DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The application of Tanaka for an “entrance management device, entrance management method, and program storage medium” filed January 31, 2022 has been examined.
This application claims priority to a 371 of PCT/JP2022/003565, which is filed on July 3, 2024.
A preliminary amendment to the claims 1-9 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raina et al. (US# 9,514,589).
Referring to claim 1, Raina et al. disclose an entrance management device (150) (i.e. a zone computer of an access control system 100) (column 2 lines 21 to 67; see Figures 1 to 8) comprising:
a memory (613) configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (612) configured to execute the instructions (i.e. the zone computer 150a includes a processor 612 and a data storage 613. The processor 612 is an integrated circuit. The processor may execute software or firmware or comprise custom processing circuits, such as an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The data storage includes software or firmware including machine readable instructions) (column 14 lines 19 to 36; see Figures 1 to 6) to:
execute a pre-authentication process of determining whether a person (131a) to be authenticated is a registrant by collating pre-authentication information (i.e. a mobile device ID) related to the person to be authenticated for whom it is determined whether the person can enter a restricted area (101) with pre-authentication registration information stored in a database (622) storing authentication registration information indicating the registrant who is permitted to enter the restricted area (i.e. If the mobile device 130a is determined to be in a sub-location, a mobile device ID is calculated based on information received from the one or more beacons at 706. The mobile device ID may be unique to the current location of the mobile device 130a when the mobile device ID is calculated and subsequently broadcasted in a message, which may be received by the zone computer 150a at 707 assuming it is within range. If the mobile device 130a is not determined to be in a sub-location, the signals from the beacons are ignored at 704. At 708, messages are exchanged with the zone computer 150a for the sub-location in a secure manner using one or more encryption keys via a short-distance communication interface (e.g., Bluetooth) to mutually authenticate each other and validate a user associated with the mobile device and to allow access to the restricted area through the sub-location if the user is validated) (column 14 lines 25 to 36; column 15 lines 21 to 41; see Figures 1 to 7); and
determine, as guidance information (i.e. display indication), content to be issued to the person to be authenticated regarding an authentication process of determining whether the person to be authenticated can enter the restricted area, by using a result of the pre-authentication process, and output the guidance information toward a display device (151) that displays the guidance information (i.e. the zone computers 150 may be connected to displays 151, such as displays 151a-b, to provide indication to the user of whether they are approved to enter the restricted area or not. Other information may also be displayed. For example, an arrow indicates a lane is open. The check mark shown on the display 151b indicates a person is validated and the gate opens. If the person is not validated, the display may show an X, such as on display 151a, and may provide additional information, such as “See Attendant” or “Insufficient Funds” if the user's account does not have sufficient funds to pay a fare. Also, external systems may be invoked, such as to alert attendants or to automatically replenish funds in a user's account or change user's access privileges) (column 7 lines 31 to 44; see Figures 2 to 4).
Referring to claim 2, Raina et al. disclose the entrance management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether the person to be authenticated can enter the restricted area (101) by using the information acquired by an authentication acquisition device that acquires information used in the authentication process from the person to be authenticated and the authentication registration information stored in the database; and output a determination result as to whether the person to be authenticated can enter the restricted area (i.e. If the mobile device 130a is not determined to be in a sub-location, the signals from the beacons are ignored at 704. At 708, messages are exchanged with the zone computer 150a for the sub-location in a secure manner using one or more encryption keys via a short-distance communication interface (e.g., Bluetooth) to mutually authenticate each other and validate a user associated with the mobile device and to allow access to the restricted area through the sub-location if the user is validated) (column 14 lines 25 to 36; column 15 lines 21 to 41; see Figures 1 to 8).
Referring to claim 3, Raina et al. disclose the entrance management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output information indicating that there is no content to be issued to the display device as the guidance information in a case where it is determined that the person to be authenticated is the registrant in the pre-authentication process (i.e. the decision of whether the user is validated is communicated to the user, such as through a display, such as display 151a shown in FIG. 2, or through the mobile device, or through an audio notification from the zone computer and/or mobile device, or a haptic feedback (vibration) on the mobile device. For example, the zone computer may send information to the access control application related to the validation decision and/or the user's account (e.g., new balance, transaction summary, etc.). The access control application may communicate the decision to the user using inbuilt features like haptic feedback, audio notification, visual notification, etc., based on user's preferences. Also, the gate is opened if the user is validated to allow entry or exit. Or in a case of an always open gate, the gate is closed if the user is denied entry or exit) (column 7 lines 31 to 44; column 10 line 47 to column 11 line 10; see Figures 1 to 4).
Referring to claim 6, Raina et al. disclose the entrance management device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output correct information regarding the authentication process to the display device (151b) as the guidance information in a case where it is determined that the person to be authenticated is the registrant in the pre-authentication process, and output incorrect information (151a) regarding the authentication process to the display device as the guidance information in a case where it is determined that the person to be authenticated is not the registrant in the pre-authentication process (i.e. the zone computers 150 may be connected to displays 151, such as displays 151a-b, to provide indication to the user of whether they are approved to enter the restricted area or not. Other information may also be displayed. For example, an arrow indicates a lane is open. The check mark shown on the display 151b indicates a person is validated and the gate opens. If the person is not validated, the display may show an X, such as on display 151a, and may provide additional information, such as “See Attendant” or “Insufficient Funds” if the user's account does not have sufficient funds to pay a fare. Also, external systems may be invoked, such as to alert attendants or to automatically replenish funds in a user's account or change user's access privileges) (column 7 lines 22 to 44; see Figure 2).
Referring to claims 8-9, Raina et al. disclose an entrance management method and a non-transitory program storage medium storing a computer program for causing a computer, although different in scope from the claim 1, the claims 8-9 contains similar limitations in that the claim 1 already addressed above therefore claims 8-9 are also rejected for the same reasons given with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raina et al. (US# 9,514,589) as applied to claims 1 and 2 and in view of Bostrom (US# 7,110,580).
Referring to claim 4, Raina et al. disclose the entrance management device according to claim 1, however, Raina et al. did not explicitly wherein at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine content to be issued to the person to be authenticated by also using a number of times of entrance in which the person to be authenticated enters the restricted area.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Bostrom teaches that wherein at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine content to be issued to the person to be authenticated by also using a number of times of entrance in which the person to be authenticated enters the restricted area (i.e. an anomaly can result from the satisfaction of any predetermined criterion. For example, it may be desirable to know if a particular authorized person or persons, gains access more than a preset number of times. Also, it may be desirable to know if a previously authorized person whose access privileges have been revoked is near an entrance) (column 10 line 59 to column 11 line 13) in order to improve detecting any security anomaly in access control system.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for counting the particular authorized person gains access more than the preset number of times into the local access unit taught by Bostrom in the zone computers to detect valid users via their mobile devices in the access control system for of Raina et al. because counting the particular authorized person gains access more than the preset number of times into the local access unit would provide the access control system improve detecting any security anomaly.
Referring to claim 5, Raina et al. disclose the entrance management device according to claim 2, Bostrom teaches wherein at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform a first authentication process (i.e. biometric parameters comparison in Step B, such as Facial image) and a second authentication process (i.e. a fingerprint parameters in Step F) which is different from the first authentication process and is executed in a case where the entrance of the person to be authenticated into the restricted area is not permitted in the first authentication process (column 9 lines 20 to 53; see Figure 3),
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
execute the pre-authentication process in a case where the entrance of the person to be authenticated into the restricted area is not permitted in the first authentication process (i.e. In step C, local access unit 60 determines if the approaching person has been recognized through steps A and B and, if so, operates access control device 78 to grant access to the person in step D) (column 10 lines 7 to 11; see Figure 3), and
determine content to be issued to the person to be authenticated as the guidance information by using a result of the pre-authentication process and outputs the guidance information to the display device (i.e. Step D can require that the person press a button and/or turn a door handle to unlock the door. Also, an indication of granted access, such as a green light or a message on display 70 can be enunciated) (column 10 lines 15 to 32; see Figure 3).
Referring to claim 7, Raina et al. disclose the entrance management device according to claim 1, Bostrom teaches wherein the pre-authentication process is an authentication process using a captured image (77) captured by an imaging device that captures an image of the person to be authenticated (i.e. biometric parameter sensing device 77 can be of any type but is preferably of a different type, i.e. senses different biometric parameters, than biometric parameter sensing device 76. In the preferred embodiment, biometric parameter sensing device 77 is a camera for sensing facial parameters) (column 7 lines 50 to 59; column 8 lines 42 to 52; see Figures 1 to 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
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).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685