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 application filed on December 4, 2024. The Preliminary Amendment filed on December 4, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The Replacement Drawings filed on December 4, 2024 are objected to because in the Replacement Sheet 4/4, FIG. 4 should be labeled FIG. 5. Additionally, this figure lacks any text labeling to clearly identify the different components of the figure. The various rectangular (or near-rectangular) boxes representing functional blocks or components, which are blank, should be provided with "descriptive legends", per 37 CFR 1.84(o), with reference numeral(s) placed outside the box/block in an appropriate manner.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “first operator” / “second operator”. The claim does not clarify whether an operator is a human user, an electronic identity, or a processing entity. Further claim 1 recites “simultaneously confirm a first pairing”. The term “simultaneously” is not defined by the claim and it is unclear what temporal relationship constitutes “simultaneously” (within a time window? sequential but mutually dependent actions?). In addition, the claim does not define what constitutes a pairing and what distinguishes a “first” pairing. The scope of “pairing” is unclear, including whether it refers to credential exchange, trust establishment, or session initiation.
Accordingly claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
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 of this title, 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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denison (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0011367) in view of Gay et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0007225; hereinafter as “Gay”).
As per claim 1, Denison discloses a safety system, comprising: an input module, a controller (see e.g., para. [0029], [0164] & [0169]-[0170]: a first microprocessor disposed close to a user interface such as keypad or electronic key reader) and a control module (see e.g., para. [0029], [0164] & [0169]-[0170]: a second microprocessor is disposed close to the lock mechanism), wherein the second microprocessor is located near the lock mechanism and substantially shielded from external access (i.e., a secure area)) and the first microprocessor is located near the keypad or electronic key reader, which is accessible to the user (i.e., an unsecured area)) simultaneously confirm a first pairing (e.g., para. [0029], [0165], [0168] & [0170]: the exchange and verification of a communication code between the first and second microprocessors establishes a trusted relationship between the two processors, which constitutes a “first pairing”) to initiate encrypted communicationwireless communications between electronic key and access control device may be encrypted; upon successful verification, the first microprocessor transmits a special communication code to the second microprocessor; the second microprocessor unlocks the lock upon receiving a matching communication code); wherein the input module is located in the unsecured area for a purpose of performing a relevant input verification move of a user (see e.g., para. [0029], [0164]-[0165] & [0169]-[0170]);
the controller is located on the input module, wherein the input module checks an accuracy of password, card, or biometric unlocking data (see e.g., para. [0029], [0165], [0170] & [0242]-[0243]: the first microprocessor receives a user-entered code (password, electronic key, wireless key code) and compares the entered code to a stored access code);
the control module is located in the secure area enabling the door/lock to be unlocked (see e.g., para. [0029], [0164] & [0166]); and
the safety system is configured to check in users while the users are in the unsecured area during access to secure rooms/areas and unlock the users from the secure area (see e.g., para. [0241]-[0243]: upon successful verification, the first microprocessor transmits a special communication code to the second microprocessor; the second microprocessor unlocks the lock upon receiving a matching communication code).
Denison does not explicitly disclose wherein a first operator in the control module in a secure area and a second operator in the input module in an unsecured area simultaneously confirm a first pairing to initiate communication between the first operator and the second operator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gay teaches a two-person concept in which two operators must agree and act simultaneously before an action may proceed (see e.g., para. [0044]: two distinct operators required to authorize an action; both operators must agree that an authorization is valid (i.e., simultaneous confirmation)).
Therefore, 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 safety system of Denison to require simultaneous confirmation by two operators, as taught by Gay, in order to further enhance security and reduce the risk of unauthorized access.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Denison further discloses: wherein an authenticity of the password, card or biometric unlocking data is checked by the controller located on the control module instead of the input module (see e.g., para. [0029] & [0165] & [0170]: authentication is performed by the first microprocessor, i.e., the input-side processor. The first processor then sends a special communication code to the second microprocessor, i.e., the secure-side processor; it would have been obvious to move the authentication to the secure-side processor for added security).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Denison further discloses: wherein the input module transmits an unlocking instruction to the control module in the encrypted form, if the password, card, or biometric unlocking data is decoded in the input module, allowing access to be granted to the user (see e.g., para. [0241]-[0243]: the input-side processor verifies credentials and sends a special communication code to the second processor; the communication code may be encrypted; it would have been obvious to transmit the credentials along with the communication code to the secure-side processor for comparison for added security).
As per claim 4, claim 2 is incorporated and Denison further discloses: wherein the input module collects password, card, or biometric data and transmits these data to the control module in the encrypted form, if opening data to allow access to the user is to be decrypted in the control module (see e.g., para. [0241]-[0243]: the input-side processor verifies credentials and sends a special communication code to the second processor, where the communication code may be encrypted).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Denison further discloses: wherein the control module generates a direct current and voltage required to release the door/lock in the secure area and transmits the direct current and voltage to the door/lock in the secure area (see e.g., para. [0164], [0170] & [0173]: the second microprocessor controls a driver circuit, energizes solenoid/relay, and supplies current to the lock).
Claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 because they recite similar limitations.
Claims 6-7 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denison in view of Gay, and further in view of Grim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0199734; hereinafter as “Grim”).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Denison in view of Gay discloses: wherein the input module and the control module that the first operator and the second operator simultaneously approve, the first operator in the control module in the secure area and the second operator in the input module in the unsecured area (see Denison, e.g., para. [0029], [0165], [0168] & [0170]: the exchange and verification of a communication code between the first and second microprocessors establishes a trusted relationship between the two processors, which constitutes a “first pairing”; and Gay, e.g., para. [0044]: two distinct operators required to authorize an action; both operators must agree that an authorization is valid (i.e., simultaneous approve)),
Denison in view of Gay does not explicitly disclose unpair the first paired input module and control module.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Grim teaches: unpairing the first paired input module and control module (see e.g., para. [0037]: “The pop-up dialogue box 434 allows the user to un-pair the mobile device 208 from the authenticating service 204 with the “Remove pairing” button 436 or to clear the pairing list entirely with the “Clear locations” button 438.”; para. [0081]-[0082]: “a virtual “halo” may be established using contextual information received or determined by at least one mobile device. In some embodiments, the authentication service 106 and/or mobile device 108 apply rules to this information to automatically prompt a user on at least one mobile device, to automatically un-authenticate a session or action via at least one mobile device, and/or to automatically re-authenticate a session or action via at least one mobile device.”).
Therefore, 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 safety system of Denison in view of Gay to unpair the first paired input module and control module, as taught by Grim, in order to support unpairing between the controllers.
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Denison in view of Gay discloses: wherein the first operator and the second operator have access to the input module and the control module by password, card, or biometric authentication in order to be able to pair (see Denison, e.g., para. [0029], [0165], [0168], [0170] & [0242]-[0243]: the first microprocessor receives a user-entered code (password, electronic key, wireless key code) and compares the entered code to a stored access code; the exchange and verification of a communication code between the first and second microprocessors establishes a trusted relationship between the two processors, which constitutes a “pair”; and Gay, e.g., para. [0006], [0025] & [0039]: “the processor may authenticate the at least two users based upon one or more of a password, a passcode, voice recognition, facial recognition, and biometric identification.”)
Denison in view of Gay does not explicitly disclose authenticating in order to unpair.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Grim teaches: providing access to a control module by password, card, or biometric authentication in order to be able to unpair (see e.g., para. [0037]: “The pop-up dialogue box 434 allows the user to un-pair the mobile device 208 from the authenticating service 204 with the “Remove pairing” button 436 or to clear the pairing list entirely with the “Clear locations” button 438.”; para. [0049] & [0103]: “The methods and systems of authentication described herein may also be paired with other more secure factors of authentication. For example, a biometric authentication factor (e.g., a retinal scan, a fingerprint, a voice profile, etc.) may be required in concert with a permission response from the mobile device for those applications requiring heightened security, such as military field operations”; and para. [0081]-[0082]: “a virtual “halo” may be established using contextual information received or determined by at least one mobile device. In some embodiments, the authentication service 106 and/or mobile device 108 apply rules to this information to automatically prompt a user on at least one mobile device, to automatically un-authenticate a session or action via at least one mobile device, and/or to automatically re-authenticate a session or action via at least one mobile device.”).
Therefore, 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 safety system of Denison in view of Gay to provide authentication to unpair, as taught by Grim, in order to support unpairing between the controllers.
Claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 because they recite similar limitations.
Claims 15-19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 because they recite similar limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Stinson, III (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0197263) teaches a system configured to detect hand gestures made by a plurality of hands of a plurality of users within a physical user space associated with a display screen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern 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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov