Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/635,601

ULTRA-WIDEBAND ACCESSORY DEVICES FOR RADIO FREQUENCY INTENT DETECTION IN ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Examiner
GARCIA, CARLOS E
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Schlage Lock Company LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
683 granted / 889 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 889 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 filed 3/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8-12, Applicant argues that FRANK, LIAN and CHENG that neither together or individually teach the currently claimed invention. Applicant’s characterization of FRANK’s teachings is improper for the following reasons. Contrary to Applicant’s interpretation that FRANK does not explicitly teach the concept or function of determining a user intent to access a passageway based on location of a mobile device, FRANK explicitly teaches determining of a user intention as a critical feature of that invention. Particularly in steps 706-708 and in FIG.7, one of ordinary skill in the art would undoubtably interpret the function of determining location based on signals (set of location points) from a mobile device to help determine a user intention to access or walk thru a door (FIG.1). See figure 7 below showing steps 706-708. PNG media_image1.png 430 350 media_image1.png Greyscale FRANK in no manner fails to teach or teaches away from determining a user intention. Further CHENG is applied to explicitly teach a retrofit function throughout the reference (c.2 thru c.4). CHENG clearly teaches retrofitting an existing door lock system with a smarter or intelligent door lock system for clear upgrading benefits. Abstract An intelligent door lock system is retrofitted to an existing door lock system that includes a door lock system with a lock and a drive shaft; and an intelligent door lock system. The intelligent door lock system includes, a position sensing device configured to be coupled to a drive shaft of a lock device, where the position sensing device senses position of the drive shaft to assist in locking and unlocking a lock of a lock device, an engine with a memory, with the engine coupled to the positioning sensing device, a circuit coupled to the engine, an energy source coupled to the circuit, and a device that converts energy into mechanical energy coupled to the circuit, positioning sensing device and the drive shaft, the device that converts energy being coupled to the energy source to receive energy from the energy source. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 21-25, 27-33, and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRANK et al. (WO 2020/193580 A1) in view of LIAN (US 20170309163 A1). Re claim 21. FRANK discloses (abstract) an ultra-wideband (UWB) accessory device 110 [0038] for UWB-based radio frequency intent detection, the UWB accessory device adapted for use with an access control device (FIG.1 [0040,0047]) configured to secure access to a passageway (FIG.1 [0033,0036-0037,0047]), the UWB accessory device comprising: UWB communication circuitry; [0025,0060,0078,0086] Bluetooth communication circuitry; [0028,0037,0044,0076,0085] a processor; and [0028,0037,0041,0044,0060,0076-0077,0085] a memory comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor [0028,0037,0041,0044,0060,0076-0077,0085], causes the UWB accessory device to: receive, via the Bluetooth communication circuitry [0028,0037,0041,0044,0060,0076-0077,0085], a credential 220 of a mobile device; (FIG.2A-2D) (FIG.7 – S702) determine, using UWB ranging via the UWB communication circuitry, a location of the mobile device relative to the passageway; [0024-0026,0078) (FIG.7 – S704-S706) determine whether a user intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the mobile device relative to the passageway; and [0024-0028,0038-0039,0045-0046,0078] (FIG.7 – S708) communicate to the access control device, via a communication connection, an indication (FIG.7 - S708-S710) that the user intends to access the passageway. [0028,0047] FRANK clearly teaches [0090-0096] the functions 700 includes sending via communication connection, an indication that user intends to access [0096], but does not explicitly teach how such indication data is sent. [0096] The technique 700 includes a further operation to transmit the credential to an authorization service. The authorization service may be local to the reader, such as in a residential home. The authorization service may be connected to the reader through a network or the Internet to provide credential authorization to multiple locations or entry points. The authorization service may be integrated into the reader. The technique 700 includes a further operation to receive an indication the user is authorized to access the secure entry point from the authorization service. The authorization service may validate the credential and return an indication to the reader that the holder of the credential is authorized or not authorized to enter the secure entry point. However, FRANK fails to explicitly disclose: using the Bluetooth communication circuitry. LIAN teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, [0009] a control device controlling a door [0067] including using Bluetooth signals [0065] for signal transmission to cause an unlock operation which supports Bluetooth signals [0009], wherein a control device is placed in close proximity to device (i.e. door) being controlled. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of using Bluetooth communication as suggested by LIAN as the communication protocol, given that this is a well-known communication protocol used for short distances. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to use Bluetooth to send an indication (i.e. command to unlock after determination of user intent) of user intent. Re claim 22. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038-0039,0045-0046,0060,0078] The UWB accessory device of claim 21, wherein to determine the location of the mobile device relative to the passageway comprises to determine the location of the mobile device relative to the UWB accessory device. Re claim 23. FRANK discloses [0028,0041-0042] The UWB accessory device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the UWB accessory device to authenticate the credential of the mobile device in response to receipt of the credential from the mobile device. Re claim 24. FRANK discloses [0028,0041] The UWB accessory device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the UWB accessory device to monitor for a Bluetooth communication signal from the mobile device; and wherein to receive the credential of the mobile device is in response to detecting the Bluetooth communication signal from the mobile device. Re claim 25. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038,0045-0046,0071] The UWB accessory device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the UWB accessory device to initialize UWB ranging of the UWB communication circuitry to determine the location of the mobile device relative to the UWB accessory device in response to detection of a Bluetooth communication signal from the mobile device. Re claim 27. FRANK discloses [0028] The UWB accessory device of claim 21, wherein the UWB accessory device comprises a doorbell, a camera, or a door position sensor. Re claim 28. FRANK discloses (abstract) an access control system, comprising: the UWB accessory device of claim 1; and the access control device; and [0038,0040,0047] wherein the indication communicated to the access control device by the UWB accessory device causes the access control device to permit access to the passageway. [0028,0047] Re claim 29. FRANK discloses [0028,0041-0042] The access control system of claim 28, wherein the access control device comprises an electronic lock including a lock mechanism configured to secure access to the passageway. Re claim 30. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038,0045-0047,0071] The access control system of claim 29, wherein the indication communicated to the access control device by the UWB accessory device causes the electronic lock to unlock the lock mechanism to permit access to the passageway. Re claim 31. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038,0045-0046,0071] The access control system of claim 28, wherein the access control device is further configured to automatically open a barrier to permit access to the passageway. Re claim 32. FRANK discloses [0028,0041-0042] The access control system of claim 28, wherein the access control device is configured to authenticate the credential of the mobile device. Re claim 33. FRANK discloses (FIG.2A-2D) The access control system of claim 28, wherein the UWB accessory device is stationary and positioned in a same geometric plane as the access control device. Re claim 35. FRANK as modified by LIAN discloses (as applied to claim 21) a system for ultra-wideband (UWB)-based radio frequency intent detection, the system adapted for use with an access control device configured to secure access to a passageway, the system comprising: a UWB accessory device configured to (i) receive a credential of a mobile device via Bluetooth communication, (ii) determine, using UWB ranging of the UWB accessory device, a location of the mobile device relative to the passageway, (iii) determine whether a user of the mobile device intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the mobile device relative to the passageway, and (iv) communicate an indication that the user intends to access the passageway to the access control device via Bluetooth communication. Re claim 36. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038,0041,0045-0046,0071] the system of claim 35, wherein the UWB accessory device is further configured (i) monitor for a Bluetooth communication signal from the mobile device, wherein to receive the credential of the mobile device is in response to detecting the Bluetooth communication signal from the mobile device; and (ii) initialize UWB ranging of the UWB accessory device in response to detection of the Bluetooth communication signal from the mobile device. Re claim 37. FRANK discloses (as for claim 21) The system of claim 35, further comprising the access control device. Re claim 38. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038,0045-0046,0071] The system of claim 37, wherein the indication communicated to the access control device causes the access control device to permit access to the passageway. Re claim 39. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038,0045-0047,0071] The system of claim 37, wherein the access control device comprises an electronic lock including a lock mechanism configured to secure access to the passageway; and wherein the indication communicated to the access control device by UWB accessory device causes the electronic lock to unlock the lock mechanism to permit access to the passageway. Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRANK et al. (WO 2020/193580 A1) in view of LIAN (US 20170309163 A1) further in view of AHERN et al. (WO 2014/028892). Re claim 26. However, FRANK as modified by LIAN fails to explicitly disclose: The UWB accessory device of claim 21, wherein the UWB accessory device comprises a standalone ranging device. AHEARN teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, (FIG.1) wherein a standalone function can be carried out with an accessory device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adapting the UWB device to be a standalone device as suggested by AHEARN in order to simplify the overall structure of FRANK. Claim(s) 34, and 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FRANK et al. (WO 2020/193580 A1) in view of LIAN (US 20170309163 A1) further in view of CHENG et al. (US 9534420 B1). Re claim 41. FRANK as modified by LIAN discloses (as applied for claim 21) a method of retrofitting an existing access control system configured to secure access to a passageway with ultra-wideband (UWB)-based radio frequency intent detection, the method comprising: configuring the UWB accessory device to (i) receive a credential of a mobile device via Bluetooth communication, (ii) determine, using UWB ranging of the UWB accessory device, a location of the mobile device relative to the passageway, (iii) determine whether a user of the mobile device intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the mobile device relative to the passageway, and (iv) communicate an indication that the user intends to access the passageway to the existing access control system via Bluetooth communication. However, FRANK as modified by LIAN fails to explicitly disclose: retrofitting the existing access control system with a UWB accessory device. CHENG teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, wherein an existing access control system is retrofitting and upgraded with a newer control system, to upgrade to an intelligent door lock system to improve operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try retrofitting the existing UWB device for access control as suggested by CHENG in order to upgrade to a smart door control system. Re claim 34, 40 and 43: However, FRANK as modified by LIAN fails to explicitly disclose: Re claim 34. The UWB accessory device of claim 21, wherein the UWB accessory device comprises a retrofit device configured to be retrofitted with an existing access control system including the access control device to secure access to the passageway via the UWB-based radio frequency intent detection. Re claim 40. The system of claim 35, wherein the UWB accessory device comprises a retrofit device configured to be retrofitted with an existing access control system including the access control device to secure access to the passageway via the UWB- based radio frequency intent detection. Re claim 43. The method of claim 41, wherein retrofitting the existing access control system with the UWB accessory device is done without updating existing circuitry of the existing access control system. CHENG teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, wherein an existing access control system is retrofitting and upgraded with a newer control system, to upgrade to an intelligent door lock system to improve operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try retrofitting the existing UWB device for access control as suggested by CHENG in order to upgrade to a smart door control system. Re claim 42. FRANK discloses [0024-0028,0038,0045-0046,0071] The method of claim 41, wherein the indication communicated to the existing access control system causes the existing access control system to permit access to the passageway. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm. 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 at (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. CARLOS E. GARCIA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2686 /Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 3/16/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 15, 2025
Response Filed
May 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 31, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597310
METHOD AND DEVICES FOR CONFIGURING ELECTRONIC LOCKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594905
CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597305
LOCKING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583417
SMART KEY SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579856
ULTRA-WIDEBAND-BASED METHOD FOR ACTIVATING A FUNCTION OF A VEHICLE WITH A PORTABLE USER EQUIPMENT ITEM, ASSOCIATED SYSTEM AND DEVICE FOR ACTIVATING A FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+16.8%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 889 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month