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 Wurth et al. for a “method, mobile communication device and access control device for controlling access to a space” filed May 16, 2023 has been examined.
This application claims foreign priority based on the application CH000595/2022, filed on May 17, 2022 in Switzerland. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a) – (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
This application claims priority to a 371 of PCT/EP2023/063080, which is filed on May 16, 2023.
A preliminary amendment to the claims 1-23 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-23 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.
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 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,295,563) (herein after Kuenzi’s 563) in view of Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,153,709) (herein after Kuenzi’s 709).
Referring to claim 1, Kuenzi’s 563 disclose a method of controlling access to a space using an access control device (16a) and a user's mobile communication device (12) (column 1 line 44 to column 2 line 45; see Figures 1 to 6), the method comprising:
the access control device (16a) operating a Bluetooth communication circuit (28) of the access control device in a peripheral role (column 4 lines 15 to 20; column 7 lines 10 to 30; see Figures 1 and 6) and transmitting an advertising packet, the advertising packet comprising a designator (i.e. an identifier) associated with the space (i.e. each access control 16 advertises using Bluetooth low energy (BTLE) which is received by the mobile device 12 (step 402). Advertisements from multiple access controls 16 can be received if they are all in proximity to the mobile device 12 or they are transmitting at a high enough power that they are within a distance from the mobile device 12 to be received (column 3 lines 33 to 54; column 7 lines 10 to 30; column 9 lines 32 to 42; see Figures 1, 2 and 6);
the mobile communication device (12) operating a Bluetooth communication circuit (42) of the mobile communication device in a central role and receiving the advertising packet (i.e. each access control 16 advertises using Bluetooth low energy (BTLE) which is received by the mobile device 12 (step 402). Advertisements from multiple access controls 16 can be received if they are all in proximity to the mobile device 12 or they are transmitting at a high enough power that they are within a distance from the mobile device 12 to be received) (column 9 lines 32 to 42; see Figure 2 and 6);
the mobile communication device (12) determining whether the access control device (16) is relevant for the user, using the designator, received in the advertising packet, and access right data stored in the mobile communication device (i.e. the mobile library 82 filters the received advertisements based on the downloaded set of credentials (step 404). That is, the received advertisements not associated with the set of credentials downloaded to the mobile device 12 are filtered out. In this way, any access controls 16 that the user is not permitted access rights are not even provided in a selection list or in the reduced set of possible locks to open. This filtering can be done based on an identifier contained in the access control 16 advertisement message and matching this identifier against an identifier contained in or associated with a credential stored in mobile device 12) (column 9 lines 43 to 53; see Figure 6);
the mobile communication device (12), upon determining that the access control device (16) is relevant for the user, establishing a connection between the Bluetooth communication circuit (42) of the mobile communication device (12) and the Bluetooth communication circuit (28) of the access control device (16) (i.e. the mobile library 82 on the mobile device 12 then compares the identifiers contained in, or associated with, each credential in the filtered list of mobile credentials to determine the user intent to access a particular access control (step 406). Typically, only the user's room will remain within range once the filter is performed such that the user's intent is determined (step 408) (column 9 line 54 to column 10 line 67; see Figure 6).
However, Kuenzi’s 563 did not explicitly disclose the mobile communication device and the access control device executing an access control protocol via the connection, executing the access control protocol including the mobile communication device transmitting access control data to the access control device, and the access control device checking permission of the user to access the space by verifying the access control data from the mobile communication device.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control communication system, Kuenzi’s 709 teach that the mobile communication device and the access control device executing an access control protocol via the connection, executing the access control protocol including the mobile communication device transmitting access control data to the access control device, and the access control device checking permission of the user to access the space by verifying the access control data from the mobile communication device (i.e. intent of a user of the mobile device application 80 to engage a specific access controller 16a is detected. In an embodiment, the intent of the user of the mobile device application 80 to engage a specific access controller 16a is detected after the mobile device application 80 is authenticated. And a lock actuator 22 within the specific access controller 16a is activated, thus once intent is known the mobile device application 80 is granted access to activate the specific access controller 16a. In the example of FIG. 4, at block 314 the specific access controllers 16a will unlock turnstile 102a) (column 8 lines 23 to 65; see Figures 4 and 5) in order to speed up the overall process of verification for operating the access controller.
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 a method of detecting the intent of user to engage to the specific access controller and authorizing and activating the lock actuator within where the intent was detected using the credential of the mobile device taught by Kuenzi’s 709 in the user intent when interacting with multiple access controllers of Kuenzi’s 563 because detecting the intent of user to engage to the specific access controller and authorizing and activating the lock actuator within where the intent was detected using the credential of the mobile device would improve the authorized process for operating plurality of the access controllers.
Referring to Claim 2, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the method of claim 1, Kuenzi’s 563 disclose wherein the mobile communication device receives advertising packets from a plurality of access control devices; upon determining that more than one access control device is relevant for the user, the mobile communication device determines a selected access control device, and establishes the connection with the Bluetooth communication circuit of the selected access control device (i.e. the filtered set of credentials may be presented to the user as a list, e.g., ROOM 1125, ROOM 1127, Concierge Lounge, Elevator, etc., (step 414). The user may thus select the desired access control to open from the list. The list may be ordered in various ways, to include, the last access control opened such that, for example, the user's room will likely be at the top of the list after an initial access (416). The user can select from the list by tapping on the screen, or by responding with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to voice prompts reading the rooms, or by a voice recognition algorithm that matches their vocal request against the filtered list of available rooms) (column 10 lines 30 to 58; column 11 lines 48 to 57; see Figures 6 and 8).
Referring to Claim 3, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the method of claim 2, Kuenzi’s 563 disclose wherein the mobile communication device determines the selected access control device, using received signal strength indicators determined for the relevant access control devices (i.e. if the filtered set of credentials still has more than one lock within range, then the filtered set of credentials may be sorted by RSSI (received signal strength indicator) or by an average of the RSSI (step 410)) (column 9 line 61 to column 10 line 11; see Figure 6).
Referring to Claim 5, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the method of claim 2, Kuenzi’s 563 disclose wherein the mobile communication device determines the selected access control device by showing to the user on a display a list of the relevant access control devices, and receiving from the user a selection of the selected access control device (i.e. the filtered set of credentials may be presented to the user as a list, e.g., ROOM 1125, ROOM 1127, Concierge Lounge, Elevator, etc., (step 414). The user may thus select the desired access control to open from the list. The list may be ordered in various ways, to include, the last access control opened such that, for example, the user's room will likely be at the top of the list after an initial access (416). The user can select from the list by tapping on the screen, or by responding with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to voice prompts reading the rooms, or by a voice recognition algorithm that matches their vocal request against the filtered list of available rooms) (column 10 lines 30 to 58; see Figures 5 and 6).
Referring to claims 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 21, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose a mobile communication device, a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program code, and an access control device, although different in scope from the claims 1-3 and 5, the claims 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 21 contains similar limitations in that the claims 1-3 and 5 already addressed above therefore claims 9-11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 21 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claims 1-3 and 5, respectively.
Claims 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,295,563) (herein after Kuenzi’s 563) in view of Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,153,709) (herein after Kuenzi’s 709) as applied to claims 2, 10 and 16, and further in view of Kincaid et al. (US# 11,961,344).
Referring to claim 4, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the method of claim 2, however, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 did not explicitly disclose wherein the mobile communication device determines the selected access control device, using position or distance information, determined for the relevant access control devices by the mobile communication device using an ultra-wide-band transceiver.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control communication system, Kincaid et al. teach that wherein the mobile communication device (108) determines the selected access control device (102), using position or distance information, determined for the relevant access control devices by the mobile communication device using an ultra-wide-band transceiver (128) (i.e. the mobile device 108 includes the BLE communication circuitry 126 and the UWB communication circuitry 128 and may be embodied as a smartphone. It should be appreciated that the BLE communication circuitry 126 and the UWB communication circuitry 128 enable respective communications with the UWB accessory device 106) (column 9 lines 25 to 41; see Figures 1 and 5) in order to indicate the intend to the specific access control device.
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 a method of using the UWB ranging to determine location of the mobile device to the use of the access control device taught by Kincaid et al. in the user intent when interacting with multiple access controllers of Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 because using the UWB ranging to determine location of the mobile device to the use of the access control device would provide an alternative protocol to determine location of the mobile device to the plurality of the access controllers.
Referring to claims 12 and 18, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the mobile communication device and the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program code of the method of claims 10 and 16, although different in scope from the claim 4, the claims 12 and 18 contains similar limitations in that the claim 4 already addressed above therefore claims 12 and 18 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claim 4.
Claims 6-7, 14, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,295,563) (herein after Kuenzi’s 563) in view of Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,153,709) (herein after Kuenzi’s 709) as applied to claims 1, 9, 15 and 21, and further in view of Willmann (Pub. No. 2019/0268333).
Referring to claim 6, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the method of claim 1, however, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 did not explicitly disclose further comprising the access control device generating at least one of: a randomized designator, by applying randomization to the designator associated with the space, or an encrypted designator, by encrypting the designator associated with the space, and transmitting the randomized and/or encrypted designator to a remote server.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control communication system, Willmann teaches that the access control device generating at least one of: a randomized designator, by applying randomization to the designator associated with the space, or an encrypted designator, by encrypting the designator associated with the space, and transmitting the randomized and/or encrypted designator to a remote server (i.e. For secure data transmission, identification device 14 can, for example, convert the signal describing the exemplary fingerprint into a hash code, for example, and thus generate an identifier representing identification feature I (S5). Techniques for decrypting an encrypted signal/or identifier are known to the person skilled in the art from the prior art. This identifier can then be transmitted to data server apparatus 28 for ascertaining the identity (S6) (S7). The transmission of the identifier (S7) can be done with communication device 12. Enabling the user profile (S4) can also be performed by data server apparatus 28, for example) (page 4 paragraph 0050; see the Figure) in order to store the identifier into the hash code in the external data server for security reason.
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 a method of generate the identifier representing identification feature by converting fingerprint into the hash code to transmit to the external data server by the identification device taught by Willmann into the encrypted credential generated by the server to each lock that has been granted access of Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 because generate the identifier representing identification feature by converting fingerprint into the hash code to transmit to the external data server by the identification device would provide the server to store the encrypted credential remotely from the access control device to increase security reason.
Referring to claim 7, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 and Willmann disclose the method of claim 6, Kuenzi’s 563 disclose wherein the access control device (16) transmits the randomized and/or encrypted designator via the mobile communication device (12) to the remote server (14) (i.e. the mobile device 12 is a wireless capable handheld device such as a smartphone that is operable to communicate with the server 14 and the access controls 16. The server 14 may provide credentials and other data to the mobile device 12, such as firmware or software updates to be communicated to one or more of the access controls 16) (column 3 lines 23 to 32; see Figures 1 and 2).
Referring to claims 14, 20 and 22, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the mobile communication device and the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer program code and the access control device of the method of claims 9, 15 and 21, although different in scope from the claims 6-7, the claims 14, 20 and 22 contains similar limitations in that the claims 6-7 already addressed above therefore claims 14, 20 and 22 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claims 6-7.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,295,563) (herein after Kuenzi’s 563) in view of Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,153,709) (herein after Kuenzi’s 709) as applied to claims 1 and 21, and further in view of Kuenzi et al. (US# 11,758,599) (herein after Kuenzi’s 599)
Referring to claim 8, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the method of claim 1, however, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 did not explicitly disclose wherein the access control device functions intermittently as a beacon operating the Bluetooth communication circuit of the access control device in a broadcaster role, transmitting advertising packets without allowing connections; and the mobile communication device shows on a display a spatial arrangement of a plurality of access control devices functioning as beacons.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control communication system, Kuenzi’s 599 teaches that wherein the access control device functions intermittently as a beacon operating the Bluetooth communication circuit of the access control device in a broadcaster role, transmitting advertising packets without allowing connections; and the mobile communication device shows on a display a spatial arrangement of a plurality of access control devices functioning as beacons (i.e. each access control 16 initially operates as the peripheral and advertises using, for example, BLE. That is, initially, and typically, the access control 16 is the peripheral and advertises, while the handheld device 12 is the central and is scanning for the advertisements. This initial advertising by the access control 16 as the peripheral, is typically performed at a relatively low normal advertising rate typical of the normal BLE operation. The roles are then reversed in accordance with the method 400 illustrated in FIG. 4 to increase performance and facilitate higher user satisfaction. Further, a Bluetooth™ advertisement from the access control 16 can be used by the handheld device 12 for indoor positioning information—i.e. the access control still operates as a beacon) (column 6 lines 22 to 40; see Figures 2 to 4).
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 a method of having the access control operates as a beacon so that the handheld devices that can only connect as a central can operate taught by Kuenzi’s 599 in the user intent when interacting with multiple access controllers of Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 because having the access control operates as a beacon would improve the operation with short amount of time in the multiple access controllers.
Referring to claim 23, Kuenzi’s 563 in view of Kuenzi’s 709 disclose the access control device of claim 21, although different in scope from the claim 8, the claim 23 contains similar limitations in that the claim 8 already addressed above therefore claim 23 is also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claim 8.
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