers configured to execute one or more ultra-wideband transmissions with an authentication device (Fig. 20, 231A-D and Par 188, sensors 231 are IR UWB ranging communication with portable device 210) to locate the portable device (Par 15) and to unlock the door (Par 198) and further teaches the access control device being located, in operation, within at most one of the plurality of security perimeters (Par 15, PEPS system controls the access by unlocking and Fig. 2, PEPS system is inside the vehicle and Par 166, the sensors on the interior of the vehicle are producing evidence that the phone is on the inside of the car i.e. vehicle interior is security perimeter) and 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 185, tag 250 can separately communicate with the communication gateway 229 and can be tracked by the sensor network, i.e., sensors 231, using either BLE or IR UWB communication and Par 182, enable more accurate location tracking of the portable device 210 by using a communication technology, such as IR UWB, in addition to communication using BLE communication.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Glosch in order to do a safe thing by not allowing when there’s a conflict of evidence (Glosch: Par 166).
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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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 combination of Jonsson and Glosch teaches 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, the combination of Jonsson and Glosch 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 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 112 rejections as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
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
Prosecution Insights