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
Status of the Claims
This is in response to the amendment filed on 7/6/26. Claims 21-40 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/6/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of Patent Numbers US 11663864 B2 and US 12217560 B2. has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21-23, 29-33 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess (US 2018/0162321 A1) in view of Child et al. (Child; US 2016/0217638 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Spiess discloses a method (Abstract), comprising:
communicating, via a Bluetooth communication circuitry (534) of a first computing device (520) associated with an access control device (passive keyless entry PKE integrated circuit (IC) 530) that controls access to a passageway, with a second computing device (512) over a Bluetooth communication connection established between the first computing device (520) and the second computing device (512) to determine that the second computing device (520) includes ultra-wideband (UWB) communication circuitry (550) for UWB-based communication ([0033] The PKE system includes a vehicle 510 that has a number of vehicle access and security control and communication points...A body control unit (BCU) 512 is located in the vehicle and controls functions and circuits in the vehicle as well as communications to an external, removable key 520.", [0034] “In this example, it is envisaged that the RF TRx IC 534 may utilize Bluetooth Long Term evolution (BLE TM) technology at 2.4 GHz. The key 520 also includes a UWB IC 550 that includes a transceiver (TRx) IC 552 that is configured to operate in the GHz frequency range and is coupled to the PKE IC via a serial-parallel interface 540; Fig 5) and receive access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device ([0043] If an advertising pulse is received at the vehicle 510 and the receiver (Rx) in RF vehicle transceiver 517 has determined that the received advertising pulse has been sent by an associated key 520, the vehicle 510 transmits an acknowledgement message back to the key 520 via a transmitter circuit in RF vehicle transceiver 517. In some examples, this acknowledgement message may include security and/or mutual authentication information.... a known secret cryptography association pattern may be applied during vehicle production or learnt by both the key and the vehicle);
waking the UWB communication circuitry of the second computing device (BCU 512) from a low power state in response to the Bluetooth communication (JC 530 communicates through IC 534 that utilizes BLE, Fig. 5, [0044] At 615, a wake-up of the BCU in the vehicle 510 is performed, for example BCU 512 in Fig. 5. At 620 the PKE IC 530 in the key 520 receives the acknowledgement message transmission from the vehicle 510 and powers up the on-board UWB ranging radio circuit or function in UWB IC 550 of FIG. 5);
determining, by the first computing device (520) based on at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device (512), a location of the second computing device relative to the first computing device ([0044] at 625, a UWB ranging circuit 554 and/or function in UWB IC 550 of the key 520 instigates a ranging process to determine a distance between the vehicle 510 and the key 520; [0036] Upon receipt of the response message, the ranging circuit 554 passes both the ranging signal and the response message to the processor circuit 556 in order to determine whether (or not) the key 520 is located in the vicinity of the vehicle 510).
Spiess does NOT disclose communicating, from the first computing device, an alert to the second computing device in response to determining that the second computing device is approaching the passageway.
In the related field of controlling access to a home, Child discloses communicating, from the first computing device, an alert to the second computing device in response to determining that the second computing device is approaching the passageway ([0044] sensors 125-a-1 and 125-a-2 and other features of environment 100, determining a location of one or more persons relative to the home, determining an intended action of the person (e.g., opening or closing a door or window), and determining whether to permit the intended action and/or trigger an alarm if the action is not authorized or is performed by an unauthorized person. Triggering an alarm may include sending a notice to, for example, police, security personnel, an owner or person responsible for the home, or a person attempting to perform the action (e.g., operate barrier 115), [0045] Data received from locking device 120 and/or sensors 125-a-1 and 125-a-2 may be used to help determine on which side of the barrier the operator is positioned and/or which components of locking device 120 are being actuated (e.g., a handle or switch positioned on and outside or inside of the barrier 115), and whether a person is authorized or unauthorized to access a barrier, [0125] an alert message may be sent notifying of the user approaching the barrier, of any user attempts to gain access to the barrier, and/or if access of the barrier occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spiess with Child using an alert in order to efficiently increase the security measures for an area that requires permission from a controller.
Regarding Claims 22 and 32, Spiess discloses evaluating, by the first computing device, the access credential to determine whether a user of the second computing device is authorized to access the passageway ([0043] If an advertising pulse is received at the vehicle 510 and the receiver (Rx) in RF vehicle transceiver 517 has determined that the received advertising pulse has been sent by an associated key 520, the vehicle 510 transmits an acknowledgement message back to the key 520 via a transmitter circuit in RF vehicle transceiver 517. In some examples, this acknowledgement message may include security and/or mutual authentication information.... a known secret cryptography association pattern may be applied during vehicle production or learnt by both the key and the vehicle).
Child also discloses evaluating, by the first computing device, the access credential to determine whether a user of the second computing device is authorized to access the passageway
([0044]-[0045]).
22>Regarding Claims 23 and 33, Child discloses evaluating the access credential comprises determining that the user of the second computing device is unauthorized to access the passageway; and wherein communicating the alert to the second computing device comprises communicating an alert that the second computing device is approaching an area that the user of the second computing device is unauthorized to access ([0044], [0045]).
Regarding Claims 29 and 39, Child discloses determining, by the first computing device, whether the location of the second computing device relative to the first computing device is a location that indicates an intent of a user of the second computing device to access the passageway ([0044]-[0045]).
Regarding Claims 30 and 40, Spiess discloses the first computing device (520) comprises the access control device (passive keyless entry PKE integrated circuit (IC) 530; [0034] key 520 includes a PKE integrated circuit (IC) 530).
Regarding Claim 31, Spiess discloses a system (X), comprising:
an access control device (530) comprising a lock mechanism and configured to control access to a passageway ([0033] PKE system includes a vehicle 510 that has a number of vehicle access and security control and communication points. The vehicle access and security control and communication points include a RF vehicle transceiver 517, a number of ultra-wideband (UWB) communication transceivers 516 configured to use a very low energy level for short-range, high-bandwidth communications over a large portion of the radio spectrum; Fig 5);
a first computing device (520) associated with the access control device, the first computing device comprising a first Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication circuitry (534) and a first ultra-wideband (UWB) communication circuitry (550); and
a second computing device (512) comprising a second BLE communication circuitry and a second UWB circuitry (Fig. 5, para [0033] The PKE system includes a vehicle 510 that has a number of vehicle access and security contra! and communication points.... A body control unit (BCU) 512 is located in the vehicle and controls functions and circuits in the vehicle as well as communications to an external, removable key 520, [0034] In this example, it is envisaged that the RF TRx IC 534 may utilize Bluetooth Long Term evolution (BLE TM) technology at 2.4 GHz. The key 520 also includes a UWB IC 550 that includes a transceiver (TRx) IC 552 that is configured to operate in the GHz frequency range and is coupled to the PKE IC via a serial-parallel interface 540);
wherein the first computing device (520) is configured to communicate with the second computing device (512) over a BLE communication connection established between the first computing device and the second computing device to determine that the second computing device is capable of UWB-based communication (IC 530 communicates through IC 534 that utilizes BLE, Fig. 5, [0034] In this example, itis envisaged that the RF TRx IC 534 may utilize Bluetooth Long Term evolution (BLE TM) technology at 2.4 GHz. The key 520 also includes a UWB !C 550 that includes a transceiver (TRx) IC 552 that is configured to operate in the GHz frequency range and is coupled to the PKE IC via a serial-parallel interface 540) and to receive access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device ([0043] If an advertising pulse is received at the vehicle 510 and the receiver (Rx) in RF vehicle transceiver 517 has determined that the received advertising pulse has been sent by an associated key 520, the vehicle 510 transmits an acknowledgement message back to the key 520 via a transmitter circuit in RF vehicle transceiver 517. In some examples, this acknowledgement message may include security and/or mutual authentication information.... a known secret cryptography association pattern may be applied during vehicle production or learnt by both the key and the vehicle);
wherein the second computing device (512) is configured to wake the second UWB communication circuitry from a low power state in response to the BLE communication (IC 530 communicates through IC 534 that utilizes BLE, Fig. 5, [0034] In this example, it is envisaged that the RF TRx IC 534 may utilize Bluetooth Long Term evolution (BLE TM) technology at 2.4 GHz. The key 520 also includes a UWB IC 550 that includes a transceiver (TRx) IC 552 that is configured to operate in the GHz frequency range and is coupled to the PKE IC via a serial-parallel interface 540, [0044] At 615, a wake-up of the BCU in the vehicle 510 is performed, for example BCU 512 in FIG. 5. At 620 the PKE IC 530 in the key 520 receives the acknowledgement message transmission from the vehicle 510 and powers up the on-board UWB ranging radio circuit or function in UWB IC 550 of FIG. 5);
wherein the first computing device is further configured to determine a location of the second computing device (512) relative to the first computing device (520) based on at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device (Fig. 5, [0044] "In accordance with example embodiments, and at 625, a UWB ranging circuit 554 and/or function in UWB IC 550 of the key 520 instigates a ranging process to determine a distance between the vehicle 510 and the key 520; [0036] Upon receipt of the response message, the ranging circuit 554 passes both the ranging signal and the response message to the processor circuit 556 in order to determine whether (or not) the key 520 is located in the vicinity of the vehicle 510).
Spiess doesn’t disclose wherein the first computing device is configured to communicate an alert to the second computing device in response to a determination that the second computing device is approaching the passageway.
In the related field of controlling access to a home Child discloses the first computing device is configured to communicate an alert to the second computing device in response to a determination that the second computing device is approaching the passageway (the sensor 125 can be user location detector that communicate with automation 105 to detect the authorized area, Fig. 1, [0044] sensors 125-a-1 and 125-a-2 and other features of environment 100, determining a location of one or more persons relative to the home, determining an intended action of the person (e.g., opening or closing a door or window), and determining whether to permit the intended action and/or trigger an alarm if the action is not authorized or is performed by an unauthorized person. Triggering an alarm may include sending a notice to, for example, police, security personnel, an owner or person responsible for the home, or a person attempting to perform the action (e.g., operate barrier 115), [0045] Data received from locking device 120 and/or sensors 125-a-1 and 125-a-2 may be used to help determine on which side of the barrier the operator is positioned and/or which components of locking device 120 are being actuated (e.g., a handle or switch positioned on and outside or inside of the barrier 115), and whether a person is authorized or unauthorized to access a barrier, [0125] an alert message may be sent notifying of the user approaching the barrier, of any user attempts to gain access to the barrier, and/or if access of the barrier occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spiess with Child using an alert in order to increase the security of an area which needs permission from a control center, as suggested by Child ([0006]).
Claims 24-26 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess and Child, further in view of Diehl et al. (Diehl; US 20020196123 A1).
23>Regarding Claims 24 and 34, Spiess doesn’t disclose maintaining a lock mechanism of the access control device in a default unlocked state; and transitioning the lock mechanism of the access control device to a locked state in response to determining that the second computing device is approaching the passageway and the user of the second computing device is unauthorized to access the passageway.
In the same field of endeavor, Diehl discloses a portable locking systems that primarily provide for the controlled entrance into lockable structures such as home cabinets. The portable locking systems comprise a portable transmitter and a portable receiver wherein the portable receiver preferably has a locking mechanism connected to the receiver.
Diehl discloses maintaining a lock mechanism of the access control device in a default unlocked state; and transitioning the lock mechanism of the access control device to a locked state in response to determining that the second computing device is approaching the passageway and the user of the second computing device is unauthorized to access the passageway ([0044]-[0045] the default state of the locking mechanism is typically in the "unlocked" state whereby the presence of an "unauthorized entity" carrying or wearing the transmitter will trigger the locking of the locking mechanism so that the "unauthorized entity" (e.g., a toddler) is denied access to a lockable structure such as a home cabinet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spiess and Child with Diehl using an unlocked state, in order to provide safety and an effective manner of protecting individuals, as suggested by Diehl ([0009]-[0010]).
24>Regarding Claims 25 and 35, Diehl discloses transitioning the lock mechanism of the access control device back to the default unlocked state in response to determining that the second computing device is outside of a predefined region relative to the access control device ([0044]-[0045]).
24>Regarding Claims 26 and 36, Diehl discloses transitioning the lock mechanism of the access control device back into the default unlocked state in response to determining that no unauthorized users are within a predefined region relative to the access control device ([0044]-[0045]).
Claims 27 and 37, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess, Child and Diehl, further in view of Love et al. (Love; US 2018/0315262 A1),.
26>Regarding Claims 27 and 37, Spiess discloses wherein the predefined region is defined by at 625, a UWB ranging circuit 554 and/or function in UWB IC 550 of the key 520 instigates a ranging process to determine a distance between the vehicle 510 and the key 520), but doesn’t teach an angle.
In the same field of endeavor, Love discloses a method for determining, by an access control device that controls access to a passageway, a location of a mobile device relative to the access control device based on a signal distance traveled and an angle of arrival of a signal received by the access control device from the mobile device, determining whether the location of the mobile device relative to the access control device is a location that indicates an intent of the user of the mobile device to access the passageway, and unlocking a lock mechanism of the access control device in response.
Love discloses an angle of arrival (810 of Fig 8, [0064] If a nearby mobile device 104 has been detected, the method 800 advances to block 806 in which the gateway device 108 determines a location of the mobile device 104 relative to the gateway device 108 (e.g., based on a signal distance traveled, or an estimation thereof, and an angle of arrival of a signal received by an antenna array 122 of the gateway device 108 from the mobile device 104)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spiess with Love using an angle of arrival in order to provide more accurate determinations of when to unlock a passageway at the correct time.
Claims 28 and 38, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess and Child, further in view of Kim et al. (Kim; KR 20190026537 A).
22>Regarding Claims 28 and 38, Child discloses wherein evaluating the access credential comprises determining that the user of the second computing device is authorized to access the passageway; and wherein communicating the alert to the second computing device comprises communicating an alert that the user of the second computing device ([0044]-[0045]), but doesn’t specify approaching an unsafe area.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses an internet of things cone comprising an alarm; a short range wireless communication module; and sensors for sensing whether a worker approaches a sensing area around the Internet of things cone; and a control part for controlling the alarm part so as to generate an alarm signal in response to the sensing signal.
Kim discloses an alert when approaching an unsafe area (page 6 generating an alarm using a safety check device when an authorized worker approaches a dangerous area according to an embodiment of the present invention. The authorized worker in this specification may mean an operator who wears or holds the safety check device 200 and has an operator ID registered for identifying the worker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spiess with Kim in order to warn workers of dangerous areas or dangerous conditions they may not be aware of.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Arguments:
A. Applicant argues that contrary to the Office Action's assertions, the Applicant respectfully submits that Child fails to remedy the deficiencies. For example, Child's system is a home automation/security system that generates an alarm when unauthorized persons attempt to gain access and sends notifications (e.g., to police, security personnel, or a person attempting the action). However, Child's "alert" is generated by the barrier control module (home automation system) and sent to security personnel or authorized persons-not from the first computing device (access control device) to the second computing device (mobile device of the approaching user) as claimed. Child's barrier control module sends a notice to police, security personnel, an owner, or the person attempting to access the barrier, but there is no disclosure that the alert is sent back to the approaching user's computing device via the established communication link. As such, Child fails to teach or suggest "communicating, from the first computing device, an alert to the second computing device in response to determining that the second computing device is approaching the passageway" as recited in independent claim 21. Neither Spiess nor Child, whether considered alone or in combination, teaches a first computing device associated with an access control device that communicates an alert back to the approaching mobile device via BLE/UWB.
It is respectfully submitted that Child discloses communicating, from the first computing device, an alert to the second computing device in response to determining that the second computing device is approaching the passageway ([0044] sensors 125-a-1 and 125-a-2 and other features of environment 100, determining a location of one or more persons relative to the home, determining an intended action of the person (e.g., opening or closing a door or window), and determining whether to permit the intended action and/or trigger an alarm if the action is not authorized or is performed by an unauthorized person. Triggering an alarm may include sending a notice to, for example, police, security personnel, an owner or person responsible for the home, or a person attempting to perform the action (e.g., operate barrier 115), [0125] an alert message may be sent notifying of the user approaching the barrier, of any user attempts to gain access to the barrier, and/or if access of the barrier occurs).
Child teaches that the alarm 225 may communicate with a remote device related to a condition of the property being monitored ([0058]). Therefore, Child reads on the limitation.
B. Applicant argues that the Office Action further asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Spiess with Child "in order to efficiently increase the security measures for an area that requires permission from a controller." (See Office Action, p. 7). In so asserting, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has failed to set forth a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Instead, the Office Action has essentially made the conclusory assertion that the combination "would have been obvious.”
The Applicant respectfully submits that "[s]uch a conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding that there would have been a motivation to combine." (See In re Marcel Van Os, No. 2015-1975 (Fed. Cir. 2017), slip op. at 5; see also Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[T]o invoke 'common sense' or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, [the Examiner] must articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review."). In particular, the alleged motivation fails to articulate why a person of ordinary skill would modify Spiess's vehicle PKE system which is designed for secure keyless entry-to incorporate Child's home automation alarm module. Spiess already provides its own security measures (e.g., distance-based access denial), and the Office Action has not articulated how adding Child's alarm (i.e., directed to security personnel) would teach communicating an alert from the first computing device to the second computing device (the key/mobile device itself).
It is respectfully submitted that, as cited in the rejection it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spiess with Child using an alert in order to efficiently increase the security measures for an area that requires permission from a controller.
The motivations for combination provided in the rejection relates specifically to rationale provided for it to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references to meet the claimed invention. The cited motivations are not merely speculation, but are known and established benefits of efficient communication. The obvious modification identified in the rejection is not merely a conclusory statement but has explicitly articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S RUSHING whose telephone number is (571)270-5876. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK S RUSHING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
