Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/956,636

Biometric Sensor

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Nov 22, 2024
Examiner
ADNAN, MUHAMMAD
Art Unit
2688
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Intellishot Holdings Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
374 granted / 552 resolved
+5.8% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
577
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
§103
64.2%
+24.2% vs TC avg
§102
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 552 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Claims Status Claim 1 is pending for examination in this Office action. 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroter (Schroter; US 2011/0102137) in view of Errico et al. (Errico; US 2019/0111255). As per claim 1, Schroter teaches an access control unit comprising: a first layer comprising an electrostimulation contact interface (delivering an electric shock, see e.g. para. [0083], which requires a user touching [with a first layer] or in close proximity of a contact surface); a second layer comprising a biometric sensor (a biometric sensing layer in the disclosed biometric sensor 2; see e.g. para. [0096]); and a third layer comprising a microprocessor unit (a comparison module including a computer unit 12; see e.g. para. [0094], [0100] and FIG. 1) in communication unit with the electrostimulation contact interface (communication link between sensor unit 2, authentication device and locking device [which houses the shock element], see e.g. para. [0061] and FIG., wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed computer unit 12 can control the shock element because Schoter suggests that all the processes are run by evaluation module [0051]. Alternatively, a second dedicated processor to control the shock can be envisioned without departing from the gist of the invention as suggested by Errico in the proceeding paragraphs), wherein the electrostimulation contact interface comprises one or more anode/cathode arrays (the disclosed electric shock[s], see e.g. para. [0083], wherein the electric shock production needs to be delivered using one more anode/cathode [or positive/negative terminal] arrays), and the one or more anode/cathode arrays are configured to deliver neurostimulative excitations to the electrostimulation contact interface (the electric shock, see e.g. para. [0083], would at least deliver neurostimulative excitations to the contact surface using one or more cathode/anode arrays). Even though of Schroter does not explicitly teach that the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer of the said access control system, a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of improved methods - of combining the first, second and third layers such that the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer (i.e. combining the layers as a single unit instead of separate components). Schroter teaches that having a first layer, a second layer and a third layers separate from each other is one of a finite number of configurations known to be useful for designing a biometric system generating electric shock[s] as discussed earlier. In addition, Schroter also teaches electric shock producing element/unit connected to one of the layers as discussed earlier. Furthermore, the reference teaches methods of designing the system with the first, second and third layer covering or integrating into a single unit would reasonably have been expected. The reference also inherently discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining a known method and/or system to make a system with integrated unit or device does not affect the properties of the system. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the disclosed methods of Schroter in an attempt to provide an improved system of integrated biometric authentication and shock production unit [where the shock producing or neurostimulation component is connected to any of the layers as long as the shock is received by an unauthorized person], as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because system/method as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system, method or product. Schroter does not explicitly teach that the second layer is coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface. Errico, however, teaches a layer is coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface (a stimulator head that contacts a person’s skin and generate electrical nerve stimulations, see e.g. para. [0130]), wherein a processor 104 can control the neurostimulator (see e.g. para. [0282] and FIG. 12B). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a deliver neurostimulations using one of the disclosed layers/surfaces of the disclosed system Schroter, i.e. sensing surface, locking device or any other suitable surface as long as the intended purpose of outputting neurostimulations for an intended user is fulfilled. Schroter and Errico are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of outputting notification without causing loud noise or annoyance for others. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,100,737, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,642,522, and claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,161,867. Instant Application US Patent No. 11,100,737 1. An access control unit comprising: 1. An access control unit comprising: a first layer comprising an electrostimulation contact interface; a first layer comprising an electrostimulation contact interface; a second layer comprising a biometric sensor coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface; a second layer comprising a biometric sensor coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface; and a third layer comprising a microprocessor unit in communication with the electrostimulation contact interface, and a third layer comprising a microprocessor unit in communication with the electrostimulation contact interface, wherein the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer of said access control unit, wherein the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer of said access control unit, the electrostimulation contact interface comprises one or more anode/cathode arrays, the electrostimulation contact interface comprises one or more anode/cathode arrays, and the one or more anode/cathode arrays are configured to deliver neurostimulative excitations to the electrostimulation contact interface. and the one or more anode/cathode arrays are configured to deliver neurostimulative excitations to the electrostimulation contact interface when a received biometric data by the biometric sensor does not match with a prestored biometric data, wherein level and type of the neurostimulative excitations are based on a dynamic changing environmental factor. Instant Application US Patent No. 11,642,522 1. An access control unit comprising: 1. (limitations not in the same chronological order) An access control unit comprising: a first layer comprising an electrostimulation contact interface; a first layer comprising an electrostimulation contact interface, a second layer comprising a biometric sensor coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface; a second layer comprising a biometric sensor coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface, wherein the biometric sensor is activated when a user is in close proximity to said access control unit; and a third layer comprising a microprocessor unit in communication with the electrostimulation contact interface, and a third layer comprising a microprocessor unit in communication with the electrostimulation contact interface, wherein the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer of said access control unit, wherein the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer of said access control unit, the electrostimulation contact interface comprises one or more anode/cathode arrays, the electrostimulation contact interface comprising one or more anode-cathode arrays; and the one or more anode/cathode arrays are configured to deliver neurostimulative excitations to the electrostimulation contact interface. the one or more anode-cathode arrays are configured to deliver neurostimulative excitations to the electrostimulation contact interface depending on a result of a comparison of a received biometric data by the biometric sensor with prestored biometric data, said access control unit is integrated with a target object, the one or more anode-cathode arrays are configured to deliver variable neurostimulative excitations when the user remains in close proximity to the access control unit, and a magnitude of the variable neurostimulative excitations delivered increases based on an increased interaction with the target object. Instant Application US Patent No. 12,161,867 1. An access control unit comprising: 1. A self-contained fully intergraded access control unit comprising: a first layer comprising an electrostimulation contact interface; a first layer comprising an electrostimulation contact interface; a second layer comprising a biometric sensor coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface; a second layer comprising a biometric sensor coupled to the electrostimulation contact interface; and a third layer comprising a microprocessor unit in communication with the electrostimulation contact interface, and a third layer comprising a microprocessor unit in communication with the electrostimulation contact interface, wherein the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer of said access control unit, wherein the second layer is sandwiched between the first layer and the third layer of said access control unit, the electrostimulation contact interface comprises one or more anode/cathode arrays, the electrostimulation contact interface comprises one or more anode-cathode arrays, and the one or more anode/cathode arrays are configured to deliver neurostimulative excitations to the electrostimulation contact interface. and the one or more anode-cathode arrays are configured to deliver neurostimulative excitations to the electrostimulation contact interface when a received biometric data by the biometric sensor does not match with a prestored biometric data. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed inventions in the disclosed patents clearly anticipate claim 1 of the instant application. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (Lee; US 2019/0095683); Lee teaches a biometric authentication device, wherein a layer 22 of the disclosed authentication device [or access control unit] is sandwiched between a first layer and a second layer (see e.g. para. [0044]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM. 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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597325
Coin Anti-Theft Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586451
HALL MONITOR FOR A HEALTH CARE FACILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580581
Low Parasitic Capacitance Architecture for Successive Approximation Register Analog-to-Digital Converters
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573299
NETWORK BASED SENSOR SHARING FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570213
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NOTIFYING PASSENGERS OF NEARBY OBJECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+29.2%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 552 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month