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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has filed amendments which are taught by the previously cited prior art. A detailed explanation will be provided below.
Applicant has filed amendments to dependent claims which are now allowable.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 9-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saveliev (US 2023/0083443) in view of Fadlil (US 2018/0183823)
Regarding Claim 1,
Saveliev (US 2023/0083443) teaches a method for evaluating access control data, the method comprising:
collecting access control data from at least one access control device that secures a location; analyzing the access control data to generate at least one of a security assessment including a security score and an anomaly detection for the location based at least in part on usage of the at least one access control device (Fig. 4, in particular 400, 410, 420 teaches receiving a physical access security event for analysis at a server) (Fig. 4, 490, teaches determining the anomaly score);
wherein the security score is comprised of a plurality of scoring factors compiled from the analysis of the access control data (Paragraph [0061-0062] teaches “allowing to compute anomaly score in multiple categories”)
and the anomaly detection is based on analysis of usage patterns and audit data for the at least one access control device to detect behavior and events that deviate from a learned pattern of usage of the at least one access control device (Paragraph 0062-0064] teaches anomaly detection based on usage patterns that match the actor, door, and location identifiers)
Saveliev does not explicitly teach outputting the at least one of the security assessment and the anomaly detection to an administrator of the at least one access control device, the security assessment including a security score and a security recommendation based on the security score
Fadlil (US 2018/0183823) teaches outputting the at least one of the security assessment and the anomaly detection to an administrator of the at least one access control device (Paragraph [0050] teaches system administrator is warned based on occurrence of anomaly) the security assessment including a security score and a security recommendation based on the security score (Fig. 22 and associated text, teaches a security score “probability value” of malicious activity, and a recommendation to block the user or not block the user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Saveliev with the outputting of the assessment including a security score and security recommendation of anomaly to the administrator as taught by Fadlil and the results would be predictable (i.e. the anomaly detection would be output to an administrator)
The motivation is to allow the administrator to observe suspicious events and perform actions based on the information (Paragraph [0184] of Fadlil)
Regarding Claim 2,
Saveliev and Fadlil teaches the method of claim 1. Saveliev teaches wherein the analyzing is performed in a cloud-based computing network (Paragraph [0128-0130] teaches cloud computing environment)
Regarding Claim 3,
Saveliev and Fadlil teaches the method of claim 1. Saveliev teaches wherein the at least one access control device includes a plurality of access control devices at the location (Paragraph [0039] teaches groups of devices are associated with a location identifier). Saveliev analyzing the access control data includes analyzing the access control data across the plurality of access control devices (Fig. 5D and associated text, teaches analyzing access patterns at access control devices)
Regarding Claim 5,
Saveliev and Fadlil teaches the method of claim 1. Saveliev teaches wherein analyzing he method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the access control data includes generating the anomaly detection based at least in part on machine learning patterns of usage of the at least one access control device from the access control data (Paragraph [0054-0055, 0061] teaches using machine learning models for computing anomaly score based on security events).
Fadil does not explicitly teach the anomaly detection is output to the administrator immediately upon detection of an anomaly
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fadil to output detection to an administrator immediately upon detection of an anomaly and the results would be predictable (i.e. the anomaly would be immediately output to an administrator)
Regarding Claim 6,
Saveliev and Fadlil teaches the method of claim 5. Saveliev teaches wherein the anomaly detection includes at least one of: detecting access or attempted access by an uncredentialed user at an access point; detecting access or attempted access by a credentialed user at an unauthorized access point; detecting access or attempted access by a credentialed user at an unauthorized time; detecting access or attempted access by a user with expired credentials; detecting a frequency of access or attempted access by a credentialed user; detecting a frequency of access or attempted access by an uncredentialed user; detecting a lack of access or attempted access by a credentialed user at an access point; and detecting a lack of access or attempted access by a credentialed user at a predetermined time (Paragraph [0061] teaches detecting anomalies when credentials are used to get access in areas too far apart for the timing of the event).
Regarding Claims 11-13, 16-17,
Claims 11-13, 16-17 are similar in scope to Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claims 18, 20,
Claims 18, 20 are similar in scope to Claims 1, 6, 8 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 21,
Saveliev and Fadlil teaches the method of claim 1. Saveliev teaches wherein the security score is comprised of a plurality of scoring factors (Fig. 22, 23 teaches a plurality of scoring factors). Fadlil teaches compiled from an analysis of access control data for each of a plurality of access control devices at the location (Fig. 5D and associated text, teaches analyzing access patterns at access control devices)
Regarding Claim 22,
Saveliev and Fadlil teaches the method of claim 21. Fadlil teaches wherein the security recommendation improves the security score when the security recommendation is implemented (Paragraph [0185] teaches the determination makes a recommendation system more accurate).
Regarding Claim 23,
Saveliev and Fadlil teaches the method of claim 22, while Fadlil teaches a plurality of scoring factors but does not explicitly teach wherein only a portion of the plurality of scoring factors are impacted by implementation of the security recommendation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to only use a portion of plurality of scoring factors and the results would be predictable (i.e. only a portion of the scoring factors would be used)
Regarding Claims 24-25,
Claim 24-25 is similar in scope to Claims 21-23 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 14-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439