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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-24 are pending for examination.
Non-Statutory 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,139 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader than the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheng (Pub. No.: US 2017/0124362 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sheng teaches an access control system (Abstract, Fig. 1, access control system 100), comprising:
a camera configured to detect an image regarding a subject (para [0033], “For example, the system 200 can be coupled to a camera that scans the faces of each of the employees and performs facial recognition to confirm that the people wearing the wearable devices are in fact the three specific employees that are authorized to open the safe”);
a data communications device in communication with a mobile device associated with the subject (Fig. 1, the reader 104 of the access control system is in communication with the wearable device 102);
a database configured to maintain facial information regarding a plurality of subjects (Para [0033]. It is inherent that the system includes a database of facial information in order to perform facial recognition of the users/employees);
a processor in communication with the camera, the data communications device, and the database (para [0022], the access control server 110 includes a processor and memory that communicates with camera, reader 104 and target devices 106 to perform the disclosed functions), wherein the processor is configured to:
execute an identification algorithm to identify the subject based on the detected image and the facial information maintained by the database;
identify at least one additional subject based on the detected image (para [0033], “For example, the system 200 can be coupled to a camera that scans the faces of each of the employees and performs facial recognition to confirm that the people wearing the wearable devices are in fact the three specific employees that are authorized to open the safe”. The system captures and identifies the face of the three employees via camera);
determine movement information regarding the subject and the at least one additional subject (Fig. 2, step 206, para [0025], “Upon identifying the user associated with each device 102a, 102b, the reader 104 determines (206) for each wearable device 102a, 102b a distance from the reader 104 and an orientation in relation to the target device 106. For example, the reader 104 can identify that wearable device 102a is associated with a parent and wearable device 102a is associated with a child in the same household. Next, the reader 104 can determine that the parent's wearable device 102a is fifteen feet away from the reader 104 and is located behind the target device 106, while the child's wearable device 102b is three feet away from the reader 104 and is located in front of the target device 106.”. The system identifies the users/empolyees have moved within a predetermined distance from the reader and the target device.);
perform one or more second factor authentication processes;
determine whether the at least one additional subject has permission to move through an access point based on the subject, the at least one additional subject, the movement information, and a likelihood of risk of tailgating (Fig. 2, step 208 and para [0033], the system determines one of the three employees has permission to access based on that employee is associated with the other two employees in a group, the employee is authorized based on the facial recognition and/or identifier received from the wearable device at step 204, the employee has moved within a predetermined distance from the reader at step 206 and the system determines the employee is not tailgating because the employee is part of a group with valid identifier.); and
grant access to the at least one additional subject via the access point based on the permission and whether one or more of the identification algorithm or the one or more second factor authentication processes are determined be successful (Fig. 2 step 208 and para [0033], the system unlocks the door of the safe if the employees are authorized based on a set of access criteria.).
Regarding claim 2, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine that the identification algorithm is successful in identifying the subject (Fig. 2 step 204, para [0033], “In this example, the system 100 can be augmented with additional information about the users that are associated with the detected wearable devices. For example, the system 200 can be coupled to a camera that scans the faces of each of the employees and performs facial recognition to confirm that the people wearing the wearable devices are in fact the three specific employees that are authorized to open the safe and not impostors,”); and
perform the one or more second factor authentication processes based on the identification algorithm being successful (Fig. 2, step 208, the system captures and identifies the face of employees followed by the determination of the employees’ distance with respect to each other.).
Regarding claim 4, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, wherein to perform one or more second factor authentication processes the processor is further configured to receive a location of the mobile device and compare the location of the mobile device to a location of the access point to grant access to the subject via the access point (Fig. 2, step 206, the system determines the location of the mobile device from the reader and target device / lock.).
Regarding claim 5, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, wherein to perform one or more second factor authentication processes the processor is further configured to receive an identifier from the mobile device and determine whether to grant access to the subject via the access point based on the identifier (para [0024], “Upon establishing a connection with each wearable device 102a-102b, the reader 104 can request information from the wearable devices 102a-102b in order to identify (i) the device and (ii) a user associated with the device. In one embodiment, the device 102a, 102b can provide a device identifier (e.g., MAC address, UUID, serial number, and the like) to the reader 104, and the reader 104 can connect to the server computing device 110 and request information about the device and/or a user associated with the device by using the device identifier (e.g., a database lookup).”).
Regarding claim 6, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to request the identifier from the mobile device (para [0024], the reader of the system requests for the identifier from the wearable device.).
Regarding claim 7, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 6, wherein the identifier includes one or more of a media access control (MAC) address or wireless identifier (para [0024], the identifier is the MAC address of the wearable device).
Regarding claim 9, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more second factor authentication processes involve an access system backup face recognition that uses the camera of the access control system to perform a facial recognition process on the subject (para [0033], “For example, the system 200 can be coupled to a camera that scans the faces of each of the employees and performs facial recognition to confirm that the people wearing the wearable devices are in fact the three specific employees that are authorized to open the safe”. The system uses cameras that are connected to the system to perform facial recognition.).
Regarding claim 10, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more second factor authentication processes are selectively performed or not performed to identify the subject responsive to whether the identification algorithm fails or succeeds, respectively (para [0026], “The reader 104 then determines (208) a level of access available to the target device 106 based upon the identity of each user, the distance of each wearable device 102a-102b from the reader, and the orientation of each wearable device 102a-102b in relation to the target device 106. As mentioned above, the reader 104 determines that the child's wearable device 102b is three feet away from the reader 104 and in front of the target device 106, while the parent's wearable device 102a is fifteen feet away from the reader 104 and behind the target device 106. In this scenario, it could be that the child is watching television while the parent is in another room and cannot view the television. Based upon this configuration, the reader 104 can evaluate what access to provide to the television (e.g., by analyzing a user profile associated with the parent and/or the child).” and para [0033]. The system selectively performs to identify the access right of the one the user/employee in a group at step 208 if the system determines another one of the users/empolyees of the group is not located with a predetermined distance away from the reader at step 206 or fails to identify the another one of the users/employees at step 204. In other words, if the reader fails to identify one of the employees in the group, then the system determines the remaining two employees are not authorized to access.).
Regarding claim 12, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, wherein the permission is further based on a result of the one or more second factor authentication processes (Fig. 2 step 208 and para [0033], access is determined by the result of a set of access criteria).
Regarding claim 13, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 14, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 16, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 17, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 18, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 19, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 21, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 22, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Regarding claim 24, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (Pub. No.: US 2017/0124362 A1) in view Smith (Pub. No.: US 2017/0316626 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, wherein to perform one or more second factor authentication processes the processor is further configured to cause an output of a code to the mobile device to be presented to a RF reader for matching and granting access to the subject via the access point (para [0024], “Upon establishing a connection with each wearable device 102a-102b, the reader 104 can request information from the wearable devices 102a-102b in order to identify (i) the device and (ii) a user associated with the device. In one embodiment, the device 102a, 102b can provide a device identifier (e.g., MAC address, UUID, serial number, and the like) to the reader 104, and the reader 104 can connect to the server computing device 110 and request information about the device and/or a user associated with the device by using the device identifier (e.g., a database lookup).”).
Sheng teaches the wearable device transmits an identifier code to the RF reader for access but fails to expressly teach the wearable device displays a code to be presented to the camera.
However, in the same field of access control, Smith teaches a mobile device displays a visual QR code 202 to the camera/optical imager 208 of the access system to gain access. See Fig. 2 and paras [0029]-[0030].
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 modify Sheng’s identifier with a QR code to be presented to the camera of the access control system to improve security.
Regarding claim 15, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (Pub. No.: US 2017/0124362 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sheng teaches the access control system of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein to perform one or more second factor authentication processes the processor is further configured to transmit instructions to the mobile device to perform a facial recognition process and return results of the facial recognition process to the access control system.
Sheng teaches access control system in wireless communication with the wearable devices 102 and uses the disclosed camera coupled to the system to identify the users/employees instead of the camera of the wearable device 102. Sheng shows that the disclosed camera is an art-recognized equivalent of the wearable device’s camera because they both perform the same function.
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 substitute the wearable device’s camera with an equivalent camera that performs the same function and yields the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 20, recites a method corresponding to the system of claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim because the method has a similar claim scope as the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685