DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 01/24/2023. Claims 1-20, of which claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2024, 03/31/2025, and 08/08/2025 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 2, claim recites the limitation “capturing, by the mobile device, biometric data of the user; analyzing, by the mobile device, the captured biometric data … of the user;” (line 3-5 of claim 2). However, claim also recites “determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway controlled by the access control device” (lines 6-7 of claim 2), which makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear whether the mobile device communicates the captured biometrics to the access control device or whether other undefined means somehow obtain and communicate the biometric data to the access control device. It is also unclear how the access control device uses the biometric data of the user for determining the user authorization. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, claim is rejected due to its dependency to the rejected claim 2.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the … claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131.01. ("(A) Prove a primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.").
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/067259 A1 to Fufidio et al.
Regarding claim 1, Fufidio et al. disclose a method for seamless access control (Figs 1-3, and 6; ¶¶[0048]-[0060), the method comprising:
determining whether a user is authorized to access a passageway controlled by an access control device (Fig. 2: “portal access control system 20”) based on credential data (¶[0021]: “An authentication device (a card reader) is activated by the user, for instance by swiping a personally-assigned badge or card through the card reader.”) received from a mobile device of the user (¶[0052]: " Next (see a step 208) the detected individual attempts authentication using the authentication device 19 mounted adjacent the security door 12."; ¶[0053]: "If an authentication attempt was executed, the program flow moves to a decision step 212 to determine whether the individual is an authorized entrant to the secure area.");
determining, by a RADAR system (¶[0011]: "Presence or motion detectors, that is radar type (e.g. microwave) detectors ... determine the presence of individuals and objects within the zone immediately surrounding the secure portal.”), a location of the user relative to the passageway (¶[0050]: "If the person or object was detected on the public side, thus presumably planning to enter the secure side"; Fig. 6: “200”; ¶¶[0048]-[0050]);
determining whether the user intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the user relative to the passageway (¶[0050]: "If the person or object was detected on the public side, thus presumably planning to enter the secure side, the process continues to a step 206 where the doorframe detectors are armed."; Fig. 6: “200”; ¶¶[0048]-[0050]); and
controlling, by the access control device (Fig. 2: “portal access control system 20”), a lock mechanism (¶[0039]: “door lock 60”; ¶[0040]) to allow the user access to the passageway in response to determining that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway (¶[0053]: "If an authentication attempt was executed, the program flow moves to a decision step 212 to determine whether the individual is an authorized entrant to the secure area ... If an authenticated individual swipes the card reader twice, then two individuals will be permitted to pass through the security door 12 to the secure side."; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises:
capturing, by the mobile device, biometric data of the user (¶[0023]: “biometrics information ( e.g. retinal eye patterns or voice patterns) can be provided to the user by way of the authentication device 18.”);
analyzing, by the mobile device, the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user (¶[0023]: "The provided biometrics information is compared with stored information taken from permitted entrants); and
determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway controlled by the access control device based on the credential data received from the mobile device of the user and the biometric data of the user (¶[0023]: "The provided biometrics information is compared with stored information taken from permitted entrants, and if a match is determined, then the individual is a permitted entrant into the secure area and the security door 12 is unlocked.).
Regarding claim 4, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein the access control device comprises at least one of an electronic lock, an exit device, a door closer, an auto-operator, or a motorized latch (Fig. 1, extracted below – emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein controlling the lock mechanism to allow the user access to the passageway further comprises moving a barrier from a closed position to an open position (Fig. 1, extracted below – emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein the barrier comprises a sliding door (Fig. 1, extracted below – emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose monitoring, by at least one monitoring device, the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to controlling the lock mechanism allowing the authorized user to access the passageway (¶[0026]: "Several input signals are provided to a programmable logic controller 30 for controlling access to the secure area behind the security door 12 and for further determining whether an unauthorized individual has entered the secure area by piggybacking or tailgating behind an authorized and authenticated user.").
Regarding claim 9, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein monitoring the passageway comprises monitoring the passageway to detect an occurrence of tailgating of an unauthorized user through the passageway with an authorized user (¶[0026]: "Several input signals are provided to a programmable logic controller 30 for controlling access to the secure area behind the security door 12 and for further determining whether an unauthorized individual has entered the secure area by piggybacking or tailgating behind an authorized and authenticated user.")..
Regarding claim 10, Fufidio et al. disclose a system for seamless access control (Figs 1-3, and 6; ¶¶[0048]-[0060),, the system comprising:
a user mobile device (¶[0021]: “An authentication device (a card reader) is activated by the user, for instance by swiping a personally-assigned badge or card through the card reader.”);
a barrier (Fig. 1);
an access control device (Fig. 2: “portal access control system 20”) coupled to the barrier and configured to
receive credential data from the user mobile device (¶[0021]: “An authentication device (a card reader) is activated by the user, for instance by swiping a personally-assigned badge or card through the card reader.”,
(ii) determine whether a user is authorized to access a passageway secured by the barrier based on multifactor authentication of the user, wherein the multifactor authentication involves verification of the credential data received from the user mobile device (¶[0021]: “An authentication device (a card reader) is activated by the user, for instance by swiping a personally-assigned badge or card through the card reader.” and verification of biometric data of the user (¶[0023]: “biometrics information ( e.g. retinal eye patterns or voice patterns) can be provided to the user by way of the authentication device 18.”l; ¶[0035]: “Any of the following authentication devices can be used alone or in combination to authenticate a user for access to the secure area: a card or badge reader ... a biometrics reader ...”),
(iii) determine whether the user intends to access the passageway based on an analysis of sensor data (¶[0011]: "Presence or motion detectors, that is radar type (e.g. microwave) detectors ... determine the presence of individuals and objects within the zone immediately surrounding the secure portal.”; ¶[0050]: "If the person or object was detected on the public side, thus presumably planning to enter the secure side, the process continues to a step 206 where the doorframe detectors are armed."; Fig. 6: “200”; ¶¶[0048]-[0050), and
(iv) allow the user access to the passageway in response to a determination that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway (¶[0053]: "If an authentication attempt was executed, the program flow moves to a decision step 212 to determine whether the individual is an authorized entrant to the secure area ... If an authenticated individual swipes the card reader twice, then two individuals will be permitted to pass through the security door 12 to the secure side."; Fig. 6); and
a monitoring device configured to monitor the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to allowing the authorized user to access the passageway (¶[0026]: "Several input signals are provided to a programmable logic controller 30 for controlling access to the secure area behind the security door 12 and for further determining whether an unauthorized individual has entered the secure area by piggybacking or tailgating behind an authorized and authenticated user.").
Regarding claim 11, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein the user mobile device is configured to (i) capture the biometric data of the user (¶[0023]: “biometrics information ( e.g. retinal eye patterns or voice patterns) can be provided to the user by way of the authentication device 18.”), (ii) analyze the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user (¶[0023]: "The provided biometrics information is compared with stored information taken from permitted entrants), and (iii) transmit an instruction to the access control device based on the analysis of the captured biometric data (¶[0023]: "The provided biometrics information is compared with stored information taken from permitted entrants, and if a match is determined, then the individual is a permitted entrant into the secure area and the security door 12 is unlocked.).
Regarding claim 13, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein the access control device comprises one of an exit device, a door closer, or an auto-operator (Fig. 1, extracted below – emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein the access control device is configured to move the barrier from a closed position to an open position to allow the user access to the passageway (Fig. 1, extracted below – emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein the monitoring device comprises a camera configured to capture images of users in a vicinity of the passageway (¶[0041]: "a video camera in the vicinity of the security door 12 can be activated by a signal
from the programmable logic controller 30, while the panning that camera to observe various scenes in the area is under control of an operator in the security control center 68.") and at least one counter configured to track a number of persons that enter the passageway and a number of authorized credentials that are presented to the access control device (¶[0053]: "If an authenticated individual swipes the card reader twice, then two individuals will be permitted to pass through the security door 12 to the secure side."; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose a RADAR system (¶[0011]: "Presence or motion detectors, that is radar type (e.g. microwave) detectors ... determine the presence of individuals and objects within the zone immediately surrounding the secure portal.”), configured to determine a location of the user relative to the passageway (¶[0050]: "If the person or object was detected on the public side, thus presumably planning to enter the secure side"; Fig. 6: “200”; ¶¶[0048]-[0050]);;
wherein the access control device is configured to determine that the user intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the user relative to the passageway (¶[0050]: "If the person or object was detected on the public side, thus presumably planning to enter the secure side, the process continues to a step 206 where the doorframe detectors are armed."; Fig. 6: “200”; ¶¶[0048]-[0050]);.
Regarding claim 18, Fufidio et al. disclose a system (Figs 1-3, and 6; ¶¶[0048]-[0060), comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor (¶[0047]: “The flowchart of FIG. 6 is executed by the programmable logic controller, specifically by a special purpose processor or microcontroller therein.”), causes the system to:
determine whether a user is authorized to access a passageway controlled by an access control device (Fig. 2: “portal access control system 20”) based on credential data (¶[0021]: “An authentication device (a card reader) is activated by the user, for instance by swiping a personally-assigned badge or card through the card reader.”) based on credential data received from a mobile device of the user (¶[0021]: “An authentication device (a card reader) is activated by the user, for instance by swiping a personally-assigned badge or card through the card reader.” and biometric data of the user (¶[0023]: “biometrics information ( e.g. retinal eye patterns or voice patterns) can be provided to the user by way of the authentication device 18.”; ¶[0035]: “Any of the following authentication devices can be used alone or in combination to authenticate a user for access to the secure area: a card or badge reader ... a biometrics reader ...”),;
determine whether the user intends to access the passageway based on an analysis of sensor data (¶[0011]: "Presence or motion detectors, that is radar type (e.g. microwave) detectors ... determine the presence of individuals and objects within the zone immediately surrounding the secure portal.”; ¶[0050]: "If the person or object was detected on the public side, thus presumably planning to enter the secure side, the process continues to a step 206 where the doorframe detectors are armed."; Fig. 6: “200”; ¶¶[0048]-[0050);
control a lock mechanism of an access control device to allow the user access to the passageway in response to a determination that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway (¶[0053]: "If an authentication attempt was executed, the program flow moves to a decision step 212 to determine whether the individual is an authorized entrant to the secure area ... If an authenticated individual swipes the card reader twice, then two individuals will be permitted to pass through the security door 12 to the secure side."; Fig. 6); and
monitor the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to control of the lock mechanism to allow the authorized user to access the passageway (¶[0026]: "Several input signals are provided to a programmable logic controller 30 for controlling access to the secure area behind the security door 12 and for further determining whether an unauthorized individual has entered the secure area by piggybacking or tailgating behind an authorized and authenticated user.").
Regarding claim 19, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above. Fufidio et al. also disclose wherein to determine whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises to: analyze, by the mobile device, the biometric data of the user (¶[0023]: “biometrics information ( e.g. retinal eye patterns or voice patterns) can be provided to the user by way of the authentication device 18.”); and
analyze, by the mobile device, the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user (¶[0023]: "The provided biometrics information is compared with stored information taken from permitted entrants, and if a match is determined, then the individual is a permitted entrant into the secure area and the security door 12 is unlocked.).
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 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The foregoing obviousness inquiry requires an expansive and flexible approach, not a rigid approach demanding express teachings, suggestions and motivations to combine prior art teachings. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 97 (US 2007). The rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness should be made explicit for review, but the rationale does not require precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim. Id. at 1396. A rejection can rely on inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. Obviousness rejections are not limited to showing the obviousness of solutions to the problems Applicant was trying to solve. Id. at 1397. Rather, one can show obviousness of a claim by establishing the obviousness of any solution to any known problem in the field of endeavor and addressed by a patent application's subject matter. Id. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is possessed of ordinary creativity. Id. One of ordinary skill could find alternative uses for prior art elements beyond the elements' primary purposes and fit prior art teachings together like a puzzle. Id. A combination of prior art teachings does not require absolute predictability. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006). All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
Claims 3, 5, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fufidio et al.
Regarding claim 3 and 20, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above except for specifically teaching wherein determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises executing a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) protocol by the mobile device. However, using Fast Identity Online (FIDO) protocol are common general knowledge in the art, which comes within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art. The protocol is a well-known, established standard for logging into websites securely, which was lunched back 2013 by the FIDO Alliance, a group of major tech companies including Google, Apple, and Microsoft, to fix the security flaws of traditional passwords. It is a set of open, industry-standard authentication protocols designed to eliminate the world's reliance on passwords, which uses public-key cryptography to deliver phishing-resistant, passwordless sign-ins using biometric unlocks or hardware keys. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use such known technique to modify the system of Fufidio et al. and to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success based on the common general knowledge.
Regarding claim 5, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above except for specifically teaching wherein the access control device is battery-powered. However, using powerline or battery-powered device or both define one of the two straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, depending on the circumstances, in order to solve the problem posed. Battery-powered devices provide portability, while power lines devices are preferred for unlimited runtime and heavy-duty. Under KSR the known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives and is considered obvious. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try to choose from a finites number of ways to provide power, as suggested by KSR, to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claim 12, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above except for specifically teaching wherein the user mobile device is a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) compliant device and is configured to execute a FIDO protocol to transmit the instruction to the access control device. However, using Fast Identity Online (FIDO) protocol are common general knowledge in the art, which comes within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art. The protocol is a well-known, established standard for logging into websites securely, which was lunched back 2013 by the FIDO Alliance, a group of major tech companies including Google, Apple, and Microsoft, to fix the security flaws of traditional passwords. It is a set of open, industry-standard authentication protocols designed to eliminate the world's reliance on passwords, which uses public-key cryptography to deliver phishing-resistant, passwordless sign-ins using biometric unlocks or hardware keys. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use such known technique to modify the system of Fufidio et al. and to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success based on the common general knowledge.
Regarding claim 14, Fufidio et al. disclose as stated above except for specifically teaching wherein the access control device comprises a battery-powered barrier controller. However, using powerline or battery-powered device or both define one of the two straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, depending on the circumstances, in order to solve the problem posed. Battery-powered devices provide portability, while power lines devices are preferred for unlimited runtime and heavy-duty. Under KSR the known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives and is considered obvious. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try to choose from a finites number of ways to provide power, as suggested by KSR, to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Occasionally, the examiner becomes aware of two copending applications that were filed by the same inventive entity, or by different inventive entities having a common inventor, and/or by a common assignee, or that claim an invention resulting from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement as defined in 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(2) and (3), that would raise an issue of double patenting if one of the applications became a patent. Where this issue can be addressed without violating the confidential status of applications (35 U.S.C. 122), the courts have sanctioned the practice of making applicant aware of potential double patenting problems if one of the applications became a patent by permitting the examiner to make a "provisional" rejection on the ground of double patenting. In re Mott, 539 F.2d 1291, 190 USPQ 536 (CCPA 1976); In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, the merits of such a provisional rejection can be addressed by both the applicant and the examiner without waiting for the first patent to issue.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used.
A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, please refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, and 15-17 of copending U.S. application No. 18/100787. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1-20 of US Patent No. 10,039,400 B2 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 1 and 11 of the instant application, respectively, except for disclosing using RADAR instead of LIDAR to determine the location of user. However, determining the relative location merely define one of several straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, depending on the circumstances, in order to solve the problem posed. Both RADAR and LiDAR are remote sensing technologies that measure distance. Furthermore, such replacement appears to present no unexpected technological advances in the art. Under KSR the known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives and is considered obvious. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill, to try to choose from a finites number of ways to determining the relative location, to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Below is list of claims in U.S. Appl. No. 18/100787, which are underlined to indicate the claims of this instant application:
Current Application
U.S. Appl. No. 18/100787
1. A method for seamless access control, the method comprising: determining whether a user is authorized to access a passageway controlled by an access control device based on credential data received from a mobile device of the user; determining, by a RADAR system, a location of the user relative to the passageway; determining whether the user intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the user relative to the passageway; and controlling, by the access control device, a lock mechanism to allow the user access to the passageway in response to determining that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway.
1. (Currently Amended) A method for seamless access control, the method comprising: determining, by an access control device, whether a user is authorized to access a passageway controlled by the access control device based on credential data received from a mobile device of the user over a Bluetooth communication connection established between the mobile device and the access control device; determining, by a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system, a location of the user relative to the passageway; determining whether the user intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the user relative to the passageway; and controlling, by the access control device, a lock mechanism to allow the user access to the passageway in response to determining that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises: capturing, by the mobile device, biometric data of the user; analyzing, by the mobile device, the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user; and determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway controlled by the access control device based on the credential data received from the mobile device of the user and the biometric data of the user.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises: capturing, by the mobile device, biometric data of the user; analyzing, by the mobile device, the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user; and determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway controlled by the access control device based on the credential data received from the mobile device of the user and the biometric data of the user.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises executing a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) protocol by the mobile device.
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises executing a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) protocol by the mobile device.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the access control device comprises at least one of an electronic lock, an exit device, a door closer, an auto-operator, or a motorized latch.
4. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the access control device comprises at least one of an electronic lock, an exit device, a door closer, an auto-operator, or a motorized latch.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the access control device is battery-powered.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein controlling the lock mechanism to allow the user access to the passageway further comprises moving a barrier from a closed position to an open position.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the barrier comprises a sliding door.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring, by at least one monitoring device, the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to controlling the lock mechanism allowing the authorized user to access the passageway.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring, by at least one monitoring device, the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to controlling the lock mechanism allowing the authorized user to access the passageway.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein monitoring the passageway comprises monitoring the passageway to detect an occurrence of tailgating of an unauthorized user through the passageway with an authorized user.
9. (Original) The method of claim 8, wherein monitoring the passageway comprises monitoring the passageway to detect an occurrence of tailgating of an unauthorized user through the passageway with an authorized user.
10. A system for seamless access control, the system comprising: a user mobile device; a barrier; an access control device coupled to the barrier and configured to (i) receive credential data from the user mobile device, (ii) determine whether a user is authorized to access a passageway secured by the barrier based on multifactor authentication of the user, wherein the multifactor authentication involves verification of the credential data received from the user mobile device and verification of biometric data of the user, (iii) determine whether the user intends to access the passageway based on an analysis of sensor data, and (iv) allow the user access to the passageway in response to a determination that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway; and a monitoring device configured to monitor the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to allowing the authorized user to access the passageway.
10. (Original) A system for seamless access control, the system comprising: a user mobile device; a barrier; an access control device coupled to the barrier and configured to (i) receive credential data from the user mobile device, (ii) determine whether a user is authorized to access a passageway secured by the barrier based on multifactor authentication of the user, wherein the multifactor authentication involves verification of the credential data received from the user mobile device and verification of biometric data of the user, (iii) determine whether the user intends to access the passageway based on an analysis of sensor data, and (iv) allow the user access to the passageway in response to a determination that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway; and a monitoring device configured to monitor the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to allowing the authorized user to access the passageway.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the user mobile device is configured to (i) capture the biometric data of the user, (ii) analyze the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user, and (iii) transmit an instruction to the access control device based on the analysis of the captured biometric data.
11. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the user mobile device is configured to (i) capture the biometric data of the user, (ii) analyze the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user, and (iii) transmit an instruction to the access control device based on the analysis of the captured biometric data.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the user mobile device is a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) compliant device and is configured to execute a FIDO protocol to transmit the instruction to the access control device.
12. (Original) The system of claim 11, wherein the user mobile device is a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) compliant device and is configured to execute a FIDO protocol to transmit the instruction to the access control device.
13. The system of claim 10, wherein the access control device comprises one of an exit device, a door closer, or an auto-operator.
14. The system of claim 10, wherein the access control device comprises a battery-powered barrier controller.
15. The system of claim 10, wherein the access control device is configured to move the barrier from a closed position to an open position to allow the user access to the passageway.
15. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the access control device is configured to move the barrier from a closed position to an open position to allow the user access to the passageway.
16. The system of claim 10, wherein the monitoring device comprises a camera configured to capture images of users in a vicinity of the passageway and at least one counter configured to track a number of persons that enter the passageway and a number of authorized credentials that are presented to the access control device.
16. (Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the monitoring device comprises a camera configured to capture images of users in a vicinity of the passageway and at least one counter configured to track a number of persons that enter the passageway and a number of authorized credentials that are presented to the access control device.
17. The system of claim 10, further comprising a RADAR system configured to determine a location of the user relative to the passageway; wherein the access control device is configured to determine that the user intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the user relative to the passageway.
17. (Original) The system of claim 10, further comprising a RADAR system configured to determine a location of the user relative to the passageway; wherein the access control device is configured to determine that the user intends to access the passageway based on the determined location of the user relative to the passageway.
18. A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, causes the system to: determine whether a user is authorized to access a passageway controlled by an access control device based on credential data received from a mobile device of the user and biometric data of the user; determine whether the user intends to access the passageway based on an analysis of sensor data; control a lock mechanism of an access control device to allow the user access to the passageway in response to a determination that the user is authorized to access the passageway and the user intends to access the passageway; and monitor the passageway to detect passage of an unauthorized person through the passageway in response to control of the lock mechanism to allow the authorized user to access the passageway.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein to determine whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises to: analyze, by the mobile device, the biometric data of the user; and analyze, by the mobile device, the captured biometric data to determine an identity of the user.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein to determine whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises to execute a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) protocol by the mobile device.
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the user is authorized to access the passageway comprises executing a Fast Identity Online (FIDO) protocol by the mobile device.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Lakamraju et al. (US 2013/0027180 A1) is equivalent and trustworthy translation of the IDS cited Foreign application No. CN-102906360 A; Tomita et al. (US 2018/0099642 A1) is equivalent and trustworthy translation of the IDS cited Foreign application No. CN-107945316 A; Dehelean et al. (US 2017/0152697 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. EP-2930071 A1; Kornek et al. (US 2016/0031417 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO-2014155255 A1; Einberget al. (US 2018/0103030 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO-2016177666 A1; Kuenzi et al. (US 2020/0349785 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO-2017180563; Wang et al. (US 2017/0350932 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO-2017180668 A1; Golsch et al. (US 2018/0099643 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO-2018071671 A2; Luscher et al. (US 2021/0377738 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO-2020083750 A1; Pirch et al. (US 2022/0157106 A1) is equivalent the IDS cited Foreign application No. WO 2020/193566 A1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA, or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights