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 10, 2024. The Preliminary Amendment filed on February 21, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been amended.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/10/2024 and 02/19/2025 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground 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.
a. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 11,354,956. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language.
b. Claims 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent Number 12,165,453. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language.
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 5-9 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the access reason code" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is presumed to recite "the access reason identifier".
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 5.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortstrom et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,138; hereinafter “Stortstrom”) in view of Hutz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,282,927; hereinafter “Hutz”).
As per claim 1, Stortstrom discloses an electronic access control system (see e.g., Figs. 1-2: (PPE checker 10/220, server 210, access badge reader 30/240) that controls access to restricted area based on verification results) comprising:
at least one computer processor configured to execute computer program instructions (PPE checker includes a system on chip (SoC) 224); and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory device communicably engaged with the at least one computer processor and having computer program instructions stored thereon that (e.g., col. 5, line 58 to col. 6, line 2: RAM, ROM, flash memory, etc.), when executed, cause the at least one computer processor to perform operations comprising:
providing an instance of an electronic access control application (display 20/230) to at least one end user device, wherein the instance of the electronic access control application is configured to enable an end user to request access to an electronic access control device (col. 4, lines 4-15: the PPE checker interface (display and sensors) functions as an access control interface enabling a user to request access);
receiving an access request and an access reason identifier (i.e., location-specific data) via the instance of the electronic access control application (see e.g., col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 3: “The server 210 may store a list of PPE's specific to each restricted area, a list of the individuals authorized to enter each of the restricted areas, and facial recognition features related to the individuals authorized to enter the restricted area 40 (FIGS. 1A and 1B)”);
configuring a check-in workflow for the electronic access control device according to the access reason identifier, wherein the check-in workflow comprises one or more safety and compliance parameters (see e.g., col. 4, lines 7-15 & lines 56-63: “processing block 305, where protective equipment requirements and entry protocols for specific locations or restricted areas are defined. For example, if the location or restricted area requires that the individuals who enter the location are required to have certain safety equipment such as a safety hard hat, safety boots, and goggles, this information is defined and stored in a server such as, for example, the server 210 (FIG. 2).”);
presenting the check-in workflow to the end user via the instance of the electronic access control application (see e.g., col. 2, lines 8-56: display 20/230 presents instructions to initiate scanning, messages listing required PPE, and warnings if compliance fails);
receiving one or more user-generated inputs in response to the check-in workflow (see e.g., col. 2, lines 8-30 & col. 3, lines 34-46: user-generated inputs include: physical positioning for scanning, wearing PPE with detectable indicia, swiping an access badge at badge reader 30/240);
processing the one or more user-generated inputs to determine whether the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied (see e.g., col. 2, lines 46-56 & col. 3, line 34 to col. 4, line 3: 3D camera and RFID reader detect equipment; server compares scan results to stored PPE lists; restricted items also checked);
granting the access request in response to determining the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied (see e.g., col. 5, lines 30-38: display indicates access granted (processing block 335); badge reader activated only after PPE compliance); and
in response to granting the access request, commanding the electronic access control device to engage from a locked state to an unlocked state (see e.g., col. 4, lines 7-15 & col. 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 9: PPE checker transmits a signal to an access badge reader 240; badge authentication allows physical entry; door unlocking is implicit in access badge system operation).
Stortstrom discloses user interaction via display 20/230, but does not explicitly disclose an instance of electronic access control application provided to at least one end user device (e.g., a smartphone).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hutz discloses: providing an instance of electronic access control application to at least one end user device (see e.g., Fig. 1; col. 4, line 62 to col. 5, line 5: “The computing device 103 may include a laptop, desktop, smartphone, tablet, or any other computing device that is known. The computing device 103 may be configured to receive user input from user 102. The user input can indicate that the user 102 is interacting with a reader 106A-N. For example, the user 102 may provide user input via a user interface of the computing device 103. The user input may indicate that the user 102 is swiping a programmable card at reader 106A. In this instance, the computing device 103 may transmit data indicating the card being swiped at reader 106A to the server 114 via the network 110. Additionally, the reader 106A may transmit data to the access control system 120 and/or the server 114 via the network 110”; also see col. 6, lines 53-63: “Additionally, the user 102 may indicate to the application that the user is interacting with an exit button. In this instance, the user 102 may indicate on an interface of the application that the user 102 is interacting with the exit button 107A that is located at door 109A. The user 102 may activate the exit button 107A by pressing the exit button 107A. The server 114 may instruct the access control system 120 to scan the input terminals 124 for data indicating an activated input device. The access control server 120 locates the active input terminal, and the server 114 maps the exit button 107A to door 109A.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the access control system of Stortstrom to provide application instance on at least one end user device, as taught by Hutz. Doing so would allow users to request access directly from an application running on their own device, thereby improving the user experience and enabling remote or mobile interaction.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Stortstrom discloses: wherein the operations further comprise establishing at least one wireless communications interface with the electronic access control device (see e.g., col. 4, lines 16-18: “The transceiver 225 (in PPE checker 220) may transmit images captured by the 3D camera 222 to the server 210, and receive signals from the server 210.”; PPE checkers are connected to the server via a network (Fig. 2), which may be wired or wireless).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Stortstrom discloses: wherein the operations further comprise denying the access request in response to determining the one or more safety and compliance parameters are not satisfied (see e.g., col. 5, lines 2-27: “If, as indicated in block 350, the detected PPEs do not meet the protective equipment requirements, in processing block 355 a message may be displayed informing the individual that access to the location has been denied.”).
As per claim 5, Stortstrom discloses an electronic access control system (see e.g., Figs. 1-2: (PPE checker 10/220, server 210, access badge reader 30/240) that controls access to restricted area based on verification results) comprising:
an electronic access control device (PPE checker 10/220 and access badge reader 30/240 function together as electronic access control device);
a first server communicably engaged with the electronic access control device (see e.g., Fig. 2; col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 3: The server 210 communicates with PPE checkers via network transceiver 225; stores PPE profiles, images, authorization data); and
a first computing device communicably engaged with the first server and the electronic access control device via at least one communications interface (col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 3: PPE checker 220 and the server 210 communication; the computing functionality (display and SoC) is embedded in the PPE checker itself), the first computing device comprising:
an input-output device comprising a display (display 20/230);
a processor communicatively engaged with the input-output device of the first computing device (SoC 224 controls display and sensor inputs); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium communicatively engaged with the processor and having instructions stored thereon that (e.g., col. 5, line 58 to col. 6, line 2: RAM, ROM, flash memory, etc.), when executed, cause the processor to perform operations of an electronic access control application, the one or more operations comprising:
presenting an instance of the electronic access control application at the display (display 20/230), wherein the electronic access control application is configured to enable an end user to request access to the electronic access control device (col. 4, lines 4-15: the PPE checker interface (display and sensors) functions as an access control interface enabling a user to request access);
receiving a user-generated input via the electronic access control application, the user-generated input comprising an access request and an access reason identifier (i.e., location-specific data) for the electronic access control device (see e.g., col. 3, line 57 to col. 4, line 3: “The server 210 may store a list of PPE's specific to each restricted area, a list of the individuals authorized to enter each of the restricted areas, and facial recognition features related to the individuals authorized to enter the restricted area 40 (FIGS. 1A and 1B)”);
configuring a check-in workflow for the electronic access control device according to the access reason code, wherein the check-in workflow comprises one or more safety and compliance parameters (see e.g., col. 4, lines 7-15 & lines 56-63: “processing block 305, where protective equipment requirements and entry protocols for specific locations or restricted areas are defined. For example, if the location or restricted area requires that the individuals who enter the location are required to have certain safety equipment such as a safety hard hat, safety boots, and goggles, this information is defined and stored in a server such as, for example, the server 210 (FIG. 2)”);
presenting the check-in workflow via the electronic access control application (see e.g., col. 2, lines 8-56: display 20/230 presents instructions to initiate scanning, messages listing required PPE, and warnings if compliance fails);
receiving one or more user-generated inputs in response to the check-in workflow (see e.g., col. 2, lines 8-30 & col. 3, lines 34-46: user-generated inputs include: physical positioning for scanning, wearing PPE with detectable indicia, swiping an access badge at badge reader 30/240);
processing the one or more user-generated inputs in response to the check-in workflow to determine whether the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied (see e.g., col. 2, lines 46-56 & col. 3, line 34 to col. 4, line 3: 3D camera and RFID reader detect equipment; server compares scan results to stored PPE lists; restricted items also checked);
granting the access request in response to determining the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied (see e.g., col. 5, lines 30-38: display indicates access granted (processing block 335); badge reader activated only after PPE compliance); and
in response to granting the access request, commanding the electronic access control device to engage from a locked state to an unlocked state (see e.g., col. 4, lines 7-15 & col. 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 9: PPE checker transmits a signal to an access badge reader 240; badge authentication allows physical entry; door unlocking is implicit in access badge system operation).
Stortstrom discloses user interaction via display 20/230, but does not explicitly disclose presenting an instance of the electronic access control application at the display, wherein the electronic access control application is configured to enable an end user to request access to the electronic access control device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hutz discloses: presenting an instance of the electronic access control application at the display, wherein the electronic access control application is configured to enable an end user to request access to the electronic access control device (see e.g., Fig. 1; col. 4, line 62 to col. 5, line 5: “The computing device 103 may include a laptop, desktop, smartphone, tablet, or any other computing device that is known. The computing device 103 may be configured to receive user input from user 102. The user input can indicate that the user 102 is interacting with a reader 106A-N. For example, the user 102 may provide user input via a user interface of the computing device 103. The user input may indicate that the user 102 is swiping a programmable card at reader 106A. In this instance, the computing device 103 may transmit data indicating the card being swiped at reader 106A to the server 114 via the network 110. Additionally, the reader 106A may transmit data to the access control system 120 and/or the server 114 via the network 110”; also see col. 6, lines 53-63: “Additionally, the user 102 may indicate to the application that the user is interacting with an exit button. In this instance, the user 102 may indicate on an interface of the application that the user 102 is interacting with the exit button 107A that is located at door 109A. The user 102 may activate the exit button 107A by pressing the exit button 107A. The server 114 may instruct the access control system 120 to scan the input terminals 124 for data indicating an activated input device. The access control server 120 locates the active input terminal, and the server 114 maps the exit button 107A to door 109A.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the access control system of Stortstrom to provide an instance of the electronic access control application, as taught by Hutz. Doing so would allow users to request access directly from an application running on their own device, thereby improving the user experience and enabling remote or mobile interaction.
As per claim 7, claim 5 is incorporated and Stortstrom discloses: the system further comprising at least one sensor communicably engaged with the electronic access control device (see col. 2, lines 3-15 & col. 4, lines 4-15: e.g., proximity sensor 60/221, 3D camera 70/222, an RFID reader 223), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure at least one safety-related or environmental condition for at least one secured location (safety-related conditions such as PPE compliance and presence of restricted items).
As per claim 8, claim 7 is incorporated and Stortstrom discloses: wherein the operations of the electronic access control application further comprise receiving and processing at least one sensor input for the at least one sensor according to the one or more safety and compliance parameters (see e.g., col. 2, lines 46-56 & col. 5, lines 20-33: sensor data processed against stored PPE requirements).
As per claim 10, method claim 10 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 5. Therefore, method claim 10 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
As per claim 13, claim 10 is incorporated and Stortstrom discloses: wherein the one or more safety and compliance parameters comprise one or more parameters selected from the group consisting of weather condition parameters, arc flash condition parameters, technician certification parameters, personal safety equipment parameters, and radio frequency exposure parameters (see e.g., col. 5, lines 42-49).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortstrom in view of Hutz, and further in view of Land (U.S. Patent No. 7,965,486).
As per claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and Stortstrom discloses: wherein the operations further comprise receiving at least one sensor data input from the electronic access control device (see e.g., col. 2, lines 3-15 & col. 4, lines 4-15: receiving sensor data input, e.g., from proximity sensor 60/221, 3D camera 70/222, an RFID reader 223).
Stortstrom in view of Hutz does not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one sensor data input comprises an input from an arc sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Land discloses: wherein the at least one sensor data input comprises an input from an arc sensor (see e.g., col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 50: discloses an arc flash detection system comprising a sensor for determining and responding to the presence of an are flash condition in electrical equipment by detecting a pressure rise exceeding 0.01 psi or a rate of pressure rise characteristic of arc flash, and/or ultraviolet radiation characteristic of an arc flash, and generating a signal in response thereto).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the access control system of Stortstrom in view of Hutz to incorporate an arc sensor, as taught by Land. Doing so would provide the advantage of detecting early characteristics of an arc flash event before the event becomes more dangerous, thereby enhancing safety for users and equipment alike.
Claims 6, 9, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortstrom in view of Hutz, and further in view of Gehlot et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,131,132; hereinafter “Gehlot”).
As per claim 6, claim 5 is incorporated and Stortstrom in view of Hutz does not explicitly disclose: wherein the operations further comprise communicating an override request to an administrator user in response to receiving the denial of the access request from the first server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gehlot discloses: wherein the operations further comprise communicating an override request to an administrator user in response to receiving the denial of the access request from the first server (see e.g., col. 6, line 51 to col. 7, line 17: discloses a system that allows performing an override to allow access of a user to an access controlled area, when the system has determined that access to said user is denied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the access control system of Stortstrom in view of Hutz to provide communicating an override request to an administrator user in response to receiving the denial of the access request from the first server, as taught by Gehlot. Doing so would provide greater flexibility to administrators to allow unauthorized users to enter an access controlled area when accompanied by an authorized user.
As per claim 9, claim 6 is incorporated and Stortstrom discloses: wherein the operations of the electronic access control application further comprise denying the access request in response to determining the one or more safety and compliance parameters are not satisfied (see e.g., col. 5, lines 2-27: “If, as indicated in block 350, the detected PPEs do not meet the protective equipment requirements, in processing block 355 a message may be displayed informing the individual that access to the location has been denied.”).
As per claims 12, 15 and 16, method claims 12, 15 and 16 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 6 and 9. Therefore, method claims 12, 15 and 16 correspond to apparatus claims 6 and 9, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortstrom in view of Hutz, and further in view of Morgan (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0044047).
As per claim 11, claim 10 is incorporated and Stortstrom in view of Hutz does not explicitly disclose: configuring, with the first computing device in communication with the first server, an electronic access code for the electronic access control device in response to determining the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morgan discloses: configuring, with the first computing device in communication with the first server, an electronic access code for the electronic access control device in response to determining the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied (see e.g., para. [0036]-[0038]: discloses configuring electronic access codes based on one or more safety and compliance parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Stortstrom in view of Hutz to incorporate configuring, an electronic access code for the electronic access control device based on the one or more safety and compliance parameters, as taught by Morgan. Doing so would enable dynamic access code generation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortstrom in view of Hutz, and further in view of Rezayat (U.S. Patent No. 10,222,119).
As per claim 14, claim 10 is incorporated and Stortstrom in view of Hutz does not explicitly disclose: retrieving, with the first server, current or future weather data for a geographic area associated with the electronic access control device and processing the current or future weather data to determine whether the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rezayat discloses: retrieving, with the first server, current or future weather data for a geographic area associated with the electronic access control device and processing the current or future weather data to determine whether the one or more safety and compliance parameters are satisfied (see e.g., col. 16, lines 50-66: discloses a system for controlling access to a secure location wherein access to said location is controlled based in part on weather).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Stortstrom in view of Hutz to implement receiving weather data from the server to determine whether the one or more safety or compliance parameters are satisfied, as taught by Rezayat. Doing so would ensure proper environmental conditions are preserved within the secure location.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortstrom in view of Hutz, and further in view of Van De Hey (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0136649).
As per claim 17, claim 10 is incorporated and Stortstrom in view of Hutz does not explicitly disclose: configuring, with the first server, a check-out workflow comprising one or more check-out parameters.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Van De Hey discloses: configuring, with the first server, a check-out workflow comprising one or more check-out parameters (see e.g., para. [0062]: discloses an access control method including processing a series of check-out workflow procedures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Stortstrom in view of Hutz to incorporate configuring, with the network operating center server, a check-out workflow comprising one or more check-out parameters, as taught by Van De Hey. Doing so would prevent removal of sensitive material from an access controlled area.
As per claim 18, claim 17 is incorporated and Stortstrom in view of Hutz and Van De Hey discloses: receiving, with the first computing device communicably engaged with the first server, one or more user-generated inputs in response to the check-out workflow via the instance of the electronic access control application (see Hutz, e.g., col. 6, lines 53-63: discloses receiving a user-generated input in order to initiate a check-out workflow; and Van De Hey, e.g., para. [0062]).
As per claim 19, claim 18 is incorporated and Stortstrom in view of Hutz and Van De Hey discloses: processing, with the first server, the one or more user-generated inputs (through weight sensors or by providing body temperatures) in response to the check-out workflow to determine whether the one or more check-out parameters are satisfied (see Van De Hey, e.g., para. [0062]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortstrom in view of Hutz and Van De Hey, and further in view of Hayton (U.S. Patent No. 6,799,209).
As per claim 20, claim 19 is incorporated and Stortstrom in view of Hutz and Van De Hey discloses: comparing, with the first server, one or more data captured during the check-in workflow to one or more data captured during the check-out workflow to determine whether the one or more check-out parameters are satisfied (Van De Hey, e.g., para. [0062]: entry and exit temperatures).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that body temperatures may be obtainable through digital images (see e.g., Hayton, col. 5, lines 17-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain entry and exit body temperatures by capturing digital images of a user and comparing with the network operating center server, entry and exit body temperatures to determine whether the one or more check-out parameters are satisfied since there were limited known ways of obtaining body temperature and doing so would have yielded predictable results.
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.
Trapani et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0394859) teaches an electronic access control system and method for mitigating an arc flash precondition within an access-controlled enclosure.
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@uspo.gov