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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trundle et al. (US Pub 2022/0070415) in view of Bathory-Frota et al. (US Pub 2023/0298079).
As of claim 1, Trundle discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining an access condition (via detecting a person within a threshold distance of a premises; see figs. 1 and 2);
assessing a situation based on the access condition (via identifying the person; see paragraphs [0099]-[0100]);
resolving an access event to identify a resolution based on the situation (via determining if access should be allowed or more actions need to be performed; see paragraphs [0101]-[0102]); and
With regards to the limitation of providing an application programming interface, the Examiner would like to point out that this is a standalone limitation in the claim and it is not tied to the other limitations. Further based on fig. 3, the system will have an application programming interface to communicate with the monitoring server. Further the smart home application will utilize REST, WebSocket or RPC API for sending commands and receiving status from the control unit).
In order to further support the Examiner’s assertion, Bathory-Frota discloses an access control system wherien an application programming interface (API) is used to access history log portion of a database 104 (see fig. 7; also see paragraph [0045]).
From the teaching of Bathory-Frota 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 Trundle to include the function of API as taught by Bathory-Frota in order to securely retrieve data from the database.
As of claim 2, Trundle discloses the step of obtaining the access condition comprises detecting a pre-access event (via detecting a person within a threshold distance of a premises; see fig. 2).
As of claim 3, Trundle discloses the step of detecting the pre-access event comprises detecting a person within a zone (via detecting a person within a threshold distance of a premises; see fig. 2).
As of claim 4, Trundle discloses assessing the situation comprises identifying the person as a member or a non-member, based on an identity pack (via identifying the person; see paragraphs [0099]-[0100]).
As of claim 5, Trundle discloses that obtaining the access condition comprises determining an occupancy of a zone during the access event (via disclosing that the access control system 102 can determine whether to allow the person to access the shared space based on whether another person is in the shared space, less than a threshold quantity of people are in the shared space, or another appropriate criteria; see paragraph [0057]).
As of claim 6, Trundle discloses that the resolution comprises determining whether to enable or disable an identity challenge (via disclosing that the access control system 102 determines that the likelihood does not satisfy the threshold likelihood, e.g., is less than or equal to or either, the access control system 102 can determine to skip performing an action, or to notify another person at the premises; see paragraph [0044]).
As of claim 7, Trundle discloses that the resolution comprises determining whether to grant or deny access (via determining whether to grant or deny access; see paragraph [0059]).
As of claim 8, Trundle discloses that the resolution comprises one or more post-access reactions (via performing actions after allowing access; see paragraph [0102]).
As of claim 9, Bathory-Frota discloses that the application programming interface enables restricted access to an event log that records at least one of the access conditions, the situation, or the resolution (via using an application programming interface (API) to access history log portion of a database 104; see fig. 7; also see paragraph [0045]).
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.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trundle et al. (US Pub 2022/0070415).
As of claim 10, Trundle discloses a system, comprising:
a sensor layer configured to communicate with sensors (via access control system 102 receiving data from sensors 106/108, hence comprising a sensor layer; see paragraph [0034]);
a situation assessment layer configured to assess a situation based on the sensor layer (via access prediction engine 110 assessing a situation based on the sensed data hence comprising a situation assessment layer; see paragraph [0035]);
an access resolution layer configured to determine access resolutions based on the situation assessment layer (via access prediction engine 110 determining if access should be allowed or more actions need to be performed, hence comprising an access resolution layer; see paragraphs [0101]-[0102]); and
an application layer configured to control access to at least one of the sensor layer, the situation assessment layer, or the access resolution layer (via smart home application configured to receiver and process image and sensor data, hence comprising an application layer; see paragraph [0164]).
As of claim 11, Trundle discloses that the sensor layer is configured to obtain sensed data from multiple physical access resolution devices associated with multiple zones (via access control system 102 receiving sensor data from plurality of sensors 106 and cameras 108; see paragraphs [0034]).
As of claim 12, Trundle discloses that the situation assessment layer is further configured to detect a first person attempting to access a physical threshold within a first zone, based on the sensed data associated with the first zone (via detecting a person within a threshold distance of a premises; see figs. 1 and 2).
As of claim 13, Trundle discloses that the situation assessment layer is further configured to determine whether a second zone different than the first zone is occupied by a second person different than the first person (via disclosing that the access control system 102 can determine whether to allow the person to access the shared space based on whether another person is in the shared space, less than a threshold quantity of people are in the shared space, or another appropriate criteria; see paragraph [0057]).
As of claim 14, Trundle discloses that the situation assessment layer is further configured to assess the situation according to at least a first confidence level and a second confidence level (via determining a likelihood that the person may enter the premises and compare the likelihood with a threshold likelihood and performing different actions based on the determination; see paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
As of claim 15, Trundle discloses that the access resolution layer is configured to trigger a first access resolution at the first confidence level, and trigger a second access resolution at the second confidence level (via determining a likelihood that the person may enter the premises and compare the likelihood with a threshold likelihood and performing different actions based on the determination; see paragraphs [0036]-[0038] and [0044]).
As of claim 16, Trundle discloses A physical access resolution device, comprising:
a sensor (via sensor 106/camera 108; see fig. 1)
a network interface (via network module 314; see fig. 3);
a lock mechanism (via electronic lock; see paragraph [0130]);
a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by the processor (via controller 312; see paragraph 0126]), cause the physical access resolution device to:
sense first data via the sensor (via detecting a person within a threshold distance of a premises; see figs. 1 and 2);
assess a situation based on the first data (via identifying the person; see paragraphs [0099]-[0100]);
determine an access resolution based on the situation (via determining if access should be allowed or more actions need to be performed; see paragraphs [0101]-[0102]); and
communicate via the network interface (via communicating via network module 314; see paragraph [0127]).
As of claim 17, Trundle discloses a local identity pack data structure and where the situation is assessed based on the local identity pack data structure (via identifying the person; see paragraphs [0099]- [0100]).
As of claim 18, Trundle discloses a local access plan data structure and where the access resolution is determined based on the local access plan data structure (via disclosing that the access control system 102 can use the risk factor or other data, e.g., described in this document, to determine an amount of access to the premises 104 for the person. When the person has a high-risk factor, the access control system 102 can provide the person access to a minimal portion of the premises 104, such as a controlled package drop off area, a garage, or both. The controlled package drop off area can be a room, e.g., a foyer, a lobby, or a waiting room; or an area in or around the premises, e.g., a back deck, hence comprising a local access plan data structure; see paragraph [0102]).
As of claim 19, Trundle discloses that the first data is further communicated to a sensor layer of a system via the network interface (via communicating sensed data from sensors to controller via network module, since controller process the sensed data it comprises a sensor layer; see fig. 3; also see paragraph [0129]).
As of claim 20, Trundle discloses that the situation is further assessed based on second data communicated from a situation assessment layer of a system via the network interface (via assessing based on additional access constraints before enabling the person's access to the physical environment. The additional access constraints can include whether the person is wearing particular protective clothing, has received certain immunizations, does not have more than a threshold likelihood of being sick, or another appropriate constraint; see paragraph [0005]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
obtaining an access condition;
assessing a situation based on the access condition;
resolving an access event to identify a resolution based on the situation; and
providing an application programming interface.
The abstract idea is directed to the “obtaining step”, “assessing step” and the “resolving step”.
The remainder steps are then analyzed in Prong 2 of step 2a.
Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The same steps are then analyzed in Step 2b.
Step 2b. The additional steps do not add significantly more and do not seem to be unconventional elements or unconventional combination of elements. The claim recites the step of obtaining information and deleting (revoking), which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking) component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As of claim 1, claim includes additional element “providing an application programming interface” simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 further recite human activity and hence do not add any particular machine, particular transformation or meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more and therefore they are rejected as well.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gideon (US Pub 2021/0166303) discloses an access control system utilizing APIs 140 to retain record of locking device 106 (see fig. 1).
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
Prosecution Insights