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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 15-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Roese et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0216144. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 15, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roese et al. (Roese), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0216144.
Regarding claim 1, Roese discloses a method, comprising: based on receiving data associated with one or more sensors (such as GPS) located at an entry point or exit point (reads on known boundaries of a location area) (System 100 optionally uses other known boundaries, for example walls within a building, to further limit the location of an area, relative to the wireless connection point (e.g., 120a or 120b), within which that user device 104 is operating.) (0032) of a premises (such as a building), determining signal characteristic data (such as relative time delay, signal strength) associated with a device (such as user device 104b), a position of the device relative to the connection point (In one approach to determining a location of a device using wireless transmission medium 119, system 100 determines the location of user device 104b relative to typically multiple network devices (e.g., 120a and 120b) that receive transmitted signals from user device 104b. System 100 uses signal characteristics, such as relative time delay or signal strength of the signal received at the different network devices in combination with the known location of the wireless access points 120a-b. System 100 optionally uses other known boundaries, for example walls within a building, to further limit the location of an area, relative to the wireless connection point (e.g., 120a or 120b), within which that user device 104 is operating.) (0032); determining, based on the signal characteristic data associated with the device, that the device is an authorized device; and providing a network service to the authorized device (Upon satisfaction by system 100 that the appropriate predefined list of parameters and device location information has been gathered (step 235), system 100 permits (step 240) network access.) (0071). See also 0094 (For an overview example relating to network access, the location information within a network enables authentication based on location. Location information allows system 100 to authenticate a user not only based on the credentials provided by the user, but also based on the location of the device used by the user to access the network. Dependent upon the device location, system 100 can allow or restrict access to certain devices, information, applications, signal exchange priorities, and the like.).
Regarding claim 3, Roese discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the signal characteristic data associated with the device comprises at least one of: a probe request, a transmission power, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a signal-to-noise ratio, a time of flight, a frequency, an amplitude, a data traffic characteristic, a MAC address, or an interference metric (System 100 uses signal characteristics, such as relative time delay or signal strength of the signal received at the different network devices in combination with the known location of the wireless access points 120a-b.) (0032).
Regarding claim 4, Roese discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the signal characteristic data associated with the device, a signal characteristic data profile associated with the device; and comparing, the signal characteristic data profile of the device to the signal characteristic data of the device (System 100 can perform calculations to approximate distance from a known access point (e.g., 120a-b) as a function of signal strength attenuation (e.g., the signal is at x strength so the device must be located in a range of y-z feet away). In addition to calculations, system 100 can also search stored associations of signal characteristics and their corresponding locations. This information can be stored in a signal characteristic database. A network administrator generates this signal characteristic database by measuring predefined signal characteristics at different locations and storing the measured characteristics for each of the locations. When subsequently determining a location of a user device, if system 100 detects a signal characteristic identically corresponding to a location, system 100 determines that the user device is at that corresponding location. If the signal characteristic is not identical, system 100 can use multiple entries within the database to extrapolate the user device location information based on the stored signal characteristic and location associations. This technique is sometimes referred to as RF training.) (0048).
Regarding claim 5, Roese discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the signal characteristic data associated with the authorized device, a user profile associated with the authorized device; and causing, based on the user profile associated with the authorized device, an action (If the user fails to meet the security level associated that particular location, then the network can halt the authentication process, sound alarms and/or report the location of the unauthorized user.) (0100); see also 0048.
Regarding claim 6, Roese discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the action comprises at least one of: sending a message, triggering an alarm, determining a lighting setting, or determining an audio setting (If the user fails to meet the security level associated that particular location, then the network can halt the authentication process, sound alarms and/or report the location of the unauthorized user.) (0100).
Regarding claim 7, Roese discloses the method of claim 6, wherein sending the message comprises sending, to a computing device, the message, wherein the message comprises at least one of: the signal characteristic data associated with the device, a position of the device, an identifier associated with the device, or an option associated with the device (If the user fails to meet the security level associated that particular location, then the network can halt the authentication process, sound alarms and/or report the location of the unauthorized user.) (0100).
Regarding claim 15, Roese discloses a method comprising: based on receiving data associated with one or more sensors located at an entry point or an exit point (reads on known boundaries of a location area) (System 100 optionally uses other known boundaries, for example walls within a building, to further limit the location of an area, relative to the wireless connection point (e.g., 120a or 120b), within which that user device 104 is operating.) (0032) of a premises (such as a building), determining signal characteristic data associated with a device; and determining, based on the signal characteristic data associated with the device, a position of the device relative to the entry point or the exit point of the premises (In one approach to determining a location of a device using wireless transmission medium 119, system 100 determines the location of user device 104b relative to typically multiple network devices (e.g., 120a and 120b) that receive transmitted signals from user device 104b. System 100 uses signal characteristics, such as relative time delay or signal strength of the signal received at the different network devices in combination with the known location of the wireless access points 120a-b. System 100 optionally uses other known boundaries, for example walls within a building, to further limit the location of an area, relative to the wireless connection point (e.g., 120a or 120b), within which that user device 104 is operating.) (0032).
Regarding claim 16, Roese discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a motion detector, a thermal sensor, a window alarm, a door alarm, a proximity sensor, or a camera (The method can further include connecting a location sensing device to the first connection point. The location sensing device can comprise a GPS.) (0013).
Regarding claim 18, Roese discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the signal characteristic data associated with the device comprises at least one of: a probe request, a transmission power, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a signal-to-noise ratio, a time of flight, a frequency, an amplitude, a data traffic characteristic, a MAC address, or an interference metric (System 100 uses signal characteristics, such as relative time delay or signal strength of the signal received at the different network devices in combination with the known location of the wireless access points 120a-b.) (0032).
Regarding claim 19, Roese discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more network access points are configured to provide a network connectivity service (System 100 can restrict access to the network or data stored on the network based on the location of user device 104. For example, system 100 restricts access to accounting databases to only user devices 104 located within the accounting department offices (e.g., within certain coordinates of a certain floor of a certain building).) (0034).
Regarding claim 20, Roese discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising causing, based on the signal characteristic data associated with the device and the position of the device relative to the one or more access points, an action, wherein the action comprises at least one of a user setting or security action (If the user fails to meet the security level associated that particular location, then the network can halt the authentication process, sound alarms and/or report the location of the unauthorized user.) (0100).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roese in view of Sayavong et al. (Sayavong), U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0335865.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Roese discloses the method of claims 1 and 16 as described above. Roese, however, fails to disclose wherein the data associated with the one or more sensors located at the entry point or the exit point of the premises comprises an indication that a door or window has been opened or broken.
Roese does, however, teach of a security system that detects intrusion with the use of an intrusion detection system (In one example, FIG. 7 illustrates a process 700 for establishing a security service in a network environment based on location information. In process 700, the client devices may be physical intrusion detection devices, smoke detectors, fire alarms, EMT devices, wireless panic buttons, and the like. These client devices are designed to signal an emergency event.) (0121).
In a similar field of endeavor, Sayavong discloses identified presence detection in and around premises. Sayavong further discloses wherein the data associated with the one or more sensors located at the entry point or the exit point of the premises comprises an indication that a door or window has been opened or broken (Contacts at entry and exit doors (and other places) can be used, to determine human presence as is commonly used in existing intrusion detection systems to detect presence. For example, if a door or window is opened, the system can infer that a human is present in the space.) (0072); see also, 0044).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary art to modify Roese with the teachings of Sayavong for the purpose of further ensuring unwanted entry at a specific location is monitored.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed (as previously indicated).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamthe, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0124732 discloses a beacon sensor and fingerprint.
Pandey et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0078843 discloses determining location via wireless access points.
Pon, U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0155084 discloses multi-mode wireless position association.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMICA M. BEAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 3:00 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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/TEMICA M BEAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights