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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 06/17/2026. Amendments received on 06/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noce et al. (US Pub 2024/0129138) in view of Sharma et al. (US Pub 2023/0016625).
As of claims 1, 12 and 18, Noce discloses an access control system for controlling access to each of one or more regions of a facility, the access control system comprising:
a memory for storing a plurality of access credentials each associated with a respective authorized user of the facility, wherein each of the plurality of access credentials is assigned one or more access permissions that define access rights for the respective authorized user to access each of the one or more regions of the facility (via controller 140 storing plurality of list of credentials associated with authorized user; see paragraphs [0051]-[0052]);
a plurality of access control readers each associated with at least one region of the one or more regions of the facility (via plurality of access control devices 110; see fig. 1; also see paragraphs [0034]- [0035] and [0038]), wherein each access control reader is configured to receive an access request from a respective authorized user where the access request includes the respective access credential associated with the respective authorized user (via access control device 110 receiving access request from client device 120; see fig. 1; also see paragraph[0051]) ;
a controller having a non-lockdown mode;
wherein in the non-lockdown mode, and in response to receiving an access request at a respective one of the plurality of access control readers from a respective authorized user, grant or deny access to the at least one region of the facility that is associated with the access control reader based at least in part on the one or more access permissions assigned to the access credential that is associated with the access request (see paragraph [0052], “ The server/controller 140 searches a list of credentials stored in the authorization system 142 to determine whether the received credentials match credentials from the list of authorized credentials for accessing a secure asset or resource (e.g., door or secure area) protected by the access control device 110. In response to determining that the received credentials are authorized to access the access control device 110, the server/controller 140 instructs the access control device 110 to perform an operation granting access for the client device 120 (e.g., instructing the access control device 110 to unlock a lock of a door).
In the system of Noce normal operation is interpreted as non-lockdown mode as disclosed above, however Noce does not disclose a lockdown mode and in the lockdown mode, lock down one or more lockdown regions of the facility by denying access to the one or more lockdown regions even when an access request is received that is assigned one or more access permissions that would otherwise grant access to the corresponding one or more lockdown regions in the non-lockdown mode, unless the access credential associated with the access request is assigned one or more predefined expertise certifications in which case not denying access to the one or more lockdown regions.
Sharma discloses an access control system wherien electronic door locks (EDL) operate in a lockdown mode and a norma mode (see abstract). Sharma discloses that in the lock down mode, EDL deny access to one or more lockdown regions even when an access request is received from an authorized key unless the key is assigned to a one or more predefined expertise certification in which case the access is not denied (see paragraph [0163], “An EDL could be configured to allow access to a set of E-keys S in ‘Normal’ state, and to a set of E-keys T in ‘Lockdown’ state where set T is a subset of S… In ‘Normal’ mode the EDL allows access when a user manipulates an E-key on the EDL where the E-key is an element of set S, while in ‘Lockdown’ mode the EDL allows access to only those E-keys that are members of set T ... E-keys of set T can be given, for example, to a very small group of trained and trustworthy first responders (predefined expertise certifications; also see paragraph [0187] and [0194]).
From the teaching of Sharma, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Noce to include the function of authorized certain users only during lockdown mode in order to protect occupant of a facility during emergency situation.
As of claims 2, 13 and 19 Sharma discloses that the lockdown mode is classified into one or more of a plurality of predefined lockdown mode types, wherein each of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types is assigned one or more of the plurality of predefined expertise certifications; and wherein in the lockdown mode, the one or more lockdown regions of the facility are locked down by denying access to the one or more lockdown regions even when an access request is received that is assigned one or more access permissions that would otherwise grant access to the corresponding one or more lockdown regions in the non-lockdown mode, unless the access credential associated with the access request is assigned one or more of the plurality of predefined expertise certifications that is assigned to the predefined lockdown mode type of the lockdown mode, in which case, not denying access to the one or more lockdown regions (see the rejection of claim 1, Sharma further discloses that the lockdown mode is classified into one or more a plurality of lockdown mode types (via Lockdown Level 1, Lockdown Level 2, Lockdown Level 3 etc.; see paragraphs [0184]-[0187]).
As of claims 3 and 14, Sharma discloses that the controller is configured to receive an input from an operator of the access control system, wherein the input manually classifies the lockdown mode into one or more of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types (via an operator manually classifying the lockdown mode into one or more of the plurality of lockdown levels; see paragraph [0178] and [0195]).
As of claims 4, 15 and 20, Sharma discloses that the controller is configured to automatically classify the lockdown mode into one or more of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types based at least in part on one or more events of an event history, wherein the event history includes one or more of previous alarm events, previous lockdown events and previous sensor events (via automatically generating a lockdown message in response to receiving signals from sensors indicating gunshots, glass breaking etc.; see paragraph [0097]).
As of claim 5, Sharma discloses that the controller is configured to automatically classify the lockdown mode into one or more of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types based at least in part on an output provided by one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of: one or more of the plurality of access control readers; a motion sensor; a smoke sensor; a voltage sensor; a current sensor; a glass break sensor; a gunshot detector; a microphone; a leak sensor; a water sensor; a chemical sensor; a video camera with video analytics; and a video camera without video analytics (via automatically generating a lockdown message in response to receiving signals from sensors indicating gunshots, glass breaking etc.; see paragraph [0097]-[0098]).
As of claim 6, Sharma discloses that the controller is configured to automatically classify the lockdown mode into one or more of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types based at least in part on one or more operator notes manually entered by an operator of the access control system (via an operator manually classifying the lockdown mode into one or more of the plurality of lockdown levels; see paragraph [0178] and [0195]).
As of claim 7, Sharma discloses that the one or more sensors include a video camera that provides a video stream, and wherein the controller is configured to automatically classify the lockdown mode into one or more of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types based at least in part an output of a Large Language Model (LLM) that is configured to generate contextual information of at least part of the video stream captured by the video camera (via a video analytic software application fed by video and/or imaging sensors that constantly monitor entry to vital doors, looking out for person with weapon (E.g. rifle, gun, knife etc.) and/or an angry facial expression and/or demeanor. This software application automatically generates a Lockdown signal message. In some embodiments the imaging sensor may feed another analytic software application that can identify hidden guns, bullets, bullet magazines, knifes etc.). Face recognition software may be further used to exclude known good persons (E.g. armed policemen, first responders). Information fusion software may be further used to combine the real-time output of video analytics and imaging sensor analytics system to further decrease the uncertainty of identifying a potential Active Shooter and in turn trigger the generation of an AB alarm message. [0099] (a) Information Integration (E.g. Sensor fusion, data fusion etc.) may be further used to combine the real-time output of video analytics, imaging sensor analytics system and voice analytic software application to further increase the probability of identifying a potential Active Shooter, that in turn triggers generation of lockdown message; see paragraphs [0098]-[0100]).
As of claim 8, Sharma discloses that once in the lockdown mode, the controller provides a listing of authorized users to an operator of the access control system that have access credentials that are assigned one or more of the plurality of predefined expertise certifications (via providing list of E-keys allowed access in different lockdown levels; see paragraphs [0183]- [087] and [0191]-0194]).
As of claims 9 and 16, Sharma discloses that once in a lockdown mode that is classified into a particular one of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types, the controller provides a listing of authorized users to an operator of the access control system that have access credentials assigned one or more of the plurality of predefined expertise certifications that is assigned to the particular one of the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types of the lockdown mode (via providing list of E-keys allowed access in different lockdown levels; see paragraphs [0183]-[087] and [0191]-0194]).
As of claim 10 and 17, Sharma discloses that the controller is configured to receive from the operator of the access control system a selection of one or more of the authorized users from the listing of authorized users to grant access to the one or more lockdown regions, and denying access to the unselected authorized users on the listing of authorized users (see paragraphs 0183]-[0187], Sharma further discloses elaborates that this allows various Lockdown levels to have a corresponding set of E-keys that have permission to enter the door via the EDL. For example plumber's E-key would allow access into a flooded room's EDL that in Lockdown level L3 (corresponding to flooding issues), while in normal EDL operating mode plumber E-key will not have access to the EDL; see paragraphs [0187] and [0379]-[0380]).
As of claim 11, Sharma discloses that the plurality of predefined lockdown mode types include one or more of a chemical lockdown mode type, an electrical lockdown mode type and a fire lockdown mode type (via fire lockdown type, Sharm further provides an example of a classroom, wherien if a class room is accidently flooded and EDL(s) that allow access to the room are put in Lockdown level L3 mode, where the (EDLs) have a total of 4 levels of lockdown gradation. In level 3, the EDLs refuse entry to a professor's E-key who is a member of set T0 but is not member of set T3 or T4 (as there could be electrocution risk in flooded room), while the facility's plumber's E-key that is member of set T3 will allow entry to the door lock and the same technique would be applicable in chemical spill; see paragraphs [0194]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that combination of Noce and Sharma does not disclose “in the lockdown mode, lock down one or more lockdown regions of the facility by denying access to the one or more lockdown regions even when an access request is received that is assigned one or more access permissions that would otherwise grant access to the corresponding one or more lockdown regions in the non-lockdown mode, unless the access credential associated with the access request is assigned one or more predefined expertise certifications in which case not denying access to the one or more lockdown regions.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants are reminded that during examination, claims are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation . . ..” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).1 Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Examiner maintains her interpretations.
Sharma discloses that an EDL could be configured to allow access to a set of E-keys S in ‘Normal’ state, and to a set of E-keys T in ‘Lockdown’ state where set T is a subset of S… In ‘Normal’ mode the EDL allows access when a user manipulates an E-key on the EDL where the E-key is an element of set S, while in ‘Lockdown’ mode the EDL allows access to only those E-keys that are members of set T ... E-keys of set T can be given, for example, to a very small group of trained and trustworthy first responders (predefined expertise certifications; also see paragraph [0187] and [0194]). So in the system of Sharma E-keys of set of T (access credential associated with the access request) are assigned to predefined expertise certification, since they are given to an expert (plumber). Claim language does not state that the predefine expertise certification is received with the credential as well to determine access authorization, rather it states that the credentials are assigned one or more predefine expertise certification. As disclosed above in the system of Sharma E-keys set of T is assigned plumber certification, hence disclosing the invention as claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trani (US Pub 2016/0055692) discloses an access control system wherien during a lockdown mode he security system may implement “super user” fobs for specific personnel (e.g., security, law enforcement, first responders, firefighter, etc.) to enable only those people with the “super user” fobs to move through all areas of the building to neutralize the threat and/or treat and evacuate users (see paragraph [0011]).
Ludlow et al. (US Pub 2011/0221565) discloses an access control system wherein when a threat level exceeds the threshold level, the facility may deny access to any individual or individuals without VIP qualifications. For example, an otherwise authorized lieutenant may be denied access under certain lockdown conditions at a military base (see paragraph [0070]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
1 19 See also MPEP §2111; In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701
(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
Prosecution Insights