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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This office action responds to the amendments filed on July 1, 2026 for application 18/741,826. Claims 1 and 11 are amended, and claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments filed on July 1, 2026, and the Examiner responds as provided below.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 10-16 of the Remarks that concerns the § 103 rejection, the Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the claim amendments are persuasive, and consequently the Examiner conducted a new prior art search. The Applicant’s arguments are now moot with respect to the pending claims because the arguments do not apply to one of the references currently used in the rejection of the claims as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (US 2019/0279445, “Gallagher”) in view of Day et al. (US 2019/0295207, “Day”).
Regarding Claim 1
A method (abstract) of operating (abstract) a warehouse access control system (Fig. 1, ¶ [0033], “Referring now to FIG. 1, a building 10 equipped with an access control system (ACS) 100 is shown, according to some embodiments.”, i.e., Gallagher does not specifically teach a “warehouse” and only generically discloses a building, but it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the ACS can be applied to any building that requires a security system, including a warehouse that stores valuables. See MPEP § 2141(III), stating “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”), comprising:
touring a plurality of images captured by a plurality of monitors (¶ [0036], “In some embodiments, ACS 100 includes security cameras [monitors] 104 for monitoring [via touring] controlled or uncontrolled areas in or around building 10. Security cameras 104 can be configured to capture images or video of a person at the location of doors 103 or other access points in ACS 100.”);
determining a biological feature of an unverified person and generating a determination result (¶ [0036], “The images or video from security cameras 104 are used by ACS 100 to perform [determine] facial [biological feature] recognition or other types of visual identity verification [to generate a determination result of an unverified person].”; and ¶¶ [0067]-[0068], “Scenario E [determination result] may occur when the FRS data indicates that facial recognition was unsuccessful and the ACS data indicates that the card presented by person 210 is invalid (or no card was presented by person 210).”),
wherein determining the biological feature of the unverified person (¶¶ [0036], [0067]-[0068]) and generating the determination result (¶¶ [0036], [0067]-[0068])
further comprises determining whether the biological feature of the unverified person conforms to a predetermined biological feature (¶ [0057], “In some embodiments, ACS 200 uses a facial recognition system (FRS) to authorize user access to a door 202. A FRS may use a [unverified] person's unique facial [biological] features, such as the shape of their face, as an access credential to identify and authenticate [by comparing a predetermined biological feature initially collected to the biological feature collected in the present] the person's access to a controlled area.”),
wherein the predetermined biological feature is the biological feature of a gatekeeper (¶ [0063], “Scenario A may occur when the FRS [facial recognition system] data indicates that facial recognition was successful, the ACS data indicates that the card presented by person 210 is valid, and ACS 200 determines that both the FRS data and the ACS data identify the same person. In scenario A, ACS 200 may determine whether the identified person is permitted to access the controlled space.”, i.e., although Gallagher does not literally teach a “gatekeeper”, such a person as a security officer/gatekeeper would be recognized successfully by the facial recognition system and be allowed “to access the controlled space.” See MPEP § 2141(III));
switching a status of a warehouse if the biological feature of the unverified person conforms to the biological feature of the gatekeeper (¶ [0068], “In some embodiments, ACS 200 sends an automated message to a security officer alerting [and thereby switching a status of the warehouse to “alert”] the security officer of the person of interest.”; and ¶¶ [0055]-[0056], “One example of an access event [that serves as a basis to establish a status of a warehouse] is an “Access Granted” (AG) event [that switches a status of the warehouse from no person allowed to one person allowed, where it is obvious to one skilled in the art to grant access to a trusted gatekeeper], which may occur when a valid user with sufficient privileges is granted access.”, and “The data collected by ACS 200 and/or ACS server 500 may be used to generate reports [based upon the various states of the warehouse] and may be further processed to generate insights into door use or other security matters. Such reports [detailing various states] and/or data may be displayed on a user interface for system monitors.”),
1 …;
determining the status of the warehouse based on the {status light displayed by the status display device (Day ¶ [0118])} (¶ [0068], “In some embodiments, ACS 200 sends [after determining the status of the warehouse that switches the warehouse to “alert”] an automated message to a security officer alerting the security officer of the person of interest.”; and ¶¶ [0055]-[0056], i.e., the status of the warehouse is determined in preparation of the reports);
detecting the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0036], “The images [detected] or video from security cameras [monitors] 104 are used [after detecting] by ACS 100 to perform facial recognition or other types of visual identity verification.”);
detecting whether there is any human in the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0036], “The images or video from security cameras [monitors] 104 are used by ACS 100 to perform facial recognition [to detect a human in an image] or other types of visual identity verification.”); and
2 …if there is a human in at least one of the images captured by the monitors and the warehouse is under a warning status (¶ [0036], “The images or video from security cameras 104 are used by ACS 100 to perform facial recognition [to detect a human in one of the images] or other types of visual identity verification.”).
Gallagher doesn’t disclose
1 wherein switching the status of the warehouse comprises controlling, by a server, a status display device to change a status light displayed by the status display device;
2 issuing an alert…
Day, however, discloses
1 wherein switching the status of the warehouse comprises controlling, by a server (¶ [0053], “The master controller 12 may be a server located on-site or may be located off-site and configured to monitor a number of buildings.”; see also Gallagher ¶ [0053], “ACS server 500 can compare the credential data with credential data stored in credential manager 506 and can make a determination as to whether the credentials are valid. ACS server 500 may communicate either a positive or negative response [and switch an associated status] to access controller 201.”),
a status display device to change a status light displayed by the status display device (¶ [0118], “The beacon 90 may also include a status indicator [display device] 100 or threat level indicator, which may contain [display] a number of indicator [status] lights for indicating a number of different status conditions. For example, red lights 102 may be used for indicating a serious threat. Yellow lights 104 may be used for indicating a possible threat. Green lights 106 may be used for indicating no threat. Additional lights 108 may be used for flashing signals to call attention to the beacon 90. Some lights may be reserved for communicating certain pertinent information or instructions for specific groups of people.”);
2 issuing an alert… (¶ [0141], “Cameras can be set up at or near one or multiple entranceways for detecting facial features for alerting security when someone enters or approaches the building [warehouse] who is not allowed inside.”; and ¶ [0118], “For example, red lights 102 may be used for indicating [issuing an alert] a serious threat.”)
Regarding the combination of Gallagher and Day, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access control system of Gallagher to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the access control system of Gallagher, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an status/alert feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the security system of Day, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the status/alert feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the status/alert feature to the base access control system of Gallagher, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2
Gallagher in view Day (“Gallagher-Day”) discloses the method of claim 1, and Gallagher further discloses
wherein determining the biological feature of the unverified person and generating the determination result (¶ [0036]) further comprises:
capturing an image of the unverified person (Fig. 1, ¶ [0036], “In some embodiments, ACS 100 includes security cameras 104 for monitoring controlled or uncontrolled areas in or around building 10. Security cameras 104 can be configured to capture images or video of a [unverified] person at the location of doors 103 or other access points in ACS 100.”);
detecting the biological feature of the unverified person ((¶ [0036], “The images or video from security cameras 104 are used by ACS 100 to perform facial recognition [by detecting the biological feature] or other types of visual identity verification.”); and
calculating a similarity between the biological feature of the unverified person and the predetermined biological feature
(¶ [0061], “In some instances, the FRS data may indicate that facial recognition [biological feature] was successful (i.e., the visual appearance of person 210 matches [based on a calculation that indicates a high similarity] a facial profile stored [predetermined biological feature] by ACS 200) and may include the user ID associated with the recognized person 210.”).
Regarding Claim 3
Gallagher-Day discloses the method of claim 2, and Gallagher further discloses
wherein the biological feature comprises a facial characteristic (¶ [0061], “In some instances, the FRS data may indicate that facial [characteristic] recognition [biological feature] was successful…”).
Regarding Claim 5
Gallagher-Day discloses the method of claim 2, and Gallagher further discloses
further comprising determining whether an identity authentication device is triggered before capturing the image of the unverified person (¶ [0044], “For example, pre-classifier [identity authentication device] 412 can use automatic license plate recognition data from a camera in a parking lot to filter [initiated via a trigger] a set of people down to a smaller set of people associated with license plates currently in the parking lot. This allows access reader module to search a smaller data set of [unverified] people when attempting to match the input with stored user attributes or biometrics, which may, for example, allow for decreased latency/increased speed in generating an access decision.”).
Regarding Claim 6
Gallagher-Day discloses the method of claim 1, and Gallagher further discloses
wherein touring the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0036]) is performed if the warehouse is under the warning status and if there is no human in the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0057], “For example, the FRS [facial recognition system] can detect each person's mobile device or license plate and may only search for those people's facial data in the FRS database. ACS 200 can use FRS data to derive actionable insights into a building's security environment and risk profile. Access control data (e.g., card scan data, user-entered passwords or PIN numbers, biometric data, etc.) can be combined and correlated with FRS data and/or other data to enhance the overall security of a monitored system.”; and ¶ [0067], “Scenario E may occur when the FRS data indicates that facial recognition was unsuccessful and the ACS data indicates that the card presented by person 210 is invalid (or no card was presented by person 210). Scenario E may occur when person 210 is an unknown person who is not authorized to access the building.” i.e., the criteria associated with touring images is merely a mental process for increasing building security, and it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to tour the images when, for example, a warning status is implemented based upon the detection of a license plate of a disgruntled former employee, and no human is in the images, suggesting evasive maneuvering by the “human.” Under these two circumstances, it would be obvious to tour the images to resolve the potential security threat).
Regarding Independent Claim 11
Gallagher discloses
A warehouse access control system (Fig. 1, ¶ [0033], “Referring now to FIG. 1, a building 10 equipped with an access control system (ACS) 100 is shown, according to some embodiments.”, i.e., Gallagher does not specifically teach a “warehouse” and only generically discloses a building, but it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the ACS can be applied to any building that requires a security system, including a warehouse that stores valuables. See MPEP § 2141(III), stating “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”), comprising:
a plurality of monitors configured to capture a plurality of images of a warehouse (Fig. 1, ¶ [0036], “In some embodiments, ACS 100 includes security cameras [plurality of monitors] 104 for monitoring controlled or uncontrolled areas in or around building [warehouse] 10. Security cameras 104 can be configured to capture images or video of a person at the location of doors 103 or other access points in ACS 100.”);
an identity authentication device (¶ [0013], “The access controller includes one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable media containing program instructions. When executed by the one or more processors, the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform including determining whether the access credential is valid based on the ACS data, determining whether the person is recognized based on the FRS data, granting or denying access to the person through the access point based on whether the access credential is valid and whether the person is recognized, and generating and storing one or more of a plurality of access events.”, i.e., a processor or some circuitry thereof that comprises an identity authentication device, noting this limitation is indefinite as Applicant’s specification does not disclose any type of “identity authentication device”) connected to the monitors, wherein the identity authentication device comprises an image capturing device and a button configured to be pressed to trigger the identity authentication device, and wherein the image capturing device is configured to capture an image of an unverified person (¶ [0036], “Security cameras [connected to the identity authentication device] 104 can be configured to capture images or video of a [unverified] person at the location of doors 103 or other access points in ACS 100.”; and “In some embodiments, ACS 100 includes security cameras [image capturing device] 104 for monitoring controlled or uncontrolled areas in or around building 10. Security cameras 104 can be configured to capture images or video of a person at the location of doors 103 or other access points in ACS 100.”, i.e., Gallagher doesn’t literally teach a button, but the use of a button for activation would be obvious to one skilled in the art);
a notification unit (¶ [0013], noting this limitation is indefinite under § 112(b)) configured to send a reminder and…1 (¶ [0038], “ACS servers 108 can analyze and process the received data to generate workflows [and associated reminders for work to be completed], alerts, or other outputs [i.e., information that is sent or issued].”),
wherein issuing the alert comprises at least one of sounding a siren, sending an email, making a phone call, sending a push notification, or sending a text message (¶ [0038], “ACS servers 108 can analyze and process the received data to generate workflows, alerts [with an email being a well-known and obvious form of communication to one skilled in the art due to its simplicity and effectiveness] or other outputs. In some embodiments, ACS 100 includes one or more client terminals or remote user interfaces 109.”);
a status display device (¶ [0043], “In various embodiments, keypad 408 may be a physical keypad, a computer graphic presented via [status] display [device] 414, or a projected image.”) connected to the notification unit (¶ [00]) and
configured to…2; and
a server electrically or communicatively connected to the monitors, the identity authentication device, the notification unit, and the status display device (Fig. 1, ¶ [0038], “ACS servers 108 can be configured [communicatively coupled] to receive and process data from access controllers 106, access reader modules 107, REX devices 102, and/or cameras [monitors] 104 [and other units and devices, noting the § 112(b) rejection for indefiniteness for these limitations].”),
wherein the server is configured to:
tour the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0036], “In some embodiments, ACS 100 includes security cameras [monitors] 104 for monitoring [via touring] controlled or uncontrolled areas in or around building 10. Security cameras 104 can be configured to capture images or video of a person at the location of doors 103 or other access points in ACS 100.”);
determine a biological feature of the unverified person and generate a determination result (¶ [0036], “The images or video from security cameras 104 are used by ACS 100 to perform [determine] facial [biological feature] recognition or other types of visual identity verification [to generate a determination result of an unverified person].”; and ¶¶ [0067]-[0068], “Scenario E [determination result] may occur when the FRS data indicates that facial recognition was unsuccessful and the ACS data indicates that the card presented by person 210 is invalid (or no card was presented by person 210).”),
wherein determining the biological feature of the unverified person (¶¶ [0036], [0067]-[0068]) and generating the determination result (¶¶ [0036], [0067]-[0068])
further comprises determining whether the biological feature of the unverified person conforms to a predetermined biological feature (¶ [0057], “In some embodiments, ACS 200 uses a facial recognition system (FRS) to authorize user access to a door 202. A FRS may use a [unverified] person's unique facial [biological] features, such as the shape of their face, as an access credential to identify and authenticate [by comparing a predetermined biological feature initially collected to the biological feature collected in the present] the person's access to a controlled area.”);
switch a status of the warehouse if the biological feature of the unverified person conforms to the biological feature of the gatekeeper (¶ [0068], “In some embodiments, ACS 200 sends an automated message to a security officer alerting [and thereby switching a status of the warehouse to “alert”] the security officer of the person of interest.”; and ¶¶ [0055]-[0056], “One example of an access event [that serves as a basis to establish a status of a warehouse] is an “Access Granted” (AG) event [that switches a status of the warehouse from no person allowed to one person allowed, where it is obvious to one skilled in the art to grant access to a trusted gatekeeper], which may occur when a valid user with sufficient privileges is granted access.”, and “The data collected by ACS 200 and/or ACS server 500 may be used to generate reports [based upon the various states of the warehouse] and may be further processed to generate insights into door use or other security matters. Such reports [detailing various states] and/or data may be displayed on a user interface for system monitors.”);;
determine the status of the warehouse (¶ [0068], “In some embodiments, ACS 200 sends [after determining the status of the warehouse that switches the warehouse to “alert”] an automated message to a security officer alerting the security officer of the person of interest.”);
detect the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0036], “The images [detected] or video from security cameras [monitors] 104 are used [after detecting] by ACS 100 to perform facial recognition or other types of visual identity verification.”);
detect whether there is any human in the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0036], “The images or video from security cameras [monitors] 104 are used by ACS 100 to perform facial recognition [to detect a human in an image] or other types of visual identity verification.”); and
control the notification unit to issue the alert if there is the human in at least one of the images captured by the monitors and the warehouse is under the warning status (¶ [0036], “The images or video from security cameras 104 are used by ACS 100 to perform facial recognition [to detect a human in one of the images] or other types of visual identity verification.”; and ¶ [0068], “In some embodiments, ACS 200 sends [issues] an automated message to a security officer alerting the security officer of the person of interest [thereby establishing the warehouse is under a warning status].”).
Gallagher doesn’t disclose
1 … issue an alert
2 …display a first status light, a second status light different from the first status light, and a third status light different from the first status light and the second status light, wherein the status display device comprises a lighting device providing the first status light, the second status light, and the third status light, wherein the first status light indicates the warehouse is under an open status, the second status light indicates the warehouse is under a warning status, and the third status light indicates the warehouse is under an alert status;
Day, however, discloses
1 … issue an alert (¶ [0022], “The visual alerting element may be comprised of lights of different colors in order to indicate different conditions, e.g. red for danger [alert status], yellow for caution, green for return to normal and white for attention.”)
2 …display a first status light, a second status light different from the first status light, and a third status light different from the first status light and the second status light, wherein the status display device comprises a lighting device providing the first status light, the second status light, and the third status light, wherein the first status light indicates the warehouse is under an open status, the second status light indicates the warehouse is under a warning status, and the third status light indicates the warehouse is under an alert status (¶ [0022], “The visual alerting element may be comprised of [status] lights [of a lighting device] of different colors [or equivalently, different lights such as a common traffic signal with different green, yellow, and red lights] in order to indicate different conditions, e.g. red for danger [alert status], yellow for caution [warning status], green for return to normal [open status] and white for attention.”);
Regarding the combination of Gallagher and Day, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access control system of Gallagher to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the access control system of Gallagher, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an alert/status lighting feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the surveillance system of Day, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the alert/status lighting feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the alert/status lighting feature to the base access control system of Gallagher, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claims 12-13 and 15-16
With respect to dependent claims 12-13 and 15-16, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 12-13 and 15-16. Therefore, claims 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claims 2-3 and 5-6.
B. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher in view of Day, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2020/0233389, “Ma”).
Regarding Claim 7
Gallagher-Day discloses the method of claim 1, and Gallagher further discloses
further comprising at least one of:
recording a time associated with a latest image detected that includes the human if the warehouse is under an open status and if there is the human in at least one of the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0066], “The surveillance component(s) 1110 may include camera(s) [monitor] arranged to capture [latest] images of the person(s) entering the building 10.”; ¶ [0118], “In some embodiments, the visitor management system 1102 may determine a [associated] time in which the access request is received (e.g., at step 1210). The visitor management system 1102 may determine the time based on a timestamp of the access request, or timestamp [recorded time] of the data received from the surveillance component [monitor] 1110.”; and ¶ [0057], “As a non-limiting example, a smart visitor management system may receive a request to hold a meeting in a building [under an open status], the request including a visitor to the building.”); and
setting a time interval timing from the time associated with the latest image detected that includes the human (¶ [0057], “The smart visitor management system may generate a virtual ticket for the visitor based on the received identifying information. The virtual ticket may grant the visitor access to portions of the building associated with a location of the meeting during [and set] a time [interval] period associated with the meeting. The smart visitor management system may identify a presence of the visitor at the building based on the identifying information. For example, when the visitor arrives at a lobby of the building [warehouse] the visitor management system may capture an [latest] image of the visitor and use facial recognition to match the face of the visitor to a picture supplied by the individual as identifying information. The visitor management system may dynamically control access control devices to grant the visitor access to the building. For example, the visitor management system may unlock doors leading to a location of the meeting within the building.”).
Regarding the combination of Gallagher-Day and Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access control system of Gallagher-Day to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the access control system of Gallagher-Day, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a timing feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the surveillance system of Ma, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the timing feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the timing feature to the base access control system of Gallagher-Day, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 17
With respect to dependent claim 17, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 7.
C. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher in view of Day, and further in view of Flint et al. (US 11,244,547, “Flint”).
Regarding Claim 8
Gallagher-Day discloses the method of claim 1, and Gallagher further discloses
further comprising…1
Gallagher-Day doesn’t disclose
1 …determining whether no human is detected in the images captured by the monitors and an elapsed time since a time associated with a latest image detected that includes the human is greater than a time interval when the warehouse is under an open status.
Flint, however, discloses
1 …determining whether no human is detected in the images captured by the monitors and an elapsed time since a time associated with a latest image detected that includes the human is greater than a time interval when the warehouse is under an open status (Col. 3:41-50, “Some examples of the method, apparatuses, and non-transitory computer-readable medium described herein may further include operations, features, means, or instructions for initiating a timer based on detecting the person in the physical environment [during an open status], determining an expiration of the timer [exceeding a time interval], determining an absence of the person in the physical environment [and thereby detecting no human in the images captured by the monitors] before the expiration of the timer,…”).
Regarding the combination of Gallagher-Day and Flint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access control system of Gallagher-Day to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the access control system of Gallagher-Day, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a time interval feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the surveillance system of Flint, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the time interval feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the time interval feature to the base access control system of Gallagher-Day, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 18
With respect to dependent claim 18, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 8 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 8.
D. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher in view of Day and Flint, and further in view of Ainsworth et al. (US 2021/0196169, “Ainsworth”).
Regarding Claim 9
Gallagher in view of Day, and further in view of Flint (“Gallagher-Day-Flint”) discloses the method of claim 8, and Flint further discloses
further comprising…1
Gallagher-Day-Flint doesn’t disclose
1 …sending a reminder if determining that no human is detected in the images captured by the monitors and the elapsed time since the time associated with the latest image detected that includes the human is greater than the time interval.
Ainsworth, however, discloses
1 …sending a reminder if determining that no human is detected in the images captured by the monitors and the elapsed time since the time associated with the latest image detected that includes the human is greater than the time interval (¶ [0055], “The SIS [security integration system] 80 receives the meta data stream from the VMS [video management system] in step 216. The SIS then forwards [sends] messages [reminder] for the upset employees and/or customers and/or other individuals to security guards and possibly the business owner, to warn of potential threat posed by upset employees at the associated locations, especially in the case where the levels of emotion are high, such as 9 or 10.”, i.e., “messages”/reminders are obvious components of a surveillance or security system that track the presence of people, whether the people are currently viewable in a monitor or not).
Regarding the combination of Gallagher-Day-Flint and Ainsworth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access control system of Gallagher-Day-Flint to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the access control system of Gallagher-Day-Flint, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a messaging feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the surveillance system of Ainsworth, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the messaging feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the messaging feature to the base access control system of Gallagher-Day-Flint, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 19
With respect to dependent claim 19, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 9 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 9.
E. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher in view of Day and Flint, and further in view of Ma.
Regarding Claim 10
Gallagher-Day-Flint discloses the method of claim 8, and Flint further discloses
wherein touring the images captured by the monitors (¶ [0036]) is performed…1
Gallagher-Day-Flint doesn’t disclose
1 …if no human is detected in the images captured by the monitors and the elapsed time since the time associated with the latest image detected that includes the human is not greater than the time interval.
Ma, however, discloses
1 …if no human is detected in the images captured by the monitors and the elapsed time since the time associated with the latest image detected that includes the human is not greater than the time interval (¶ [0066], “The surveillance component(s) 1110 may include camera(s) [monitor] arranged to capture images [for touring] of the person(s) entering the building 10.”; ¶ [0126], “In various embodiments, visitor management system 1102 is configured to detect a presence of the individual [human] near an access control point and selectively control the access control point in response to the presence of the individual. For example, visitor management system 1102 may detect a presence of the individual in front of a door, determine whether the individual is permitted to have access to opening the door, and open the door in response to determining that the individual is permitted. Additionally or alternatively, visitor management system 1102 may control one or more digital signs based on the presence of the individual. For example, visitor management system 1102 may display directions to the individual describing a route to a location of the meeting on digital signage located throughout the building 10. In various embodiments, visitor management system 1102 controls access control devices based on a determined purpose of the individual.”, i.e., if a human is not detected in the images captured by the monitors is not greater the time interval, the person may have become lost in the building which would require touring of the monitors to detect the human an initiate remedial measures).
Regarding the combination of Gallagher-Day-Flint and Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access control system of Gallagher-Day-Flint to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the access control system of Gallagher-Day-Flint, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a timing feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the surveillance system of Ma, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the timing feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the timing feature to the base access control system of Gallagher-Day-Flint, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Dependent Claim 20
With respect to dependent claim 20, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 10 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights