DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4-5 objected to because of the following informalities: In particular, claim 4 recites “wherein a licence plate number is used as the ticket”, however it should recite “wherein a license plate number is used as the ticket. Claim 5 has the same issue. 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.
Claim(s) 11 is 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.
In particular, claim 11 recites “wherein the buffer of the access system stores up to 100 first unique identifiers, optionally up to 50 first unique identifiers” however the use of the word optionally makes the limitation indefinite.
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, 7-11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellenbogen et al (“Ellenbogen”, US 20220262185 A1) in view of Friedli (US 20200126338 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 13, Ellenbogen discloses a system for identifying a person and/or a vehicle (Figs. 11-12), comprising: a mobile device (Fig. 12: step 1210). ¶¶43-45, 61-70; Fig. 10: step 1060 configured to store a first unique identifier of the person and/or the vehicle (Ellenbogen discloses, in ¶63 that the proximity data (PD) may be a unique identifier associated with the user of the personal electronic device (PED which may be an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI) number of the PED. The IMEI is a unique 15-digit code that precisely identifies the device with the SIM card input which are known to be stored within PED(s)); an access system including a video camera (Fig. 12), the access system configured to generate a video stream of a vicinity of the access system using the video (¶70), identify persons and/or vehicles in the generated video stream (¶¶70-72), and generate second unique identifiers of the persons and/or vehicles using a function for the identified persons and/or vehicles (¶72 discloses using stored face images to use in determining the individual identity proximate the inspection system 105 based on the detected proximity), wherein the mobile is configured to send the first unique identifier to the access system (¶63; Figs. 10 and 12). As per the limitation the access system including a buffer configured to store the first unique identifier sent from the mobile device. Ellenbogen discloses, in ¶¶79-81, a process of filtering identification information for current or expected individuals near an inspection system 105. Friedli discloses, in ¶45-52, the concept of using a buffer to store identification data of individual who want to gain access to a location. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a buffer to store identification data of individual who want to gain access to a location, with the motivation to enhance access control features of the system. As per the limitation wherein access system is configured to compare the second unique identifiers with the first unique identifier for verifying an identity of the person and/or the vehicle (¶72 discloses using stored face images to use in determining the individual identity proximate the inspection system 105 based on the detected proximity; Friedli: ¶¶45-52), and wherein the access system is configured to generate a confirmation signal if the comparison verifies the identity of the person and/or the vehicle (Friedli: ¶48), wherein the mobile device is configured to store a ticket (Ellenbogen: ¶64), the ticket being associated with the first unique identifier (Ellenbogen discloses, in ¶64, the use of multiple unique identifiers all of which are associated with the PED and/or owner of the PED, hence all the IMEI and digital code such as a code associated with a digital ticket providing entrance are associated to the identity of the individual), and wherein the mobile device is further configured to send the ticket to an authorization device when sending the first unique identifier to the access system (Ellenbogen: Figs. 10 and 12 with regard to the PD being provided once the individual is proximate to the inspection system 105, and Ellenbogen disclosing the use of a plurality of PD to be used IMEI, digital ticket codes etc.). 2) Regarding claim 7, wherein the access system further comprises an access control means for allowing or denying access to a restricted area, wherein the method further comprises step allowing access by the access control means if the confirmation signal is generated (Ellenbogen: ¶¶82-87; Friedli: ¶¶47-48). 3) Regarding claim 8, further comprising sending identification information of the person to the access system and wherein access by the access control means is allowed if the identification information is on a list of authorised persons stored with the authorization device (Ellenbogen: ¶¶78-88; Friedli: ¶¶47-48). 4) Regarding claim 9, wherein access by the access control means is allowed if the ticket is valid (Ellenbogen: ¶¶45-46; Friedli: ¶¶3-4). 5) Regarding claim 10, wherein the mobile device communicates with the access system using short-range wireless technology (Ellenbogen: ¶¶66-67). 6) Regarding claim 11, wherein the buffer of the access system stores up to 100 first unique identifiers, optionally up to 50 first unique identifiers (Friedli discloses, in ¶¶50-52, that only devices detected in the radio range of the access system identifiers are stored on the buffer. Friedli Fig. 1 illustrates multiple device communicating the system of access area 12, which suggest if 50 mobile devices are within the radio range all 50 would provide their identifier to the buffer device. One skill in the art would be motivated to enable multiple devices (e.g. 50-100 devices) to ensure all device seeking access are queued in the buffer to permit access if authorized).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellenbogen in view of Friedli, and in further view of Neill et al. (Neill”, US 20210209877 A1). 1) Regarding claim 14, Ellenbogen and Friedli with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 13 teach a method for identifying a person (16) and/or a vehicle (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 13), the method being executed by an access system and comprising: a) searching for mobile devices in a vicinity of the access system (Ellenbogen: Figs. 10 & 12; Friedli: ¶¶45-61). As per the limitation if a mobile device is found, sending a request to the mobile device to have the mobile device send a first unique identifier of the person and/or the vehicle to the access system. Ellenbogen discloses, in ¶66, using Bluetooth communication protocol. Friedli discloses, in ¶51, using Bluetooth communication protocol during proximity detection. Neill discloses, in ¶78, the concept of requesting a mobile devices identifier, via Bluetooth communication protocol, when performing identity determination. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of requesting a mobile devices identifier, via Bluetooth communication protocol, when performing identity determination, with the motivation to enhance the communication features of the system. As per the limitation b) receiving the first unique identifier from the mobile device and storing the first unique identifier in a buffer of the access system (Friedli: ¶¶45-61); receiving a ticket stored on the mobile device (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 13, in view of Ellenbogen discloses, in ¶64, the use of multiple unique identifiers all of which are associated with the PED and/or owner of the PED), the ticket being associated with the first unique identifier (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 13); c) generating a video stream of a vicinity of the access system using a video camera of the access system (Ellenbogen: ¶61-73; Fig. 12; Friedli: ¶¶45-61; Neill: ¶42), identifying persons and/or vehicles in the generated video stream (Ellenbogen: ¶61-73; Fig. 12; Friedli: ¶¶45-61; Neill: ¶42), and generating second unique identifiers of the persons (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 13) and/or vehicles using a function for the identified persons (16) and/or vehicles (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 13); d) comparing the second unique identifiers with the first unique identifier for verifying an identity of the person (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 13); and e) creating a confirmation signal by the access system if the comparison of the second unique identifiers with the first unique identifier verifies the identity of the person (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 13).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellenbogen in view of Friedli, and in further view of McClendon et al. (“McClendon”, US 20230138613 A1). 1) Regarding claim 2, wherein the mobile device includes a camera, and further comprising: obtaining an image of the person and processing the obtained image for generating the first unique identifier using the function. Ellenbogen discloses, in ¶¶68-69, that the PD data may be data needed for facial recognition to determine the identity of an individual. McClendon discloses, in ¶¶30-31, 40-41, 45-49 with reference to Figs. 1-2, 9 & 14, the concept of providing a camera to a mobile device to obtain a photograph of a user to provide the photos for facial recognition features (corresponding to a function) to enable the access control system to enable the user to access a location. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a camera to a mobile device to obtain a photograph of a user to provide the photos for facial recognition features to enable the access control system to enable the user to access a location, with the motivation to enhance the identity detection features of the system. As per the limitation detecting faces in the video stream and generating facial recognition data of the detected faces as the second unique identifier (Ellenbogen: ¶¶69-76; Friedli: ¶¶36, 40-41, 46-48). 2) Regarding claim 3, wherein the processing of the obtained image is executed on the mobile device or on an external computing device in data communication with the mobile device (Friedli: ¶40).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellenbogen in view of Friedli, and in further view of Lin et al. (“Lin”, US 20100052947 A1). 1) Regarding claim 4, wherein a licence plate number is used as the ticket. Lin discloses, in ¶¶4-6, the concept of using video scanning features to recognize a license plate (corresponding to an access ticket) to permit access to a location. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using video scanning features to recognize a license plate to permit access to a location, with the motivation to enhance the identity features of the system.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellenbogen in view of Friedli and Lin, and in further view of McClendon. 1) Regarding claim 5, further comprising: manually inputting the licence plate number (17b) as the first unique identifier. Lin discloses the of a license plate as accessing identifying data. McClendon discloses, in ¶¶30-31, , the concept of using the graphical user interface of a mobile device to input user determined identification verification information. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using the graphical user interface of a mobile device to input user determined identification verification information, with the motivation to enhance the identification selection features of the system. As per the limitation detecting licence plates in the video stream and generating licence plate numbers of the detected licence plates as the second unique identifier (Lin: ¶18; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 6 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellenbogen in view of Friedli, and in further view of Schneider et al. (“Schneider”, US 20210350642 A1). 1) Regarding claim 6, wherein the confirmation signal is generated in step e) if a confidence level of the comparison is above a threshold value. Schneider discloses, in ¶62, the concept of using confidence level greater than a predetermined threshold to permit access. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using confidence level greater than a predetermined threshold to permit access, with the motivation to enhance the access controls features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 12, further comprising sending the first unique identifier Bluetooth Low Energy. Ellenbogen discloses, in ¶¶66-67, using Bluetooth. Schneider discloses, in ¶79, the concept of using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communications protocol. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communications protocol, with the motivation to enhance the energy usage features of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2014124529 A1; US 20160343187 A1, system using video capture to permit access to a secure location/item. US 20130061307 A1, system using buffering features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 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, 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights