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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 5/28/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of Luongo alone or in communication with the secondary references does not teach of suggests the applicant’s invention. It is the examiner’s position that the reference of Luongo teaches controlling access to a restricted access zone which includes an access control device and a barrier free lock (paragraph 07-08,019). Luongo teaches a display for displaying an event log and to provide a visual or audio alarm (paragraph 014,024,072). Luongo also teaches the display includes a real time display of the captured image (fig. 4C,4D, paragraph 074-76). Luongo teaches providing an indication that the access is unauthorized (135, fig.4C). The reference of Trini is also relied upon for teaching Trani in an analogous art teaches activating the display device to display access is approve and activating the display to display an alarm message when a valid credential is not identified (col. 11 lines 31-52).
In response to applicant’s argument that the displaying of the information as disclosed by the reference of Luongo is different from the claimed limitation, it is the examiner’s position that the reference of Luong teaches capturing and displaying the image of the person as claimed (fig. 4C,4D, paragraph 074-76). The claimed limitations are broader than argued and the displaying of image of the approaching person reads on the claimed limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 16,18-19,23,25,27-28,31-32, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luongo et al. US Patent Application Publication 20220215729 in view of Trini US Patent 9,947155.
Regarding claim 16, Luongo teaches a method for operating a system for controlling access to a restricted access zone in a building or on a site, wherein the system comprises an access control device and a barrier-free lock at an entrance to the restricted-access zone (paragraph 050), wherein the barrier-free lock is communicatively connected to the access control device and comprises a display device (paragraph 013-014), a recording device and an image recording device (camera, paragraph 08,019), the method comprising: activating the display device to display image data of a person generated by the image recording device as a real-time image visible to the person (paragraph 013,072), wherein the image recording device generates the image data when the person is present at the barrier-free lock in order to enter the restricted-access zone (paragraph 072); checking, with the access control device, whether a credential is recorded by the recording device and whether the credential recorded by the recording device is valid (paragraph 051). Luongo teaches if a valid credential is identified for the person, generating an approval signal with the access control device and if a valid credential is not identified for the person, generating an alarm message with the access control device (paragraph 078). Luongo is not explicit in teaching activating the display device to display access is approve and activating the display to display an alarm message when a valid credential is not identified. Trani in an analogous art teaches activating the display device to display access is approve and activating the display to display an alarm message when
a valid credential is not identified (col. 11 lines 31-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Luongo at the time of the invention as disclosed by Trani because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Luongo by providing an easily perceivable indication for indicating the authentication status of a person entering the secured area and enabling immediate action to be taken when necessary.
Regarding claim 18, Luongo teaches detecting a face of the person in the image data generated for the person and generating the real-time image that comprises the face of the person (paragraph 065).
Regarding claim 19, Luongo teaches detecting a face of the person in the image data generated for the person and generating the real-time image that comprises the face of the person (paragraph 065).
Regarding claim 23, Luongo teaches storing the real-time image in a storage device with the access control device when the alarm message is provided (paragraph 070-071).
Regarding claim 25, Luongo is silent on teaching activating a camera system with the access control device when the alarm message is issued in order to track the person in the restricted-access zone (paragraph 051).
Regarding claim 27, Luongo teaches system for controlling access to a restricted-access zone in a building or on a site, the system comprising: an access control device (300, paragraph 050); and a barrier-free lock at an entrance to the restricted-access zone (810, paragraph 080), wherein the barrier-free lock is communicatively connected to the access control device and comprises a display device (paragraph 013-014), a recording device and an image recording device (camera, paragraph 08,019), wherein the display device is configured to display image data of a person generated by the image recording device as a real-time image visible to the person (paragraph 013,072), wherein the recording device is configured to record a credential of the person (camera, paragraph 08,019), wherein the image recording device is configured to generate the image data when the person is present at the barrier-free lock in order to enter the restricted-access zone (paragraph 051), and wherein the access control device is configured to: check whether the recording device records a credential and whether the credential recorded by the recording device is valid (paragraph 051). Luongo teaches if a valid credential is identified for the person, generating an approval signal with the access control device and if a valid credential is not identified for the person, generating an alarm message with the access control device (paragraph 078). Luongo is not explicit in teaching activating the display device to display access is approve and activating the display to display an alarm message when a valid credential is not identified. Trani in an analogous art teaches activating the display device to display access is approve and activating the display to display an alarm message when a valid credential is not identified (col. 11 lines 31-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Luongo et at the time of the invention as disclosed by Trani because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Luongo by providing an easily perceivable indication for indicating the authentication status of a person entering the secured area and enabling immediate action to be taken when necessary.
Regarding claim 28, Luongo et at teaches the recording device is configured to record at least a biometric feature (paragraph 065).
Regarding claim 31, Luongo teaches detecting a face of the person in the image data generated for the person, and wherein the display device is configured to display the image data as a real-time image which comprises the face of the person (paragraph 065).
Regarding claim 32, Luongo teaches detecting a face of the person in the image data generated for the person, and wherein the display device is configured to display the image data as a real-time image which comprises the face of the person (paragraph 065).
Regarding claim 35, Luongo is silent on teaching activating a camera system with the access control device when the alarm message is issued in order to track the person in the restricted-access zone (paragraph 051).
Claim(s) 17,24, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luongo et al. US Patent Application Publication 20220215729 in view of Trani US Patent 9,947155 and further in view of Polcha et al. US Patent Application Publication 20060136743.
Regarding claim 17, Luongo teaches detecting a presence of the person at the barrier-free lock (paragraph 051) and providing an image along with an alert (fig.4D) but is silent on teaching actuating the display device to generate at least one of an audible cue or visible cue for the person to identify themselves, wherein the audible cue comprises a voice message and wherein the visible cue comprises at least one of displaying the voice message as text or displaying an optical effect in conjunction with the real-time image. Polcha et al in an analogous art teaches actuating the display device to generate a visible cue for the person to identify themselves, and wherein the visible cue comprises at least one of displaying the voice message as text or displaying an optical effect in conjunction with the real-time image (fig.2(a), paragraph 040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Luongo in view of Trani as disclosed by Polcha because such modification represents an improvement over the system Luongo in view of Trani by providing instruction to the user in order to verify the user’s identity.
Regarding claim 24, Luongo teaches storing the real-time image in a storage device with the access control device when the alarm message is provided (paragraph 070-071).
Regarding claim 29-30, Luongo teaches detecting a presence of the person at the barrier-free lock (paragraph 051) and providing an image along with an alert (fig.4D) but is silent on teaching actuating the display device to generate at least one of an audible cue or visible cue for the person to identify themselves, wherein the audible cue comprises a voice message and wherein the visible cue comprises at least one of displaying the voice message as text or displaying an optical effect in conjunction with the real-time image. Polcha et al in an analogous art teaches actuating the display device to generate a visible cue for the person to identify themselves, and wherein the visible cue comprises at least one of displaying the voice message as text or displaying an optical effect in conjunction with the real-time image (fig.2(a), paragraph 040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Luongo in view of Trani as disclosed by Polcha because such modification represents an improvement over the system Luongo in view of Trani by providing instruction to the user in order to verify the user’s identity.
Claim(s) 20-22 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luongo et al. US Patent Application Publication 20220215729 in view of Trani US Patent 9,947155 and further in view of Sabitov et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170017834.
Regarding claims 20-21, Luongo is silent on teaching displaying a full or partial boundary which comprises an image region around the face of the person. Sabitov in an analogous art teaches displaying a full or partial boundary which comprises an image region around the face of the person (paragraph 074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Luongo in view of Trani as disclosed by Sabitov et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Luongo in view of Trani in order to enable alignment of the face for the capture of proper facial image for facial recognition.
Regarding claim 22, Luongo is silent on teaching the display device displays in a display region of the full or partial boundary at least one of a first optical effect, which prompts the person to identify themselves, a second optical effect, which indicates that access has been approved, or a third optical effect, which indicates the alarm message. Sabitov et al. in an analogous art teaches the display device displays in a display region of the full or partial boundary at least one of a first optical effect, which prompts the person to identify themselves, a second optical effect, which indicates that access has been approved, or a third optical effect, which indicates the alarm message (the image of light bulbs is displayed and the user is instructed to turn his/her heard for face alignment for capturing the facial image, fig.8, paragraph 089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Luongo in view of Trani as disclosed by Sabitov et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Luongo in view of Trani in order to enable alignment of the face for the capture of proper facial image for facial recognition.
Regarding claims 33, Luongo is silent on teaching displaying a full or partial boundary which comprises an image region around the face of the person. Sabitov in an analogous art teaches displaying a full or partial boundary which comprises an image region around the face of the person (paragraph 074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Luongo in view of Trani as disclosed by Sabitov et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Luongo in view of Trani in order to enable alignment of the face for the capture of proper facial image for facial recognition.
Regarding claim 34, Luongo is silent on teaching the display device displays in a display region of the full or partial boundary at least one of a first optical effect, which prompts the person to identify themselves, a second optical effect, which indicates that access has been approved, or a third optical effect, which indicates the alarm message. Sabitov et al. in an analogous art teaches the display device displays in a display region of the full or partial boundary at least one of a first optical effect, which prompts the person to identify themselves, a second optical effect, which indicates that access has been approved, or a third optical effect, which indicates the alarm message (the image of light bulbs is displayed and the user is instructed to turn his/her heard for face alignment for capturing the facial image, fig.8, paragraph 089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Luongo in view of Trani as disclosed by Sabitov et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Luongo in view of Trani in order to enable alignment of the face for the capture of proper facial image for facial recognition.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luongo et al. US Patent Application Publication 20220215729 in view of Trini US Patent 9,947155 and further in view of Zaharia US Patent 6,707,374.
Regarding claim 26, Luongo teaches generating an alarm when an unauthorized access is detected (paragraph 051) but is silent on teaching sending an alarm signal to an elevator system in order to block an elevator service departing from the restricted access zone. Zaharia in an analogous art teaches sending an alarm signal to an elevator system in order to block an elevator service departing from the restricted access zone (abstract, col. 3 lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Luongo in view of Trini as disclosed by Zaharia because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Luongo in view of Trini and serve to increase the security of the access control system by further limiting access to the elevator by an unauthorized person.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights