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 1-19 have been examined and are pending.
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 1-3, 9-11, and 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/982881 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 9-11, and 15-17 limitations are included or implicitly taught in the claims of ‘881 and therefore anticipated by claims of ‘881.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 of the instant application are taught by claims 1, 13, and 20. All limitations in claims 1, 9, and 15 are recited in claims 1, 13, and 20 but an omnidirectional BLE radio antenna; output logic to instruct access or to control local access to a resource; and wherein said omnidirectional BLE radio antenna can detect the distance of a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. Yet are taught in other dependent claim limitations of ‘881.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 of the instant application are taught by claims 5, 16, and 20 of ‘881.
Claims 3, 11, and 17 of the instant application are taught by claim 6, 17, and 20 of ‘881.
Claims 4-5, 12-13, and 18-19 of the instant application are taught by claim 7, 10, 18, and 20 of ‘881.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. See Abstract, line 5: “said”.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12, 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2 and 5: spell out BLE and LiDAR. Recommend Bluetooth Low Energy
communication (BLE) and Laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR).
Claim 1, lines 6, 8 and 10: intentional term use – “can.” Recommend limitation to positively recite.
Claim 4, line 2: intentional term use – “can.” Recommend limitation to positively recite.
Claim 5, line 2: intentional term use – “can.” Recommend limitation to positively recite.
Claim 6, line 3: intentional term use – “if.” Recommend limitation to positively recite.
Claim 9 and 15, lines 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14: intentional term use – “can.” Recommend limitation to positively recite.
Claim 18, line 3: intentional term use – “if.” Recommend limitation to positively recite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the claim limitation states “…used to indicate intent to authenticate…” where claim language appears to be vague or unclear with this intentional use terminology. Examiner recommends the limitation to positively recite. See MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claims 10-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependency upon claims 9 and 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statezni et al, hereinafter (“Statezni”), US Patent 11349187 B1, in view of Higgins et al, hereinafter (“Higgins”), US Patent 10369966 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Statezni teaches a sensor device comprising: [Statezni et al 11349187 B1 Fig. 1 and col 4, lines 65-67 shows vehicle 100 with sensor system 104 to detect and possibly identify objects of the surrounding environment; col 6, lines 51-57 include Global Positioning System (GPS) 122, inertial measurement unit (IMU) 124, radar unit 126, laser rangefinder/LIDAR unit 128, camera 130, steering sensor 123…and col 9, lines 36-40 TCU 160 enable connectivity and wireless technologies for use by vehicle 100]
an omnidirectional BLE radio antenna; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 17, lines 50-53 each BLE radio is coupled to a BLE antenna configured for omnidirectional operation.]
a unidirectional BLE radio antenna; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 18, lines 20-23 and 32-37 computing system may receive data indicative of a first signal strength with at least one device, from a set of BLE radios coupled to BLE antenna determining…]
a forward-facing LiDAR; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 7, lines 13-15 Laser rangefinder/LIDAR 128 include laser sources, laser scanner, and one or more detectors..]
output logic to instruct access or to control local access to a resource; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
wherein said omnidirectional BLE radio antenna can detect the distance of a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [Statezni See col 6, lines 51-57, col 17, lines 50-53, and col 9, lines 23-26 and 36-40 Fig. 6 shows the implemented 608A/608B BLE technology of the vehicle 600 where the a BLE system associated with a region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger's smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
wherein said unidirectional BLE radio antenna can detect whether a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential is in front of said sensor device; [Statezni col 4, lines 25-32 and 39-43 received signal strength for each BLE antenna from corresponding BLE radio determines position of a device positioned outside the vehicle. Col 16, lines 23-25 and buffer zone for vehicle use BLE technology to detect and authenticates a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle.]
wherein said output logic combines detection data from said omnidirectional BLE radio antenna, said unidirectional BLE radio antenna [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 17, lines 50-53 each BLE radio is coupled to a BLE antenna configured for omnidirectional operation. col 18, lines 20-23 and 32-37 computing system may receive data indicative of a first signal strength with at least one device, from a set of BLE radios coupled to BLE antenna determining], and said forward-facing LiDAR to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
While Statezni teaches forward-facing LiDAR [Statezni See col 6, lines 51-57. col 7, lines 13-15]; however, Statezni fails to explicitly teach but Higgins teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the number and distance of fixed and moving objects in front of said sensor device; [Higgins col 4, lines vehicle 100 include a ranging and imaging system 112 such as LIDAR. col 15, lines 65-67 to col 16, lines 1-8 automated vehicle control systems 348 based on feedback from LiDAR and radar sensors positioned around the circumference of the vehicle]
While Statezni teaches forward-facing LiDAR [Statezni See col 6, lines 51-57. col 7, lines 13-15]; however, Statezni fails to explicitly teach but Higgins teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the number and distance of fixed and moving objects in front of said sensor device; [Higgins col 4, lines vehicle 100 include a ranging and imaging system 112 such as LIDAR. col 15, lines 65-67 to col 16, lines 1-8 automated vehicle control systems 348 based on feedback from LiDAR and radar sensors positioned around the circumference of the vehicle identifying and spatially locate animate/inanimate and moving exterior objects]
Statezni teaches all the features of claim 1 not wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the number and distance of fixed and moving objects in front of said sensor device. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because both Statezni and Higgins teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins [Higgins col 15, lines 15-67 to col 16, lines 1-18].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Statezni and Higgins teach claim 1 as described above.
Statezni teaches further comprising: an optical camera. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 7, lines 17-19 camera 130 may include still camera or video camera]
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Statezni and Higgins teach claim 1 as described above.
Statezni teaches further comprising: a radar. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 7, lines 1-4 radar unit 126]
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Statezni and Higgins teach claim 1 as described above.
Statezni teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Statezni and Higgins teach claim 1 as described above.
Statezni teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR does not automatically authentication a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential if more than one mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential is detected. [See Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45]
Regarding claims 7, the combination of teach claim 1 as described above.
Statezni teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR verifies LiDAR templates of users before authenticating a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni col 7, lines 13-18 LIDRA 128 operating in coherent or incoherent detection mode. col 8, lines 1-4 sensor data evaluations of individual objects and/or features for particular situations]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statezni et al, hereinafter (“Statezni”), US Patent 11349187 B1, in view of Higgins et al, hereinafter (“Higgins”), US Patent 10369966 B1, in view of DiAcetis et al, hereinafter (“DiAcetis”), US PG Publication 20180145990 A1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Statezni and Higgins teach claim 4 as described above.
However, the combination of Statezni and Higgins fail to explicitly teach but DiAcetis teaches wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [DiAcetis et al ¶¶0038-0039 mapping system and/or authentication system 115 uses positioning data 142D based on user 101B raising or lowering hands/hand gesture detection mechanism]
While the combination of Statezni and Higgins teaches intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [See Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45]; however, the combination of Statezni and Higgins fails to explicitly teach but DiAcetis teaches wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [DiAcetis ¶¶0038-0039 mapping system and/or authentication system 115 uses positioning data 142D based on user 101B raising or lowering hands/hand gesture detection mechanism; the authentication system generates the permission data 139B that allows access to the secured resource. ]
The combination of Statezni and Higgins teach all the features of claim 9 not wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and/or LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins with an authentication system that understands physical gestures [DiAcetis¶¶0038-0039].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statezni et al, hereinafter (“Statezni”), US Patent 11349187 B1, in view of Higgins et al, hereinafter (“Higgins”), US Patent 10369966 B1, in view of Diaz US Patent 6308644 B1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Statezni and Higgins teach claim 1 as described above.
However, the combination of Statezni and Higgins fail to explicitly teach but Diaz teaches wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. [Diaz col 6, lines 56-58 and 66-67 and col 7, lines 12-13 access control system; a 24 volt DC uninterrupted power supply (UPS); using a plurality of ultrasonic sensors]
The combination of Statezni and Higgins teach all the features of claim 1 not wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because Statezni and Higgins teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and/or LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins further combined with a 24 volt power source as taught by Diaz [Diaz col 6, lines 56-58 and 66-67 and col 7, lines 12-13].
Claim(s) 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statezni et al, hereinafter (“Statezni”), US Patent 11349187 B1, in view of Higgins et al, hereinafter (“Higgins”), US Patent 10369966 B1, in view of DiAcetis et al, hereinafter (“DiAcetis”), US PG Publication 20180145990 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Statezni teaches a sensor device comprising:
an omnidirectional BLE radio antenna; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 17, lines 50-53 each BLE radio is coupled to a BLE antenna configured for omnidirectional operation.]
a unidirectional BLE radio antenna; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 18, lines 20-23 and 32-37 computing system may receive data indicative of a first signal strength with at least one device, from a set of BLE radios coupled to BLE antenna determining…]
a forward-facing LiDAR; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 7, lines 13-15 Laser rangefinder/LIDAR 128 include laser sources, laser scanner, and one or more detectors..]
output logic to instruct access or to control local access to a resource; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
wherein said omnidirectional BLE radio antenna can detect the distance of a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [Statezni See col 6, lines 51-57, col 17, lines 50-53, and col 9, lines 23-26 and 36-40 Fig. 6 shows the implemented 608A/608B BLE technology of the vehicle 600 where the a BLE system associated with a region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger's smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
wherein said unidirectional BLE radio antenna can detect whether a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential is in front of said sensor device; [Statezni col 4, lines 25-32 and 39-43 received signal strength for each BLE antenna from corresponding BLE radio determines position of a device positioned outside the vehicle. Col 16, lines 23-25 and buffer zone for vehicle use BLE technology to detect and authenticates a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle.]
wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left] and
wherein said output logic combines detection data from said omnidirectional BLE radio antenna, said unidirectional BLE radio antenna [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 17, lines 50-53 each BLE radio is coupled to a BLE antenna configured for omnidirectional operation. col 18, lines 20-23 and 32-37 computing system may receive data indicative of a first signal strength with at least one device, from a set of BLE radios coupled to BLE antenna determining], and said forward-facing LiDAR to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
While Statezni teaches forward-facing LiDAR [Statezni See col 6, lines 51-57. col 7, lines 13-15]; however, Statezni fails to explicitly teach but Higgins teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the number and distance of fixed and moving objects in front of said sensor device; [Higgins col 4, lines vehicle 100 include a ranging and imaging system 112 such as LIDAR. col 15, lines 65-67 to col 16, lines 1-8 automated vehicle control systems 348 based on feedback from LiDAR and radar sensors positioned around the circumference of the vehicle]
Statezni teaches all the features of claim 9 not wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the number and distance of fixed and moving objects in front of said sensor device; and wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because both Statezni and Higgins teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins [Higgins col 15, lines 15-67 to col 16, lines 1-18].
While the combination of Statezni and Higgins teaches intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [See Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45]; however, the combination of Statezni and Higgins fails to explicitly teach but DiAcetis teaches wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [DiAcetis ¶¶0038-0039 mapping system and/or authentication system 115 uses positioning data 142D based on user 101B raising or lowering hands/hand gesture detection mechanism; the authentication system generates the permission data 139B that allows access to the secured resource. ]
The combination of Statezni and Higgins teach all the features of claim 9 not wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and/or LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins with an authentication system that understands physical gestures [DiAcetis¶¶0038-0039].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach claim 9 as described above.
Statezni teaches further comprising: an optical camera. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 7, lines 17-19 camera 130 may include still camera or video camera]
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach claim 9 as described above.
Statezni teaches further comprising: a radar. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 7, lines 1-4 radar unit 126]
Regarding claims 12, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach claim 9 as described above.
Statezni teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Statezni and Higgins teach claim 1 as described above.
Statezni teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR verifies LiDAR templates of users before authenticating a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni col 7, lines 13-18 LIDRA 128 operating in coherent or incoherent detection mode. col 8, lines 1-4 sensor data evaluations of individual objects and/or features for particular situations]
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statezni et al, hereinafter (“Statezni”), US Patent 11349187 B1, in view of Higgins et al, hereinafter (“Higgins”), US Patent 10369966 B1, in view of DiAcetis et al, hereinafter (“DiAcetis”), US PG Publication 20180145990 A1, in view of Diaz US Patent 6308644 B1.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach claim 9 as described above.
However, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis fail to explicitly teach but Diaz teaches wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. [Diaz col 6, lines 56-58 and 66-67 and col 7, lines 12-13 access control system; a 24 volt DC uninterrupted power supply (UPS); using a plurality of ultrasonic sensors]
The combination of Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach all the features of claim 9 not wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and/or LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins with an authentication system that understands physical gestures as taught by DiAcetis; further combined with a 24 volt power source as taught by Diaz [Diaz col 6, lines 56-58 and 66-67 and col 7, lines 12-13].
Claim(s) 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statezni et al, hereinafter (“Statezni”), US Patent 11349187 B1, in view of Higgins et al, hereinafter (“Higgins”), US Patent 10369966 B1, in view of DiAcetis et al, hereinafter (“DiAcetis”), US PG Publication 20180145990 A1, in view of Diaz US Patent 6308644 B1.
Regarding claim 15, Statezni teaches a sensor device comprising:
an omnidirectional BLE radio antenna; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 17, lines 50-53 each BLE radio is coupled to a BLE antenna configured for omnidirectional operation.]
a unidirectional BLE radio antenna; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 18, lines 20-23 and 32-37 computing system may receive data indicative of a first signal strength with at least one device, from a set of BLE radios coupled to BLE antenna determining…]
a forward-facing LiDAR; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, See col 6, lines 51-57. col 7, lines 13-15 Laser rangefinder/LIDAR 128 include laser sources, laser scanner, and one or more detectors..]
output logic to instruct access or to control local access to a resource; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
wherein said omnidirectional BLE radio antenna can detect the distance of a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [Statezni See col 6, lines 51-57, col 17, lines 50-53, and col 9, lines 23-26 and 36-40 Fig. 6 shows the implemented 608A/608B BLE technology of the vehicle 600 where the a BLE system associated with a region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger's smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
wherein said unidirectional BLE radio antenna can detect whether a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential is in front of said sensor device; [Statezni col 4, lines 25-32 and 39-43 received signal strength for each BLE antenna from corresponding BLE radio determines position of a device positioned outside the vehicle. Col 16, lines 23-25 and buffer zone for vehicle use BLE technology to detect and authenticates a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle.]
wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
wherein said output logic combines detection data from said omnidirectional BLE radio antenna, said unidirectional BLE radio antenna, [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 17, lines 50-53 each BLE radio is coupled to a BLE antenna configured for omnidirectional operation. col 18, lines 20-23 and 32-37 computing system may receive data indicative of a first signal strength with at least one device, from a set of BLE radios coupled to BLE antenna determining] and said forward-facing LiDAR to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
While Statezni teaches forward-facing LiDAR [Statezni See col 6, lines 51-57. col 7, lines 13-15]; however, Statezni fails to explicitly teach but Higgins teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the number and distance of fixed and moving objects in front of said sensor device; [Higgins col 4, lines vehicle 100 include a ranging and imaging system 112 such as LIDAR. col 15, lines 65-67 to col 16, lines 1-8 automated vehicle control systems 348 based on feedback from LiDAR and radar sensors positioned around the circumference of the vehicle]
Statezni teaches all the features of claim 9 not wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the number and distance of fixed and moving objects in front of said sensor device; and wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; and wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because both Statezni and Higgins teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins [Higgins col 15, lines 15-67 to col 16, lines 1-18].
While the combination of Statezni and Higgins teaches intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [See Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45]; however,
wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential; [DiAcetis ¶¶0038-0039 mapping system and/or authentication system 115 uses positioning data 142D based on user 101B raising or lowering hands/hand gesture detection mechanism; the authentication system generates the permission data 139B that allows access to the secured resource. ]
The combination of Statezni and Higgins teach all the features of claim 9 not wherein physical gestures or motions can be used to indicate intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential and wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and/or LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins with an authentication system that understands physical gestures as taught by DiAcetis [DiAcetis¶¶0038-0039].
wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. [Diaz col 6, lines 56-58 and 66-67 and col 7, lines 12-13 access control system; a 24 volt DC uninterrupted power supply (UPS); using a plurality of ultrasonic sensors].
The combination of Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach all the features of claim 15 not wherein said sensor device obtains power from a legacy 12V or 24V access control wiring system. Higgins teaches methods and devices to access a vehicle and controlling a level of access granted. Because Statezni, Higgins, and DiAcetis teach proximity-based sensors supporting BLE and/or LiDAR technology to authenticate user access would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine information regarding sensed external environmental information as taught by Higgins with an authentication system that understands physical gestures as taught by DiAcetis; further combined with a 24 volt power source as taught by Diaz [Diaz col 6, lines 56-58 and 66-67 and col 7, lines 12-13].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, DiAcetis and Diaz teach claim 15 as described above.
Statezni teaches further comprising: an optical camera. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 7, lines 17-19 camera 130 may include still camera or video camera]
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, DiAcetis and Diaz teach claim 15 as described above.
Statezni teaches further comprising: a radar. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 7, lines 1-4 radar unit 126]
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, DiAcetis and Diaz teach claim 15 as described above.
Statezni teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR can detect the intent to authenticate a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni et al 11349187 B1, col 16, lines 40-45 computing system may unlock a left-side door based on its location in response to a BLE system associated with region 516 detecting and authenticating a passenger’s smartphone approaching the vehicle 600 from the left]
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Statezni, Higgins, DiAcetis and Diaz teach claim 15 as described above.
Statezni teaches wherein said forward-facing LiDAR verifies LiDAR templates of users before authenticating a mobile handset or other authenticating digital credential. [Statezni col 7, lines 13-18 LIDRA 128 operating in coherent or incoherent detection mode. col 8, lines 1-4 sensor data evaluations of individual objects and/or features for particular situations]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ricci 10304261 B2 teaches Duplicated wireless transceivers associated with a vehicle to receive and send sensitive information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-0682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:45a-6:45p.
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, CATHERINE THIAW can be reached at 571-270-1138. 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.
SAKINAH WHITE-TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2407
/Sakinah White-Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2407