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 following is a non-final office action in response to the RCE filed 05/27/2026. Amendments received on 05/27/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US Pub 2017/0264608) in view of Prabhu (US Pub 2017/0324751) in view of De Rozairo (US Pub 2021/0358243).
As of claims 1 and 12, Moore discloses a system, comprising:
at least one computing device (via overall system or apparatus 800; see fig. 2 and 8; see paragraph [0046]) comprising: at least one processor (via processor 804); and at least one memory storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (via memory 805/806; see fig. 8), cause the at least one processor to:
receive an image of an optically capturable passcode rendered by a mobile device, the image being captured by a premises monitoring system (via camera 204 capturing a QR code presented on a user phone 208; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0032]);
authenticate a person associated with the mobile device based on the optically capturable passcode (via a QR code verifier verifying the QR code; see paragraph [0032]);
determine that the person is permitted access to a premises according to an access policy; and in response to authenticating the person and determining that the person is permitted access to the premises, cause a lock securing an access point of the premises to unlock (via controller 212 determining whether the user 102 is authorized to access the secure facility or system based on the QR code verification and if verification is achieved, a door to the facility is then unlocked for the user; see figs. 2 and 4; also see paragraphs [0032] and [0039]).
Moore discloses the use of multi-factor authentication by using QR code verification and biometric verification (see paragraph [0039]) wherein both factors are gathered at the same time, Moore does not explicitly state that request an audio passcode (second factor) after verifying the image (first factor).
Prabhu discloses an authentication system, wherein a QR code is verified and after verifying the QR code an authentication token (one time password) is sent to the user and then user enters the one-time password and the system determines if the one-time password is valid (see figs. 2A or 2B; also see paragraphs [0061]-[0065]).
(Note: Szigeti et al. (US Pub 2023/0083426) also discloses that multi-factor authentication (MFA) process includes requesting a first authentication factor; based on receiving the first authentication factor, requesting a second authentication factor; and based on receiving the second authentication factor, enabling access to a protected resource. The first authentication factor and/or the second authentication factor can be received from a single device or multiple devices associated with the same user; see paragraph [0034]). Szigeti is not used to reject the claim but support examiner’s assertion that it is known in the art that after verifying the first authentication factor, authentication system request second authentication factor).
Moore discloses the use of multi-factor authentication by using QR code verification and biometric verification (see paragraph [0039]) however it does not explicitly disclose receive recorded audio of audio rendered by a mobile device and captured by the premises monitoring system, the audio rendered by the mobile device comprising an audio passcode generated by the mobile device corresponding to a random sound signature.
De Rozairo discloses an access control system, wherien an authentication system transmits a passcode to a device in the possession of a user, receive from the device a speech sample of the user speaking the passcode corresponding to a random sound signature and authenticating the user based on the spoken passcode (see fig. 1; also see abstract, paragraphs [0015]-[0016]).
Form the teaching of De Rozairo it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Moore to include the function of audio passcode as taught y De Rozairo in order to enhance the biometric authentication of the user.
As of claims 3 and 14, Moore discloses that the optically capturable passcode comprises a quick response (QR) code that is downloadable to the mobile device associated with the person (via QR code presented on a user phone 208; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0032].
As of claims 10 and 20, Moore discloses a premises device of the premises monitoring system is configured to capture the optically capturable passcode and the audio passcode (via 2FA authentication system 200; see fig. 2), however it does not explicitly disclose the premises device is a video doorbell device that is proximate an access location of a premises. The Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the art of access control that a video doorbell device could be used as a premise device for access control verification (see LaRovere et al. 10,347,063 see col. 3 line 64 through col. 14, lines 10). Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior (MPEP 2144.03).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Prabhu, De Rozairo and further in view of Vazquez et al. (US 9,640,001).
As of claims 11 and 13, combination of Moore, Prabhu and De Rozairo discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the audio passcode comprises an inaudible sound signature.
Vazquez discloses that it is well known in the art of access control to use sound wave signals in a frequency band that is inaudible to humans to convey user’s authentication data (see Vanquez et al. US 9,640,001 col. 12, lines 25-37).
From the teaching of Vazquez, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Moore, Prabhu and De Rozairo to include the function of transmitting a sound signal encoding a code representing a credential by the mobile at the time of access in order to further enhance user authentication.
Claims 4-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Prabhu, De Rozairo and further in view of Mizon (US Pub 2012/0068818).
As of claims 4 and 15, combination of Moore, Prabhu and De Rozairo discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, De Rozairo further discloses that the authentication system receives an indication that the person is present at the premises (via user communicating to the authentication system to begin the process of authentication; see paragraph [0011]) then the authentication system generates and transmits a passphrase to be spoken to the user mobile device (see paragraph [0015]). However, combination of Moore and De Rozairo does not explicitly disclose that receive an indication that the person is present at the premise and then generate and transmit optically capturable passcode to the mobile device.
Mizon discloses an access control system wherien a control unit receive an indication that the person is present at the premises in response to the indication, generate the optically capturable passcode; transmit the optically capturable passcode to the mobile device (see paragraphs [0005] and [0008]).
From the teaching of Mizon it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Moore, Prabhu and De Rozairo to include the function of generating and transmit QR code to the mobile at the time of access in order to reduce the risk of misuse of the QR code. Further with regards to the limitation that optical code is generated first and then the audio passcode, “the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (see MPEP: 2144.04 IV C).
As of claims 5 and 16, De Rozairo discloses that the at least one computing device to: determine that the recorded audio corresponds to the generated audible passcode; and in response to determining that the recorded audio corresponds to the generated audible passcode, deem the person authenticated (see paragraph [0017], “If the spoken passphrase is positively associated with the reference data, the user may be granted access” also see paragraphs [0015]-[0016]).
As of claims 6 and 17, Moore discloses that the at least one computing device, in response to deeming the person authenticated and determining that the person is permitted access to the premises, cause a door to unlock (see paragraph [0039]). However, it does not explicitly state that a security alarm system at the premises to transition from an armed state to a disarmed state. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of access control that in response to an authentication of a person, the system not only unlocks the doors to a premise but also arm/disarm security monitoring system (see LaRovere et al. 10,347,063 see col. 2 lines 60-65).
As of claims 7 and 18, De Rozairo discloses that the indication that the person is present at the premises corresponds to a message initiated by the person (via user communicating to the authentication system to being the process of authentication; see paragraph [0011]).
Mizon further discloses that the user transmits an identification code to the control unit via access node which functions as an indication that the person is present at the premise (see paragraph [0005]).
As of claim 8, Mizon discloses that the indication corresponds to an alert indicating that a recognized person has been detected at the premises (Mizon discloses that in the first step a user transmits an identification code to an access node, which forwards the identification code to a control unit, which checks whether the identification code is contained in a list of permissible identification codes generates and transmits the optical code to user mobile phone, so the control unit receiving user’s identification code is interpreted as an alert (see paragraph [0005] and [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights