DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s Amendment which is filed on March 30, 2026.
An amendment to amend the claim 4 has been entered and made of record.
A new set of claims 14-16 is introduced.
Claims 1-16 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
In view of applicant’s amendment to amend the Specification for the Cross-Reference section, therefore, examiner has withdrawn the objection of the Specification.
Applicant submits a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the rejection of the Claims Under the Doctrine of Double Patenting. The Terminal Disclaimer is approved on April 8, 2026. Therefore, examiner withdraws the Double Patenting rejection.
Applicant’s arguments and amended to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as discussed below. Applicant's amendment and argument with respect to the pending claims 1-13, filed on March 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
On page 7, last paragraph, Applicant's arguments with respect to the invention in Mutz does not teach or suggest a reader of an access control system is not persuasive. The claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974).
As defined by claim 1, the machine 300 of Mutz is the reader as recited in the claim 1. A device 200 for controlling access to at least one machine such as locking and unlocking of the machine 300. The machine is a portable object, such as a computer, fixed or portable, a digital tablet, a mobile telephone, a server, a computer memory, removable (USB drive or other) or not, a data storage device (column 7 lines 8 to 16; see Figure 1). In other words, the machine received control signal from the device 200 for controlling the access. Therefore, the machine functions as a reader.
Additionally, the UWB front end circuit connected to the antenna to facilitate the UWB communication with the credential device that is the actual communication device (i.e. a reader of the access control system). As recited in the claim 1, “a reader of the access control system” is just a device with no actual function of a reader. In other words, a reader is a machine, a component or any device with or without any function.
Furthermore, the system for credential management of Trani et al. also disclose the reader (110) (i.e. an access control headend 110) that connect to the access control node for receiving token from the mobile computing device (column 3 lines 44 to 60; see Figure 1).
Trani discloses the user device 105 passes the authentication tokens through Bluetooth or NFC (nearfield communication) protocols, for example, to the access control node 152. These tokens are then authenticated against the tokens stored in the cache on the node 152 and/or the
access control headend server 110. The server 110 or the node 152, depending, on the implementation, then signal the door lock controller 112, for example, to grant the user 104 access, or not (column 3 lines 44 to 54; column 4 line 62 to column 5 line 3; see Figure1). In other words, the Server 110 considered to be a reader of an access control system and in a housing separate from the device housing and the security system 10 is an access control system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the access control nodes to communicate with the authentication control headend server wirelessly with the device housing separate from the housing of the reader of the access control system taught by Trani et al. in the device that communicate radio link to controlling the access to the machine of Mutz et al. because having the access control nodes to communicate with the authentication control headend server wirelessly with the device housing separate from the housing of the reader of the access control system would provide an alternative way to implement the access control system.
For at least these reasons, the examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mutz et al. (US# 9,830,443) in view of Trani et al. (US# 10,728,244).
Referring to claim 1, Mutz et al. disclose a device (200) connectable to a reader (300) of an access control system (column 2 line 43 to column 4 line 26; see Figures 1 and 2), the device (200) comprising:
an antenna (21) (i.e. the transceiver 2 comprises one or more transmission and reception antennas 21) (column 10 line 57 to 62; see Figure 1);
an ultra-wide band (UWB) front end circuit (2) connected to the antenna (21) to facilitate UWB communication with a credential device (100) (i.e. the first transmission member 1 and/or the second transceiver 2 and/or the fourth receiver 4 are for example wireless impulse radio, for example of the type ultra-wide band (UWB)) (column 10 lines 31 to 34; see Figures 1 and 2);
a controller (6 and 7) connected to the UWB front end circuit (2) and configured to perform ranging for the credential device (100) using the UWB communication (i.e. the third control member 3 and/or fifth control member 5 is connected to a sixth calculation means 6 for calculation of a distance D between the portable object 100 and the device 200 for locking and unlocking of the machine 300 from the second and third signals S2, S3 and/or from the first and second signals S1, S2. The sixth calculation means 6 for calculation of the distance D is connected to a seventh comparison means 7 for comparing the distance D having been calculated to a prescribed value of distance DMAX. The seventh comparison means 7 is connected to the third control member 3 to cause, when the seventh comparison means 7 has determined that the distance D having been calculated is less than the prescribed value of distance DMAX, the action of unlocking of the machine 300, and to cause, when the seventh comparison means 7 has determined that the distance D having been calculated is greater than the prescribed value of distance DMAX, an action of locking of the machine 300) (column 7 lines 56 to column 8 line 7; see Figures 1 and 2); and
a wired communication link (i.e. a connection from a third control member 3 to screen 301 of the machine 300) configured to interface with the reader (301+302) of an access control system (200+ 300) (i.e. the seventh comparison means 7 and the tenth comparison means 10 are connected to the third control member 3 to cause, when the tenth comparison means 10 has determined that the angle of arrival ANG1 and/or ANG3 having been calculated is in the prescribed angular range PL and when the seventh comparison means 7 has determined that the distance D having been calculated is less than the prescribed value of distance DMAX, the action of unlocking of the machine 300. The seventh comparison means 7 and the tenth comparison means 10 are connected to the third control member 3 to cause, when the tenth comparison means 10 has determined that the angle of arrival ANG1 and/or ANG3 having been calculated is not in the prescribed angular range PL and/or when the seventh comparison means 7 has determined that the distance D having been calculated is greater than the prescribed value of distance DMAX, an action of locking of the machine 300) (column 8 lines to 47; see Figure 1); and
a housing (housing of device 200) containing the antenna (21), the UWB front end circuit (2) and the controller (6 and 7) (column 7 lines 31 to 61; see Figure 1).
However, Mutz et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein a housing separate from a housing of the reader of the access control system.
In the same field of endeavor of an access communication system, Trani et al. teach that a device housing (i.e. housing of access control node 152) separate from a housing of the reader (i.e. housing of the access control headend 110) of the access control system (10) (i.e. the tokens or representations of the tokens and keys are then distributed such as via an authentication control headend server 110) (i.e. the reader with separate housing from the device). It communicates with the various access control nodes 152 (i.e. the Device), such as card or frictionless Bluetooth low energy (BLE) or near field readers (i.e. a wireless communication link), and door controllers 112. These nodes 152 and/or door controller 112 readers are usually dispersed around the company's buildings and typically installed in connection with the various access points 114, such as doors, elevators, rooms, hallways, to list a few examples (i.e. each module is separate from each other). The access control headend server 110 stores caches of the tokens and then signal the door lock controller 112 to grant the user 104 access or not) (column 3 lines 44 to 54; column 4 line 62 to column 5 line 3; see Figure 1) in order to verify the user device authentication tokens to grant the user access around the building.
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 having the access control nodes to communicate with the authentication control headend server wirelessly with the device housing separate from the housing of the reader of the access control system taught by Trani et al. in the device that communicate radio link to controlling the access to the machine of Mutz et al. because having the access control nodes to communicate with the authentication control headend server wirelessly with the device housing separate from the housing of the reader of the access control system would provide an alternative way to implement the access control system.
Referring to claim 7, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. disclose a device, to the extent as claimed with respect to claim 1 above, and Mutz et al. disclose the device further including: wherein the communication link is configured to connect to an expansion port or expansion slot of the reader (i.e. the device 200 for locking and unlocking of the machine 300 can be for example integral with this machine 300 or be linked or connected to the latter, and this connection can be wired (i.e. connect to an expansion slot) or wireless via a radio link (column 7 lines 31 to 34; see Figure 1).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mutz et al. (US# 9,830,443) in view of Trani et al. (US# 10,728,244) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Aarnio (US# 9,485,607).
Referring to claims 2 and 8, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. disclose the device of claims 1 and 7, however, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. did not explicitly disclose further comprising a local power source accommodated by the housing of the device configured to provide power for the controller and the UWB front end circuit.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control communication system, Aarnio teaches that a local power source accommodated by the housing of the device configured to provide power for the controller (124) and the UWB front end circuit (112) (i.e. The electronic circuitry 124 is in communication with the NFC unit 112. The electronic circuitry 124 may be provided through, for example, a wire or a battery in the access control device 104) (column 4 lines 10 to 12; see Figures 1 and 2) in order to provide the power energy to the access control device circuitry.
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 having the battery to power the electronic circuitry for communication with the NFC unit taught by Aarnio in the device that communicate radio link to controlling the access to the machine of Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. because the battery to power the electronic circuitry for communication with the NFC unit would provide the power energy to the access control device circuitry in the access control system.
Claims 3 and 9-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mutz et al. (US# 9,830,443) in view of Trani et al. (US# 10,728,244) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Schaffzin et al. (US# 7,446,644).
Referring to claim 3 and 9, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. disclose the device of claims 1 and 7, however, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein the controller and the UWB front end circuit are powered with a power source external to the housing of the device.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Schaffzin et al. disclose that wherein the controller and the UWB front end circuit are powered with a power source external to the housing of the device (i.e. door 13 may be capable of being wired so that an external power source can be used to operate the circuitry shown in FIG. 3, including motor M1. In this case battery B1 would not be need at the door reader) (column 9 lines 12 to 15; see Figures 2 and 3) in order to provide an alternative way to install the power source to the reader of the lock unit.
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 having an external power source to operate the circuitry of the reader of the lock unit taught by Schaffzin et al. in the device that communicate radio link to controlling the access to the machine of Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. because installing the external power source to operate the circuitry of the reader of the lock unit would provide an alternative way to install the power source at different location of the access control device circuitry in the access control system.
Referring to claim 10, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. disclose a device, to the extent as claimed with respect to claim 1 above, however, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein the controller and the UWB front end circuit receive power from the reader.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Schaffzin et al. disclose that wherein the controller and the UWB front end circuit receive power from the reader (i.e. door 13 may be capable of being wired so that an external power source can be used to operate the circuitry shown in FIG. 3, including motor M1. In this case battery B1 would not be need at the door reader but at the external device (i.e. the reader)) (column 9 lines 12 to 15; see Figures 2 and 3) in order to provide an alternative way to install the power source to the reader of the lock unit.
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 having the external power source to operate the circuitry of the reader of the lock unit taught by Schaffzin et al. in the device that communicate radio link to controlling the access to the machine of Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. because installing the external power source to operate the circuitry of the reader of the lock unit would provide an alternative way to install the power source at different location of the access control device circuitry in the access control system.
Referring to claims 11-13, Mutz et al. in view of Trani et al. and Schaffzin et al. disclose the of Claim 10, and Mutz et al. disclose wherein the communication link is a wireless communication link using the Bluetooth Low Energy or using near-field communication (NFC) (i.e. the device 200 for locking and unlocking of the machine 300 can be for example integral with this machine 300 or be linked or connected to the latter, and this connection can be wired or wireless via a radio link (i.e. the Bluetooth Low Energy or the wireless communication link using NFC) (column 7 lines 31 to 34; see Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
Claims 4-6 are allowed.
Referring to claims 4 and 14-16, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the controller is configured to perform ranging for the credential device using the UWB communication upon receipt of data associated with the credential device from the reader over the communication link.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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 NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM M-F.
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
Prosecution Insights