Detailed Action
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are pending, and claim 8 is cancelled.
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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim has a grammatical error in subject-verb relationship as it reads “wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to provide the access information to the inquired person terminal so that the inquired person is able to present the access information as image data to the inquiry requester terminal”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation is construed to mean “wherein the processor (is) configured to execute the instructions to provide the access information to the inquired person terminal so that the inquired person is able to present the access information as image data to the inquiry requester terminal” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ANDERSON (US 20210035394 A1).
ANDERSON provides in regard to [Claim 1] An information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (ANDERSON “[0081] As shown in FIG. 14, the processing circuit 1202 has a processor 1204 and a memory 1206… In some embodiments, the processor 1204 is configured to execute computer code stored in the memory 1206 to facilitate the activities described herein. The memory 1206 may be any volatile or non-volatile computer-readable storage medium capable of storing data or computer code relating to the activities described herein. According to an exemplary embodiment, the memory 1206 includes computer code modules (e.g., executable code, object code, source code, script code, machine code, etc.) configured for execution by the processor 1204.”): issue access information in response to a request from an inquired person terminal and transmit the issued access information to at least one of the inquired person terminal and an inquiry requester terminal different from the inquired person terminal(ANDERSON [0058] “The locking system 1300 may be configured to allow or disallow certain functionality based on the trust level of a respective user device 1900 requesting access thereto.”); in a case where access based on the access information and inquiry data of the inquired person are received from the inquiry requester terminal, check the inquiry data against member data stored in advance in a predetermined storage apparatus and receive a result of the checking; and output the result of the checking to the inquiry requester terminal (ANDERSON [0057] “…the user profile may contain a user schedule of when an associated locking system 1300 may be accessed (unlocked, locked, etc.)… For example, a schedule may specify the time spans in which the associated locking system 1300 may be unlocked via the user device 1900 of the specific user associated with the user profile.”, [0058] “The locking system 1300 may be configured to allow or disallow certain functionality based on the trust level of a respective user device 1900 requesting access thereto. The trust level may be stored as an independent permission that the user may or may not have access to (e.g., the trust level may be managed/adjusted by the software of the locking system 1300, the user device 1900, the door server 1700, etc.). As an example, only a highly trusted user device 1900 may be able to upgrade the firmware of a respective locking system 1300 or change certain settings.”).
ANDERSON provides in regard to [Claim 2] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a predetermined condition is set in advance in the access information, and access based on the access information is received from the inquiry requester terminal in a state where the predetermined condition is satisfied (ANDERSON [0057] “For example, the user profile may contain a user schedule of when an associated locking system 1300 may be accessed (unlocked, locked, etc.). The schedule may specify lock access permissions, e.g., by day of the week, including starting times (hours, minutes, etc.) and ending times (hours, minutes, etc.) for each corresponding permission. For example, a schedule may specify the time spans in which the associated locking system 1300 may be unlocked via the user device 1900 of the specific user associated with the user profile.”).
ANDERSON provides in regard to [Claim 3] The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition related to restriction of access from the inquiry requester terminal based on the access information (ANDERSON [0057] “For example, the user profile may contain a user schedule of when an associated locking system 1300 may be accessed (unlocked, locked, etc.). The schedule may specify lock access permissions, e.g., by day of the week, including starting times (hours, minutes, etc.) and ending times (hours, minutes, etc.) for each corresponding permission. For example, a schedule may specify the time spans in which the associated locking system 1300 may be unlocked via the user device 1900 of the specific user associated with the user profile.”).
ANDERSON provides in regard to [Claim 4] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein attribute data related to a member is associated with the member data, and in a case where the checking of the inquiry data has been successfully performed, at least one of the result of the checking of the inquiry data and attribute data of the inquired person is output(ANDERSON [0057] “According to an exemplary embodiment, the door server 1700 is configured to manage a plurality of access credentials or user profiles for one or more users that have access to the locking system 1300, the camera system 1400, and/or the controller 1500 of the electronic door assembly 1100. In general, a user profile may include one or more files that include data related to operation of the locking system 1300, the camera system 1400, and/or the controller 1500. For example, the user profile may contain a user schedule of when an associated locking system 1300 may be accessed (unlocked, locked, etc.). The schedule may specify lock access permissions, e.g., by day of the week, including starting times (hours, minutes, etc.) and ending times (hours, minutes, etc.) for each corresponding permission. For example, a schedule may specify the time spans in which the associated locking system 1300 may be unlocked via the user device 1900 of the specific user associated with the user profile.”).
ANDERSON provides in regard to [Claim 5] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the storage apparatus associates an identification number with the member data and manages the associated data (ANDERSON [0057] “According to an exemplary embodiment, the door server 1700 is configured to manage a plurality of access credentials or user profiles for one or more users that have access to the locking system 1300, the camera system 1400, and/or the controller 1500 of the electronic door assembly 1100. In general, a user profile may include one or more files that include data related to operation of the locking system 1300, the camera system 1400, and/or the controller 1500.”, [0058] “A user profile may further specify a model/serial number of the associated locking system 1300 and what types of accesses are available for that user.”), and the processor further configured to execute the instructions to receive an identification number of the inquired person from the inquired person terminal and change an order of the member data to be checked with the inquiry data in accordance with the received identification number(ANDERSON [0062 “In other embodiments, secure communication is otherwise established using a different authentication scheme such as an authentication scheme that employs digital signatures, challenge-response procedures, multi-factor authentication (e.g., two-factor authentication, user profile plus a biometric, a user profile plus a PIN, etc.), and/or still other suitable authentication schemes.”, [0090] “The user interface 1328 may include a display screen and/or one or more user input devices (e.g., touch screens, buttons, microphones, speakers, displays, a keypad, a directional pad, etc.) to allow a user to interact with the locking system 1300. By way of an example, the user interface 1328 may facilitate waking the locking system 1300 from a sleep mode. By way of another example, the user interface 1328 may facilitate manually entering an unlock combination.”).
ANDERSON provides in regard to [Claim 7] The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inquiry data includes biometric information acquired from the inquired person by the inquiry requester terminal(ANDERSON 0098] “In other embodiments, secure communication is otherwise established by the access control circuit 1310 using a different authentication scheme such as an authentication scheme that employs digital signatures, challenge-response procedures, multi-factor authentication (e.g., two-factor authentication, user profile plus a biometric, a user profile plus a PIN, etc.), and/or still other suitable authentication schemes.”).
Claims 9 and 10 recite substantially similar limitations and claim 1, in the forms of a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program such as demonstrated by ANDERSON (ANDERSON [0005] “Still another embodiment relates to a method for automatically registering an electronic locking mechanism.”, [0081] “In some embodiments, the processor 1204 is configured to execute computer code stored in the memory 1206 to facilitate the activities described herein. The memory 1206 may be any volatile or non-volatile computer-readable storage medium capable of storing data or computer code relating to the activities described herein.”). Thus, claims 9 and 10 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON in view of PROSTKO (US 20200168017 A1).
Regarding claim 6, ANDERSON teaches the limitations previously demonstrated, however does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations demonstrated by PROSTKO: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to provide the access information to the inquired person terminal so that the inquired person is able to present the access information as image data to the inquiry requester terminal(PROSTKO [0046] “For example, in some embodiments, the wall-mounted monitoring devices 108, 310 may include a camera configured to capture images of user's in the vicinity of the barrier 302 (e.g., images of users attempting to pass through the passageway 304) and/or an anti-tailgating device configured to monitor whether unauthorized tailgating has occurred…. As described herein, the images and/or audio of the users may be used as biometric data for multifactor authentication.”, [0050] “For example, as described above, the access control system 100 may perform authentication based on one or more features in the user's possession (e.g., a physical and/or virtual credential), based on one or more features of the user (e.g., biometrics), based on one or more features known to the user (e.g., historical information, PIN, passcode, etc.), and/or other relevant features. As such, in block 504, the access control system 100 may receive and process biometric data of the user.”).
Since both ANDERSON and PROSTKO are from the same field of endeavor as both are directed to detection of identity-based access control, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine the teachings of ANDERSON and PROSTKO by incorporating the teachings of PROSTKO into ANDERSON for improving the security of access functions as claimed. The motivation to combine is to improve security of identity-based access controls (ANDERSON [AB], PROSTKO [AB]). This motivation is equally applicable to rejections hereafter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
GALLAGHER; Anne US 20210272405 A1 disclose methods, apparatuses, and computer readable media for controlling access including receiving authentication information associated with a user, determining whether the user is authorized to access the access-controlled point based on the authentication information, retrieving, in response to determining the user is authorized to access the access-controlled point, customized action information associated with the user, transmitting, to the access-controlled point, an unlock message comprising an indicator to grant the user the access to the access-controlled point, and performing one or more customized actions based on the customized action information. [AB]
Jarvi; Ari US 20190139385 A1 disclose a smart security management system for managing the flow of people through security checkpoints in order to optimize overall throughput and efficiency. In an embodiment, the system includes a centralized database which is connected to a plurality of security checkpoints and which uses benchmark response data generated by a specific type of screening devices for a set of individuals. In an embodiment, the response data gathered by similar types of screening devices located at security checkpoints is compared with the benchmark response data stored in a centralized database to provide faster security clearance to individuals. [AB]
Fukami; Shuji US 20180174076 A1 disclose a system and method for providing authenticated access for a user to a restricted physical space via a mobile device is described. The system employs a smartphone application, which facilitates a user's reservation of a selected seat and space within a shared space. The shared space is equipped with a lock interfaced with a secured server, which is configured to unlock upon an authenticated request for entry by a user with a reservation. Biometric and/or pin authenticated means of entry are provided via the application as well as a pin pad disposed on a control module. Sensors disposed in or near the seats available for reservation are configured to detect a human presence employing the reserved space, which confirm the presence of a user, and monitor unauthorized use. A timeclock of the server records the duration of time spent within the shared space, and bills users accordingly. [AB]
DAY; Garrett US 20170295180 A1 disclose control of access by a requesting entity to an asset includes defining an approved state of the requesting entity. A validation of a representation of the approved state of in a non-repudiatable form in obtained from an event validation system. The requesting entity is triggered to determine its current state by an access-control entity, which compares the current state with the approved state and allows access by the requesting entity to the asset only if the current state is the same as the approved state. In a pre-authorization procedure, one or both of the entities issues a data set challenge to the other, which then validates the challenge via the event validation system and returns this validation to the challenging entity, which then checks the validation to see if it is correct. Data sets may be validated, for example, with hash tree based signatures or blockchain entries. [AB]
Barry; Patrick J. US 20160308859 A1 disclose a device, system, and method for multi-factor multi-biometric access control that authenticate a user based on at least one of what the user knows, what the user possesses and what unique physical, biological and physiological or biometric traits the user has, wherein the device includes a single sensor from which multi-biometric data is derived. [AB]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kamryn Gillespie whose telephone number is 703-756-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9am to 6pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/K.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/TECHANE GERGISO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights