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 .
The following is a non-final office action in response to the RCE filed 11/12/2025. Amendments received on 10/15/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are pending. Claims 21-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggett (GB 2540173; provide in the IDS) in view of Baumgarte (US Pub 2021/0327176).
As of claims 1 and 6, Huggett discloses an apparatus to control physical access to a secure area via an opening, the secure area being on a first side of the opening, the apparatus (via access control apparatus 10; see fig. 1; also see page 4, lines 5-13) comprising:
a user input device configured to receive a user input on a second side of the opening, and to provide a first signal (via mobile telephony transceiver receiving a user input from a remote-control center, unsecured side of the opening; see page 2, lines 12-21);
multiple tamper detectors configured to detect activity directed against the apparatus, and to generate second signals in response to the tamper activity (via one or more sensors (motion sensors, vibration sensor, accelerometer, a microphone) to detect tampering and generating signals in response to the tamper activity; see page 4, lines 21 to page 5, lines 5); and
a controller configured (via processor 18) to:
receive the first signal; validate the first signal; cause a latch to be released in response to the first signal representing a valid user input, wherein release of the latch allows access to the secure area via the opening (via receiving lock or unlock commands, determine if the command is valid and output a control signal to a cause a latch of a lock to move between locked and unlocked position; page 3, lines 19-22);
receive the second signals; determine whether the second signals represent tamper activity; and generate a tamper alarm in response to a determination that the second signals represent tamper activity (via processor interpreting the sensor readings, and to generate alarm signals in the event of a detected unauthorized intrusion or tampering. Alarm signals can be transmitted, via the mobile telephony network, from the mobile telephony transceiver of the invention to the remote-control center, to alert the remote-control center of a possible attack/intrusion; see page 4, line 21 through page 5 line).
With regards to the limitation of “store one or more profile signals associated with one or more known tamper states of the multiple tamper detectors”, Huggett discloses that the processor 18 software is able, via filters and the like, to distinguish between alert and non-alert events e.g. to distinguish between road traffic passing over the manlid from a crowbar attack), suitably by cross-checking against other sensor inputs, to raise appropriate alerts at appropriate times… and thus the processor 18 may be configured to raise an alarm in the event of these sensor readings falling outside predefined parameters, “cross checking against other sensor inputs and falling outside predefined parameters reads on the profile signals; page 8, lines 20-26).
In order to further support the Examiner’s assertion that it is known in the art to store profile signals associated with known state of a tamper detector, Baumgarte discloses tamper detection system wherein a credential reader device comprises sensors to detect an activity directed against the credential reader. Baumgarte further discloses that the reader device receive sensor data generated by the sensor, compare the received sensor data to reference data indicative of an acceleration of the reader device when the reader device is not moving and generate a tamper alert in response to the comparison indicating that a deviation of the received sensor data from the reference data exceeds a threshold (see abstract). With regards to the limitation of determining whether the activity represents tamper activity based on at least two of the multiple tamper detectors, Baumgarte discloses that the credential reader device includes additional sensors (proximity sensor, optical sensors, light sensors, audio sensors, temperature sensors, motion sensors) and analyze the corresponding sensor data to further determine whether a tamper event has occurred (see paragraph [0045]), suggesting the use of multiple tamper sensors readings to determine tampering. Further the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to utilize multiple tamper detectors to determine tampering in order to minimize the likelihood of a false positive (see Ryhorchuk et al. (US 2021/0287469; paragraph [0356]- [0358).
From the teaching of Baumgarte, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Huggett to include the function of comparing sensor data to stored profile data as taught by Baumgarte in order to enhance tamper detection in an access control apparatus.
As of claims 2 and 8, Huggett discloses one of the multiple tamper detectors comprises an optical sensor (via camera; see page 4, lines 22-25).
As of claims 3 and 7, Huggett discloses that one of the multiple tamper detectors comprises an accelerometer (via accelerometer; see page 4, line 24).
As of claim 4, Huggett discloses one of the multiple tamper detectors comprises a pressure sensor (via pressure sensor; see page 4, line 25).
As of claims 5 and 9, Huggett discloses one of the multiple tamper detectors comprises a microphone (via a microphone; see page 4, line 25).
As of claim 10, Huggett discloses generating a first user input signal at a user input device of the physical access control device in response to an activity of a user (via user transmitting lock or unlock command to a transceiver 12 of the access control apparatus);
receiving the first user input signal at the controller; and causing a latch to be released in response to a determination that the first user input signal is valid (via receiving lock or unlock commands and output a control signal to a cause a latch of a lock to move between locked and unlocked position; page 3, lines 19-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As of claim 1, Applicant argues that combination of the references does not teach or suggest “one or more profile signals associated with one or more known tamper states of the multiple tamper detectors” that are used to “determine whether a comparison between the second signals from at least two different sensors of the multiple tamper detectors and the one or more profile signals associated with the at least two different sensors indicates a tamper activity”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to the limitation of “store one or more profile signals associated with one or more known tamper states of the multiple tamper detectors”, Huggett discloses that the processor 18 software is able, via filters and the like, to distinguish between alert and non-alert events e.g. to distinguish between road traffic passing over the manlid from a crowbar attack), suitably by cross-checking against other sensor inputs, to raise appropriate alerts at appropriate times… and thus the processor 18 may be configured to raise an alarm in the event of these sensor readings falling outside predefined parameters, “cross checking against other sensor inputs and falling outside predefined parameters reads on the profile signals; page 8, lines 20-26). Claim language does not define “profile signals”. It merely states that the “profile signals associated with one or more known tamper states”, in Huggett sensor readings falling outside predefined parameters are associated with tamper states and interpreted as profile signals. So, Huggett discloses the limitation as claimed.
Baumgarte further discloses that the reader device receive sensor data generated by the sensor, compare the received sensor data to reference data indicative of an acceleration of the reader device when the reader device is not moving and generate a tamper alert in response to the comparison indicating that a deviation of the received sensor data from the reference data exceeds a threshold (see abstract). So comparison with the reference data indicates a tamper activity as claimed in the present application. With regards to Baumgarte disclosing that the credential reader device includes additional sensors (proximity sensor, optical sensors, light sensors, audio sensors, temperature sensors, motion sensors) and analyze the corresponding sensor data to further determine whether a tamper event has occurred (see paragraph [0045]), Applicant argues that “Baumgarte’s generic statement provides no guidance on storing profile signals for different sensor types or making tamper determinations based on coordinated analysis of at least two different sensors against their respective profiles. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would argue that by stating credential reader device 102 including additional sensors and analyzing the corresponding sensor data to further determine whether a tamper event has occurred” Baumgarte is explicitly suggesting use of different sensor types to make tamper determinations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that if reader device includes additional sensors, it would further include reference data for additional sensor that would be used to determine if tampering is occurring.
The Examiner further took official notice that it is well known in the art to utilize multiple tamper detectors to determine tampering in order to minimize the likelihood of a false positive (see Ryhorchuk et al. (US 2021/0287469; paragraph [0356]- [0358). Ryhorchuk discloses that in order to minimize the likelihood of a false event, which could reduce the perceived reliability and/or utility of the system, it may be advantageous to provide a multi-factor evaluation process before deviating from normal function. If only a single accelerometer detects motion, it is possible that the signal indicates a malfunctioning sensor, or some other anomaly that does not actually indicate tampering. Thus, for example, when vibration is detected from internal accelerometer 4722, that input can be compared to other inputs, which may include an additional accelerometer within the same facial recognition module, or one or more cameras on the facial recognition module, or a microphone. If someone is trying to, for example, remove a facial recognition module from a wall, that action will not only cause movement and/or vibration that would likely generate a signal from one or more accelerometers, it would also likely cause the entire field of view of the camera(s) to shift simultaneously. Thus, if the camera image shifts at the same time as one or more accelerometers suggest movement, the fact that two or more inputs are consistent with a tampering event gives a higher confidence level that such an event has been detected. Note: Ryhorchuk is not used to reject the claims but to support the Examiner’s assertion that use of multiple sensors to detect tampering is known in the art.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/15/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the alleged distinctions identified by the examiner are merely different sensor modalities within the same overall tamper detection system and the alleged inventions do not impose a serious burden on examination as they share common structural elements. This is not found persuasive because the optical sensor used in original claim 21 is a completely different sensor than the distance sensor used in newly amended claim 21. As acknowledged by the applicant Examiner conducted a comprehensive search on “an optical sensor configured to sense a vista on the second side of the opening to provide a sensed vista and generate a first optical signal based on the sensed vista” and it would add a serious search burden if Examiner were to search divergent subject matter “a distance sensor configured to sense a background distance on the second side of the opening to generate a distance signal based on the sensed background distance; and a controller configured to: receive the user input signal; receive the distance signal; generate a first tamper signal when a discrepancy between the distance signal and a reference distance information signal is determined, the discrepancy indicating a movement of the distance sensor”. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bramblet (US Pub 2004/0017929) discloses an access control system wherein a camera obtains images of an area of observation and determines if the background image has changed significantly. For example, objects in the background are identified in the image or depth map, and if they are not clearly visible, an alarm is sounded. This may occur, for example, if someone has covered one of more of the cameras. Changes in the background can indicate an attempt to alter the background by a perpetrator or an equipment failure.
Schoenfelder et al. (US Pub 2017/0124792) discloses a smart reader (access control apparatus) using multiple sensors to detect tampering with the smart reader (see paragraphs [0065]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686