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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 & 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “the” appears back to back, twice in a row. It seems that one was not crossed out when the amendments were made. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, 18, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nikolova et l (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0379356).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Nikolova teaches:
A method for materials-based entry security, the method comprising:
detecting interaction by a user (Fig. 2 Element 46. See paragraphs 0098-0103.) with an entry detector (Fig. 2 Element 42. See paragraphs 0098-0099.) at an access location (Fig. 2 Element 40 wherein the ROI is equivalent to the entry of applicant. See paragraphs 0098-0103.);
accessing a material database that stores information associating each of a set of materials with one or more corresponding resonance frequencies and one or more corresponding security actions (Paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0055, 0060, 0064-0065, 0069, 0091, 0102-0103, & 0131-0132.);
transmitting a radio frequency (RF) signal into an environment at the access location (Fig. 2 Element 56A. See paragraphs 0099-0103.), the RF signal transmitted at a first resonance frequency associated with each material of the set of materials (Fig. 2 Element 56A. See paragraphs 0099-01103. Paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0055, 0060, 0064-0065, 0069, 0091, 0102-0103, & 0131-0132.);
determining that a response signal exhibits resonance characteristics that indicate a presence of one or more of the set of materials (Fig. 2 Element 56B. See paragraphs 0055-0057, 0099-01103.);
determining at least one security action that corresponds to the indicated materials in accordance with the stored information (Paragraphs 0055-0057, 0058 & 0095.); and
actuating an access apparatus to perform the at least one determined security action (Paragraphs 0055-0057, 0058 & 0095.).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the stored information in the materials database specifies different security actions to perform for one or more respective corresponding to different materials (See paragraphs 0007, 0014, 0024-0025, 0055, 0057-0058, 0070, 0095, & 0135 wherein the trigger responses are disclosed being enacted by a controller and adjusted based on stored thresholds.).
Regarding claim 3, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the access apparatus includes a locking mechanism, and wherein the at least one determined security action includes locking the locking mechanism (Paragraphs 0055, 0057-0058, 0070, 0095. & 0136. Wherein locking doors and lock-downs are disclosed.).
Regarding claim 4, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the access apparatus includes a camera at the access location, and wherein the at least one determined security action includes activating the camera to capture video or one or more images of the access location (Paragraph 0136 wherein a video camera is disclosed.).
Regarding claim 5, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the access apparatus includes an alarm, and wherein the at least one determined security action includes activating the alarm (Paragraphs 0058 & 0095.).
Regarding claim 8, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches determining that no security action is required for a different interaction at the access location, and actuating the access apparatus to permit entry when no security action is determined to be required (See paragraphs 0007, 0014, 0024-0025, 0055, 0057-0058, 0070, 0095, & 0135 wherein the trigger responses are disclosed being enacted by a controller and adjusted based on stored thresholds. Nothing happens if nothing is detected and the person or user can simply pass.).
Regarding claim 11, Nikolova teaches:
A system for materials-based entry security, the system comprising:
an entry detector (Fig. 2 Element 42. See paragraphs 0098-0099.) configured to detect interaction by a user (Fig. 2 Element 46. See paragraphs 0098-0103.) at an access location (Fig. 2 Element 40 wherein the ROI is equivalent to the entry of applicant. See paragraphs 0098-0103.);
memory that stores information in a material database (Paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0064-0065, 0069, 0091, & 0131-0132.), the stored information associating each of a set of materials with one or more corresponding resonance frequencies and one or more corresponding security actions (Paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0064-0065, 0069, 0091, & 0131-0132.);
an radio frequency (RF) transmitter that transmits an RF signal into an environment (Fig. 2 Element 56A. See paragraphs 0099-01103.) at the access location (Fig. 2 Element 40 wherein the ROI is equivalent to the entry of applicant. See paragraphs 0098-0103.), the RF signal transmitted at a first resonance frequency for a material of the set of materials (Fig. 2 Element 56A. See paragraphs 0099-01103.);
an access apparatus; and
a processor that executes instructions stored in memory to:
determine that a response signal exhibits resonance characteristics that indicate a presence of one or more of the set of materials (Fig. 2 Elements 52, 54, & 56B. See paragraphs 0099-01103.),
determine at least one security action that corresponds to the indicated materials in accordance with the stored information (Paragraphs 0058 & 0095.), and
actuate the access apparatus to perform the at least one determined security action (Paragraphs 0058 & 0095.).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the the stored information in the materials database specifies different security actions corresponding to different materials (See paragraphs 0007, 0014, 0024-0025, 0055, 0057-0058, 0070, 0095, & 0135 wherein the trigger responses are disclosed being enacted by a controller and adjusted based on stored thresholds.).
Regarding claim 13, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the access apparatus includes a locking mechanism, and wherein the at least one determined security action includes locking the locking mechanism (Paragraphs 0055, 0057-0058, 0070, 0095. & 0136. Wherein locking doors and lock-downs are disclosed.).
Regarding claim 14, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the access apparatus includes a camera at the access location, and wherein the at least one determined security action includes activating the camera to capture video or one or more images of the access location (Paragraph 0136 wherein a video camera is disclosed.).
Regarding claim 15, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the access apparatus includes an alarm, and wherein the at least one determined security action includes activating the alarm (Paragraphs 0058 & 0095.).
Regarding claim 18, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova teaches the processor executes further instructions to determine that no security action is required for a different interaction at the access location, and to actuate the access apparatus to permit entry when no security action is determined to be required (See paragraphs 0007, 0014, 0024-0025, 0055, 0057-0058, 0070, 0095, & 0135 wherein the trigger responses are disclosed being enacted by a controller and adjusted based on stored thresholds. Nothing happens if nothing is detected and the person or user can simply pass.).
Regarding Independent claim 21, Nikolova teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, having embodied thereon a program executable by a processor to perform a method for materials-based entry security, the method comprising:
detecting interaction by a user (Fig. 2 Element 46. See paragraphs 0098-0103.) with an entry detector (Fig. 2 Element 42. See paragraphs 0098-0099.) at an access location (Fig. 2 Element 40 wherein the ROI is equivalent to the entry of applicant. See paragraphs 0098-0103.);
accessing a material database that stores information associating each of a set of materials with one or more corresponding resonance frequencies (Paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0064-0065, 0069, 0091, & 0131-0132.) and one or more corresponding security actions (Paragraphs 0011, 0019, 0064-0065, 0069, 0091, & 0131-0132.);
transmitting a radio frequency (RF) signal (Fig. 2 Element 56A. See paragraphs 0099-01103.) into an environment (Fig. 2 Element 44. See paragraphs 0099-01103.) at the access location (Fig. 2 Element 40 wherein the ROI is equivalent to the entry of applicant. See paragraphs 0098-0103.), the RF signal transmitted at a first resonance frequency associated with each material of the set of materials (Fig. 2 Element 56A. See paragraphs 0099-01103.);
determining that a response signal exhibits resonance characteristics that indicate a presence of one or more of the set of materials (Fig. 2 Elements 52, 54, & 56B. See paragraphs 0099-01103.);
determining at least one security action that corresponds to the indicated materials in accordance with the stored information (Paragraphs 0058 & 0095.); and
actuating an access apparatus to perform the at least one determined security action (Paragraphs 0058 & 0095.).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 10 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolova et al (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0379356).
Regarding claim 10, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach the stored information in the material database further indicates a priority of detecting each material of the set of materials for one or more applications, and wherein the RF signal is transmitted into the environment in order of the priority for one of the applications.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the stored information in the material database further indicate a priority of detecting each material of the set of materials for one or more applications, and wherein the RF signal is transmitted into the environment in order of the priority for one of the applications because the method and system of Nikolova already addresses various thresholds and measured values that set of different responses due to perceived danger. This would simply be an enhancement of the existing system of Nikolova.
Regarding claim 20, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach the stored information in the material database further indicates a priority of detecting each material of the set of materials for one or more applications, and wherein the RF transmitter transmits the RF signal into the environment in order of the priority for one of the applications.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the stored information in the material database further indicate a priority of detecting each material of the set of materials for one or more applications, and wherein the RF signal is transmitted into the environment in order of the priority for one of the applications because the method and system of Nikolova already addresses various thresholds and measured values that set of different responses due to perceived danger. This would simply be an enhancement of the existing system of Nikolova.
Claims 6-7 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolova et al (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0379356) in view of Peschmann et al (U.S. PGPub # 2005/0104603).
Regarding claim 6, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach the stored information for one of the indicated materials further specifies a mass associated with the one or more security actions, and wherein determining the at least one security action includes: analyzing a signal strength of the response signal corresponding to the indicated material; and estimating a mass of the indicated material based on the signal strength of the response signal.
Peschmann teaches the stored information for one of the indicated materials further specifies a mass (Paragraphs 0005, 0077-0078, & 0122.) associated with the one or more security actions (Abstract, Paragraphs 0026, 0108, & 0146-0147.), and wherein determining the at least one security action includes: analyzing a signal strength of the response signal corresponding to the indicated material (Paragraphs 0008, 0077, 0088, 0109, 0127, & 0171.); and estimating a mass of the indicated material based on the signal strength of the response signal (Paragraph 0122.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Peschmann to the teachings of Nikolova such that the stored information for one of the indicated materials further specifies a mass associated with the one or more security actions, and wherein determining the at least one security action includes: analyzing a signal strength of the response signal corresponding to the indicated material; and estimating a mass of the indicated material based on the signal strength of the response signal because this information would make the existing system of Nikolova more robust, useful, and comprehensive because it would provide more information that could be used to more successfully prevent a threat from entering a building or facility.
Regarding claim 7, Nikolova & Peschmann teach all elements of claim 6, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach determining the at least one security action further includes determining that the mass of the indicated material exceeds a particular threshold.
Peschmann teaches determining the at least one security action further includes determining that the mass of the indicated material exceeds a particular threshold (Abstract, Paragraphs 0026, 0108, & 0146-0147 wherein the comparisons to known mass values are disclosed as being the cause of further action.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Peschmann to the teachings of Nikolova such that determining the at least one security action would further include determining that the mass of the indicated material exceeds a particular threshold because this is a simple, well-known means of establishing criteria for action. One compares a measured value, whatever it may be, to a list of known values that would indicate a problem to make judgement on whether or not there is a problem.
Regarding claim 16, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach the stored information for one of the indicated materials further specifies a mass associated with the one or more security actions, and wherein the processor determines the at least one security action by: analyzing a signal strength of the response signal corresponding to the indicated material; and estimating a mass of the indicated material based on the signal strength of the response signal.
Peschmann teaches the stored information for one of the indicated materials further specifies a mass (Paragraphs 0005, 0077-0078, & 0122.) associated with the one or more security actions (Abstract, Paragraphs 0026, 0108, & 0146-0147.), and wherein the processor determines the at least one security action by: analyzing a signal strength of the response signal corresponding to the indicated material (Paragraphs 0008, 0077, 0088, 0109, 0127, & 0171.); and estimating a mass of the indicated material based on the signal strength of the response signal (Paragraph 0122.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Peschmann to the teachings of Nikolova such that the stored information for one of the indicated materials further specifies a mass associated with the one or more security actions, and wherein the processor determines the at least one security action by: analyzing a signal strength of the response signal corresponding to the indicated material; and estimating a mass of the indicated material based on the signal strength of the response signal because this information would make the existing system of Nikolova more robust, useful, and comprehensive because it would provide more information that could be used to more successfully prevent a threat from entering a building or facility.
Regarding claim 17, Nikolova & Peschmann teach all elements of claim 16, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach the the processor determines the at least one security action by determining that the mass of the indicated material exceeds a particular threshold.
Peschmann teaches the processor determines the at least one security action by determining that the mass of the indicated material exceeds a particular threshold (Abstract, Paragraphs 0026, 0108, & 0146-0147 wherein the comparisons to known mass values are disclosed as being the cause of further action.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Peschmann to the teachings of Nikolova such that the processor would determine the at least one security action by determining that the mass of the indicated material exceeds a particular threshold because this is a simple, well-known means of establishing criteria for action. One compares a measured value, whatever it may be, to a list of known values that would indicate a problem to make judgement on whether or not there is a problem.
Claims 9 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolova et al (U.S. PGPub # 2015/0379356) in view of Tan (U.S. PGPub # 2023/0375695).
Regarding claim 9, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach actuating the access apparatus is further based on credentials provided in association with the different interaction, and wherein actuating the access apparatus includes performing one or more of opening a gate, extending a bridge, allowing access to an elevator, or activating an airlock.
Tan teaches actuating the access apparatus is further based on credentials provided in association with the different interaction (Paragraph 0126.), and wherein actuating the access apparatus includes performing one or more of opening a gate (Paragraph 0126.), extending a bridge, allowing access to an elevator, or activating an airlock.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Tan to the teachings of Nikolova such that actuating the access apparatus would be further based on credentials provided in association with the different interaction, and wherein actuating the access apparatus includes performing one or more of opening a gate, extending a bridge, allowing access to an elevator, or activating an airlock because this is a further verification and identification of an individual that would aid in the security of the entrance or area of concern.
Regarding claim 19, Nikolova teaches all elements of claim 18, upon which this claim depends.
Nikolova does not explicitly teach the processor actuates the access further based on credentials provided in association with the different interaction, and wherein the processor actuates the access apparatus to perform one or more of opening a gate, extending a bridge, allowing access to an elevator, or activating an airlock.
Tan teaches the processor actuates the access further based on credentials provided in association with the different interaction (Paragraph 0126.), and wherein the processor actuates the access apparatus to perform one or more of opening a gate (Paragraph 0126.), extending a bridge, allowing access to an elevator, or activating an airlock.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Tan to the teachings of Nikolova such that the processor actuates the access further based on credentials provided in association with the different interaction, and wherein the processor actuates the access apparatus to perform one or more of opening a gate, extending a bridge, allowing access to an elevator, or activating an airlock because this is a further verification and identification of an individual that would aid in the security of the entrance or area of concern.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights