NONFINAL REJECTION
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 .
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 21 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PIRCH et al. (US 20200314651 A1).
Re claim 1. PIRCH discloses (abstract) a method for calibrating an environment (FIG.1-2A and 10), the method (FIG.2A – [0015-0017, 0120]) comprising:
monitoring ultra-wideband (UWB) signals [0025-0026, 0038] between a first device 205 and second device 230-240, wherein the first device is in a fixed location (doorway 205) and the second device (key devices 230-240) is portable [0040];
determining a reference temporal signature ([0116] i.e. trained with data sets collected –the claim language does not define what reference temporal signature includes or what data may be contained – it is interpreted broadly to include any type of data relevant to a user identity/approach towards a door) associated with the first device based on the UWB signals ([0066-0067] – PACS neural network may be trained with the habits of each user to identify common user actions and sequences of actions that may be used to identify intended doorways and points of entry); and
storing the reference temporal signature in a computer readable storage medium (FIG.11) [0023, 0054] (i.e. PACS is included in a host server, which implements a learning model [0046, 0055], which implicitly includes at least one storage medium);
wherein the reference temporal signature is indicative of intent to access a secure asset associated with the first device. ([0017, 0038, 0116-0117] – machine learning model to recognize how people may move and angles of their approach, when their intent is to enter the secure entry point)
[0017] In some cases, the systems and methods described herein can implement various approaches to detect intent of the user such that the entry point will open not only when the user with a proper credential is in a defined vicinity of the entry point, but also once it is adequately determined that the authenticated user intend to cross through the entry point. A challenge with performing preemptive credential verification may be identifying false positives which would result in releasing the secure entry mechanism when it should not be unlocked (e.g., false intent detection). This is potentially problematic as an unauthorized person may gain access to the entry. For example, an authorized person may be walking down a hallway and pass by a secure entry point. If the PACS were to mis-identify the person's approach to the secure entry point, the PACS may unlock the secure entry mechanism. The person may pass by the door while another person may enter through the secure entry point while the secure entry mechanism is unlocked.
[0116] The technique 1000 may, in determining the user intends to access the asset, include an operation to determine a probability the user intends to access the asset using the data set and a trained machine learning model. The trained machine learning model is trained with data sets collected from a plurality of users. The data sets may include movement data for the plurality of users within a range of the asset. The data sets may include movement data from the plurality of users. The information received from the wireless key device may include movement data of the user collected from an accelerometer of the wireless key device.
Re claim 2. PIRCH discloses [0021, 0026-0027, 0038, 0117] the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the reference temporal signature comprises determining a UWB measurement for each of a plurality of points along a path (FIG.1-4 – any path traveled by user carrying key device(s) towards a door) traversed by the second device based on the UWB signals, wherein the UWB measurement comprises at least one of:
a radial distance (D) measurement, angle of arrival (AoA) measurement [0051], signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurement, or line-of-sight (LoS) measurement.
Re claim 4. PIRCH discloses [0021, 0026-0027, 0038, 0117] the method of Claim 2, wherein the UWB measurement comprises a combination of at least two of:
a radial distance (D) measurement, angle of arrival (AoA) measurement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurement, or line-of-sight (LoS) measurement.
Re claim 5. PIRCH discloses (FIG.1 [0021, 0026-0027, 0038, 0117]) the method of Claim 2, wherein the UWB measurements for the plurality of points along the path traversed by the second device are stored as the reference temporal signature.
Re claim 6. PIRCH discloses (FIG.1 [0021, 0026-0027, 0038, 0117]) the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the reference temporal signature comprises determining a plurality of different types [0115-0117] of UWB measurements for each of a plurality of points along a path traversed by the second device.
Re claim 7. PIRCH discloses (FIG.1 [0021, 0026-0027, 0038, 0117]) the method of Claim 6, wherein the plurality of different types of UWB measurements comprises at least two of:
a radial distance (D) measurement, angle of arrival (AoA) measurement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurement, or line-of-sight (LoS) measurement.
Re claim 8. PIRCH discloses (FIG.1 [0021, 0026-0027, 0038, 0117]) the method of Claim 6, wherein a combination of the UWB measurements for the plurality of points along the path traversed by the second device are stored as the reference temporal signature.
Re claim 10. PIRCH discloses (FIG.1 [0054, 0066-0068, 0116-0117]) the method of Claim 2, further comprising initiating a training period prior to monitoring the UWB signals between the first and second devices, wherein determining a reference temporal signature associated with the first device is performed on detection of an access event corresponding to the secure asset during the training period. (i.e. training period during which user habits are processed and recorded for PACS neural network to store until needed later during user approach to door – FIG.1)
Re claim 12. PIRCH discloses (FIG.1-4) the method of Claim 2, wherein the path leads at least one of to or from the secure asset.
Re claim 13. PIRCH discloses (as applied for claim 1 given the similarity in claim scope) a method for determining intent of a user (FIG.2A) within an environment (abstract), the method comprising:
determining a current temporal signature for a first device (devices 230-240) moving within the environment;
comparing the current temporal signature with at least a portion of a stored reference temporal signature corresponding to a secure asset within the environment (abstract – FIG.1-2A and 10); and
basing an access control decision (FIG.10 – step 1008) corresponding to the secure asset on whether it is determined that the current temporal signature corresponds to the at least a portion of the stored reference temporal signature. [0017, 0118]
Re claim 14. PIRCH discloses (as for claim 1 – FIG.2A) the method of Claim 13, wherein determining the current temporal signature for the first device comprises monitoring ultra-wideband (UWB) signals between the first device and a second device 205, wherein the second device is in a fixed location corresponding to the secure asset.
Re claim 15. PIRCH discloses (as for claim 2) the method of Claim 14, wherein determining the current temporal signature for the first device further comprises determining a UWB measurement for each of a plurality of points along a path traversed by the first device, wherein the UWB measurement comprises at least one of:
a radial distance (D) measurement, angle of arrival (AoA) measurement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurement, or line-of-sight (LoS) measurement.
Re claim 17. PIRCH discloses (as for claim 4) the method of Claim 15, wherein the UWB measurement comprises a combination of at least two of:
a radial distance (D) measurement, angle of arrival (AoA) measurement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurement, or line-of-sight (LoS) measurement.
Re claim 18. PIRCH discloses (as for claim 5) the method of Claim 15, wherein the UWB measurements for the plurality of points along the path traversed by the first device are determined as the current temporal signature.
Re claim 19. PIRCH discloses (as for claims 6-7) the method of Claim 14, wherein determining the current temporal signature for the first device further comprises determining a plurality of different types of UWB measurements for each of a plurality of points along a path traversed by the first device, wherein the plurality of different types of UWB measurements comprises at least two of:
a radial distance (D) measurement, angle of arrival (AoA) measurement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurement, or line-of-sight (LoS) measurement.
Re claim 21. PIRCH discloses (as for claim 8) the method of Claim 19, wherein a combination of the UWB measurements for the plurality of points along the path traversed by the second device are determined as the current temporal signature.
Re claim 24. PIRCH discloses (as applied for claim 1) a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable program code (i.e. PACS comprising host server implicitly includes at least one storage medium capable of processing and storing data sets), that when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:
monitor ultra-wideband (UWB) signals between a first device and second device, wherein the first device is in a fixed location and the second device is portable;
determine a reference temporal signature associated with the first device based on the UWB signals; and
store the reference temporal signature in the computer readable medium;
wherein the reference temporal signature is indicative of intent to access a secure asset associated with the first device.
Re claim 25. PIRCH discloses (as applied for claims 1 and 13) a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable program code, that when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:
determine a current temporal signature for a first device moving within an environment;
compare the current temporal signature with at least a portion of a stored reference temporal signature corresponding to a secure asset within the environment; and
base an access control decision corresponding to the secure asset on whether it is determined that the current temporal signature corresponds to the at least a portion of the stored reference temporal signature.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIRCH et al. (US 20200314651 A1) in view of SALTER et al. (US 10043396 B2).
Re claim 9. However, PIRCH fails to explicitly disclose:
the method of Claim 2, wherein monitoring UWB signals between the first and second devices comprises instructing a user of the second device, via the second device, to traverse the path.
SALTER teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention, an automated door control system (FIG.1) wherein the concept (c.6, l.54-61) of instructing a user (passenger 18) to move closer to a door, or traverse a path towards the door, via a device (mobile electronic device 12) on a display so that user can be prompted to move closer to door for the purpose of properly detecting user mobile electronic device within an allowable distance.
The prior art of SALTER clearly teaches the known technique of instructing a user of the second device, via the second device, to traverse the path, towards a door for instance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of instructing a user of a mobile device, via the mobile device, to traverse the path would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the ability for the control system to properly detect the user and their device from a closer range.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIRCH et al. (US 20200314651 A1) in view of PANG et al. (US 20200193112 A1).
Re claim 22. PIRCH discloses [0115-0117] the method of Claim 13, wherein determining whether the current path signature corresponds to the at least a portion of the stored reference temporal signature comprises determining whether the current temporal signature matches the at least a portion of the stored reference temporal signature. (data sets must be compared to determine and recognize corresponding intent appropriate with user movement)
However, PIRCH fails to explicitly disclose:
within a predefined tolerance.
PANG teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, use of neural network to process data matches [0076] using a confidence level for identification data.
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 using a predefined tolerance (i.e. such as a confidence level for data identified) to help determine a proper data match as taught by PANG of the current and reference signatures in order to improve the certainty of intent determination by the neural network functions of PACS of PIRCH.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 11/5/2025