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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12 and 24 in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 13-15, 17-19, 21-22 and 25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 2/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under the prior rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art due to amended limitations.
Furthermore, the amended limitations do not further define what is or is not contained in the 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIRCH et al. (US 20200314651 A1) in view of FAMULARI et al. (US 20160162706 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 –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), 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); 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).
[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.
However, PIRCH fails to explicitly disclose:
storing the reference temporal signature with an identifier in a computer readable storage medium for subsequent comparison with a second temporal signature.
FAMULARI teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a data processing environment in which [0089] data comparison is performed (claim 11) using a reference data with a unique identifier in a database with a reference data. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that for the purpose of processing data signature comparison with reference data, a function of using an identifier as in FAMULARI would provide a means for the proper reference data to be identified [0021].
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 an identifier to properly label the reference temporal signature, given that plural data sets may be collected and processed in order to compare with appropriate reference temporal signature.
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 24. PIRCH and FAMULARI discloses (as applied for claim 1) 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:
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, wherein the reference temporal signature is indicative of intent to access a secure asset associated with the first device; and
store the reference temporal signature with an identifier in the computer readable medium for subsequent comparison with a second temporal signature.
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 FAMULARI et al. (US 20160162706 A1) further in view of SALTER et al. (US 10043396 B2).
Re claim 9. However, PIRCH and FAMULARI 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 5/6/2026
Prosecution Insights