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 application of Shin et al. for an “access control system and access control method using the same” filed on June 9, 2025 has been examined.
This application claims foreign priority based on the application 10-2018-0026202 filed on March 6, 2018 and on the application 10-2018-0026203 filed on March 6, 2018 in Korea. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a) – (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
This application is a CON of 18/427,698 filed on January 30, 2024, now US# 12,347,251,
which is a CON of 17/939,827 filed on September 7, 2022, now US# 11,887,417,
which is a CON of 16/930,284 filed on July 15, 2020, now US# 11,462,063,
which is a CON of 16/137,380 filed on September 20, 2018, now US# 10,755,500.
This application claims priority to U.S. provisional application number 62/582,070, which is filed on November 6, 2017.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Under cross references to related applications CON status needs to be incorporated.
This application is a CON of 18/427,698 filed on January 30, 2024, now US# 12,347,251,
which is a CON of 17/939,827 filed on September 7, 2022, now US# 11,887,417,
which is a CON of 16/930,284 filed on July 15, 2020, now US# 11,462,063,
which is a CON of 16/137,380 filed on September 20, 2018, now US# 10,755,500.
This application claims priority to U.S. provisional application number 62/582,070, which is filed on November 6, 2017.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 11-13, 15, 17-19 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blake et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0246583) in view of Lupovici (Pub. No. US 2017/0228953).
Referring to Claim 1, Blakes et al. disclose a sub-reader device (110/210/310) (i.e. a smart card reader) communicating with a reader device (120) (i.e. a relay module) such that the reader device (120/320) communicating using first communication protocol (112) (i.e. a wire encrypted communications) communicates with first device (810) (i.e. Read Tag Only) communicating using second communication protocol (i.e. a Radio Frequency) different from the first communication protocol (112) via the sub-reader device (110), wherein the second communication protocol is not supported by the reader device (120), the sub-reader device (110) (i.e. a smartcard reader 110, a relay module 120, and a door latch 130. In this embodiment, the door latch 130 and the relay module 120 are in the secure area, while the reader 110 is in the unsecured area. A smartcard may be used with the reader 110 to gain access to the secure area. If the smartcard is authorized for access, the relay module 120 actuates the door latch. Importantly, communications 112 between the reader 10 and the relay module 120 are encrypted. Any of a number of encryption techniques hereinafter may be practiced) (page 3 paragraph 0059; see Figures 1 to 16) comprising:
wherein whether the processor (i.e. a processor of the smart card reader 110) obtains the first request information is determined based on an authentication result based on at least one of an identification information of the first device (i.e. the smartcard reader 310 (i.e. the sub-reader device) has a database with correct code on board and is located on the unsecured side. The reader 310 communicates with the relay module 320 (i.e. the reader device) using encrypted communications. If a user attempts to access the secure area using the reader 310, the reader 310 looks up the user data in the database and determines the access level. If the user is permitted access, the reader 310 sends an access command to the relay module 320 via the encrypted communications. In turn, the relay module 320 on the secure side activates the door latch 330) (page 3 paragraph 0064; see Figures 1 and 3).
However, Blakes et al. did not explicitly disclose that a processor configured to obtain first request information using the second communication protocol from the first device, obtain second request information based on the first request information, and provide the second request information to the reader device using the first communication protocol,
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Lupovici teaches that a processor (330) configured to obtain first request information using the second communication protocol (320) from the first device (130), obtain second request information based on the first request information, and provide the second request information to the reader device (120) using the first communication protocol (340) (i.e. Basic readers 110-simply reads credential devices' identifiers and forwards it to the controller 120. Readers with control inputs/outputs—typically have inputs and outputs necessary to control door hardware (lock, door contact, exit button, etc.), but do not make any access decisions. When a user presents a credential device the reader sends information to the controller, and waits for its response. Intelligent readers (110)-have all inputs and outputs necessary to control door hardware and also have a computer readable memory and a data processer which can make access decisions. Although intelligent readers may make access decision, they may still be connected or connectable to the controller or the computing device. For example, the controller or computing device may send configuration updates and/or retrieve events from the readers. FIG. 3 illustrates a reader 110 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The desired functionality of the reader 110 in general dictates the required hardware in the reader 110, and the reader 110 may include additional elements not illustrated in FIG. 3 and/or some of the elements illustrated in FIG. 3 may be excluded (i.e., some elements are optional). The reader 110 includes one or more wakeup antennas 310 connected to one or more credential communication modules 320 for detecting the presents of the credential device 130. The wakeup antennas 310 may be any suitable radio frequency (RF) antenna or any other suitable antenna. In general, the one or more wakeup antennas 310 interact with the credential device 130 to wake-up the credential device 130 from a low-power standby mode to a mode when the credential device 130 is in range, which then allows for communications between the credential device 130 and the reader 110 via the one or more wakeup antennas 310. For instance, the one or more wakeup antennas 310 may communicate a low frequency (125 khz) wakeup pattern(s) to the credential device 130. The credential communication module 320 is used to communicate with the reader 110 via the antenna 310. The communication module 320 is connected to a data processor 330) (page 3 paragraphs 0046 to page 4 paragraph 0057; see Figures 1 and 3) in order to controls access to at least one access point in a retrofit access control system.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the credential device communicate with the reader using the reader communication module with the second protocol and forward signal to the controller using the controller communication module taught by Lupovici in the access control system that having the reader to looks up database and determine access level in order to send access command to the relay module to activates door latch of Blake et al. because having the credential device communicate with the reader using the reader communication module with the second protocol and forward signal to the controller using the controller communication module would provide the credential reader capable to operate with any exist door reader of the access control system.
Referring to Claim 2, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, Blakes et al. disclose wherein: a data format of the first request information is a first data format corresponding to the second communication protocol, and the sub-reader obtains the second request information by converting the data format of the first request information into a second data format corresponding to the first communication protocol (i.e. the cardholder must flash their smart card (810) at the entry to the tag reader (110) using the wireless communication protocol (i.e. a data format of the first request information). The relay module (120) (i.e. the reader) located in a secure area for receiving the encrypted communications from the smartcard reader (110), decrypting the encrypted communications, and comparing the decrypted communications to an expected code. The smart card reader (110) communicates with the relay module (120) using the RS485 interface (i.e. a second data format corresponding to the second communication method) (page 1 paragraph 0007; page 4 paragraphs 0075-77; see Figures 1 to 3 and 8-11).
Referring to Claim 3, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 2, Blakes et al. disclose wherein: the first request information and the second request information include detailed information (i.e. the encrypted communications (i.e. detailed information) from the reader in an unsecured area are decrypted, and the decrypted communications are compared to an expected code) (page 1 paragraphs 0012, 0015; page 4 paragraph 0075; see Figures 1 to 3).
Referring to Claim 4, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 3, Blakes et al. disclose wherein the detailed information includes at least one of user identification information, the first device identification information, authentication information, and security information (i.e. one smartcard can store all information (i.e. the expected code) needed for the access control system 200, as well as a biometric fingerprint template. If BanqueTec BT910 readers are used throughout a facility, a biometric verification can be enforced before access is granted. The database and interfacing to the master computer is done via the Storage Relay Module (SRM) 220) (page 4 paragraph 0075).
Referring to Claim 5, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, Blakes et al. disclose wherein the sub-reader device authenticates the first request information based on first information (i.e. the smartcard reader 310 has a database on board) (page 3 paragraph 0064; see Figures 1 and 3), wherein the first information is obtained from pre-stored in the sub-reader device (i.e. the smartcard reader 310 has a database on board) (page 3 paragraph 0064; see Figure 3), and wherein the second request information (i.e. the reader send access command) is provided to the reader device (310) when the first request information is authenticated (i.e. if the smartcard is authorized for access, the relay module 120 actuates the door latch. Importantly, communications 112 between the reader 10 and the relay module 120 are encrypted. Any of a number of encryption techniques hereinafter may be practiced) (page 3 paragraph 0059; see Figures 1 to 16).
Referring to Claim 6, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 5, Lupovici discloses wherein the sub-reader device obtains the second request information when the first request information is authenticated, and wherein the second request information includes a result of the authentication (i.e. when Mr. X with the credential device 130 approaches the reader 110, the reader 110 obtains the identifier from the credential device 130 (step 1701). Then at step 1702 it is determines if the user (Mr. X) is authorized to use the photocopier (at location "AAA"), which may including checking a database table 1711 (as illustrated in FIG. 17B) to determine if the user associated with the identifier is able to use the photocopier 1720) (page 35 paragraph 0347; see Figures 17A to 17F).
Referring to Claim 11, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 5, Blakes et al. disclose wherein the sub-reader (310) obtains the second request information including pre-stored security information when the first request information is authenticated (i.e. the smartcard reader 310 (i.e. the sub-reader device) has a database with correct code on board and is located on the unsecured side. The reader 310 communicates with the relay module 320 (i.e. the reader device) using encrypted communications. If a user attempts to access the secure area using the reader 310, the reader 310 looks up the user data in the database and determines the access level. If the user is permitted access, the reader 310 sends an access command to the relay module 320 via the encrypted communications. In turn, the relay module 320 on the secure side activates the door latch 330) (page 3 paragraph 0064; see Figures 1 and 3).
Referring to Claim 12, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, Blakes et al. disclose wherein when the reader device (120) is provided in an operating device (130) and the operating device (130) is door operating device for opening and closing a door, the first request information includes at least one of opening request information for the door and closing request information for the door (i.e. the reader 310 communicates with the relay module 320 (i.e. reader device) using encrypted communications. If a user attempts to access the secure area using the reader 310, the reader 310 looks up the user data in the database and determines the access level. If the user is permitted access, the reader 310 sends an access command to the relay module 320 via the encrypted communications. In turn, the relay module 320 on the secure side activates the door latch 330) (page 3 paragraph 0061; page 3 paragraph 0064; see Figures 3 and 4).
Referring to Claim 13, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, Blakes et al. disclose wherein when the reader device is provided in an operating device and the operating device is operation mode activation device for activating operation mode (close or open the door output), the first request information includes at least one of activation request information for the operation mode and deactivation request information for the operation mode (i.e. the relay module 400 receives communications 420 from the reader, which are input to the buffers 440, which in turn are coupled to the micro-controller 442. The micro-controller 442 operates the relay 444 in a conventional manner. The relay 444 bas an output to actuate the door latch 430) (page 3 paragraph 0061; see Figures 3 and 4).
Referring to Claim 15, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, Blakes et al. disclose wherein the sub-reader device (110/210/1020) communicates directly or indirectly with the server (1040) (i.e. an access control system 1000 with a relay module 1030. A read/write card 1010 can be presented to a read/write device 1020, which is coupled to server software 1040 and the relay module 1030) (page 1 paragraph 0007; page 3 paragraph 0060; see Figures 8 and 10).
Referring to Claims 17-18, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, Lupovici discloses wherein power required for operation of the sub-reader device is obtained from at least one of a radio frequency (RF) signal transmitted from the reader device and light provided from outside (i.e. one or more multi-position slide switches, or selectable terminal connector blocks are provided in the readers 110 which can be configured to set the power level of the wakeup antenna(s) 310. The setting of the power of the wakeup antennas 310 determines the range in which the credential devices 130 would wake up. For example, for each wakeup antenna 310, a three position switch may be provided which has settings of short, medium and long. As such, each wake up antenna may be set at a different range setting from the other, in the event that two wake up antennas are used at the same access point. For example, the short setting may be approximately 3 feet, the medium setting may be approximately 6 feet, and the long setting may be approximately 12 to 18 feet. Short may be for most single door or elevator access control situations, whereas medium and long may be used for garage door control, monitoring valuables, guard tour, large automated entrance doors, retirement homes, etc. In the case that two wakeup antennas 310 are provided, two switches could be provided for a technician to independently adjust the range of each wakeup antenna 310) (page 21 paragraph 0236; see Figure 1).
Referring to Claim 19, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 5, Blakes et al. disclose wherein the authenticating the first request information based on the first information comprises decrypting the first request information based on the first information (i.e. the micro-controller 442 decrypts the encrypted communications from the reader and compares the decrypted communications to the code expected. If this is correct, the micro-controller 442 enables the relay 444. The relay 444 switches power to actuate the door latch 430. If enabled, power runs through the door latch 430, unlocking the door) (column page 3 paragraph 0063; see Figure 4). Even though the micro-controller 442 is in the relay module. At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize having the micro-controller in the reader would operate the same as the micro-controller in the relay module.
Referring to Claim 20, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose a method of controlling a sub-reader device communicating with a reader device, although different in scope from the claim 1, the claim 21 contains similar limitations in that the claim 1 already addressed above therefore claim 21 is also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claim 1.
Referring to Claim 21, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose a non-transitory recording medium on which a program is recorded for executing the method of claim 20 above (Blakes et al., page 1 paragraph 0015; page 4 paragraph 0075; see Figures 1-3 and 8-11).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blake et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0246583) in view of Lupovici (Pub. No. US 2017/0228953) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Davis et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0320261).
Referring to Claim 7, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, however, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici did not explicitly disclose wherein third request information is provided from second device to the reader device without an authentication of the third request information, when the reader device directly communicates to the second device using the first communication protocol.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Davis et al. teach wherein third request information is provided from second device (112) to the reader device (104) without an authentication of the third request information, when the reader device (104) directly communicates to the second device (112) using the first communication protocol (i.e. the credential interface 416 is designed to enable the reader 104 to communicate with credentials 112. As one example, the credential interface 416 may comprise one or more antennas and antenna drivers which enable the reader 104 to exchange messages wirelessly with the first type of credential 112. In some embodiments, the reader-enhancing device 204 is configured to communicate with the reader 104 via the credential interface 416. This feature is accomplished by virtue of the fact that the reader-enhancing device 204 comprises an emulation module 312 which is configured to emulate credentials of the first type 112 (i.e., generate and transmit messages to the reader 104 in the same format and according to the same protocols that the first type of credential 112 would use to communicate with the reader 104). Accordingly, the credential interface 416 may enable the reader 104 to communicate with one or both of the first type of credential 112 and the reader-enhancing device 204) (page 7 paragraph 0078; see Figures 2 and 4) in order to provide flexibility to communicate with credential in the access control system.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a method of having the credential interface is designed to enable the reader to communicate with credential directly taught by Davis et al. in the access control system that having the relay module communicates with RFID tag via the smart reader of Blake et al.in view of Lupovici because having the credential interface is designed to enable the reader to communicate with credential directly would provide an alternative way to communicate credential in the access control system.
Referring to Claim 14, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici and Davis disclose the sub-reader device of claim 7, Davis et al. disclose wherein when the second device communicates using the first communication protocol and the second device is located in a communication range of the sub-reader device and a communication range of the reader device, the sub-reader device is controlled not to communicate with the second device such that the reader device directly communicates with the second device without communication between the sub-reader device and the reader device (i.e. the shielding module 348 may be configured to block some or all communications between the reader 104 and credentials 112, 208. In some embodiments, the shielding module 348 actively determines if a first type of credential 112 is within proximity (i.e., read range) of the reader 104 and, if so, generates a scrambling signal or noise which precludes the reader 104 from reading the first type of credential 112. In some embodiments, the scrambling signal corrupts credential data as it is transmitted from the first type of credential 112 to the reader 104) (page 6 paragraph 0064; see Figure 1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blake et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0246583) in view of Lupovici (Pub. No. US 2017/0228953) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bowen et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0062656).
Referring to Claim 16, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici disclose the sub-reader device of claim 1, however, Blakes et al. in view of Lupovici did not explicitly disclose wherein the sub-reader device communicates periodically or aperiodically with the server.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Bowen et al. teach wherein the sub-reader device (103) communicates periodically or aperiodically with the server (101) (i.e. one of the times at which access information will be exchanged between the central access system (101) and the remote access system (102) across the wireless network (103) is the periodically scheduled routine database check and upgrade. In these periodically scheduled update periods, the central access control system (101) will send access database upgrades to the remote controllers (107) of the remote access control system (102) to update the localized access database located at each remote controller (107). In addition, in these periodically scheduled update periods, the remote controllers (107) of the remote access control system (102) can send information to the central access control system (101) regarding access attempts at the remote controller (107) (page 7 paragraph 0075; see Figure 1) in order to provide update the access database of the reader in the access control system.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a method of having the wireless network exchange with the central access system periodically scheduled updated periods taught by Bowen et al. in the access control system that having the relay module communicates with RFID tag via the smart reader of Blake et al.in view of Lupovici because having the wireless network exchange with the central access system periodically scheduled updated periods would provide an alternative way to communicate credential in the access control system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,500. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the Instant Application, a sub-reader device communicating with a reader device such that the reader device communicating using a first communication protocol communicates with a first device communicating using a second communication protocol different from the first communication protocol via the sub-reader device, wherein the second communication protocol is not supported by the reader device, the sub-reader device comprising:
a processor configured to obtain first request information using the second communication protocol from the first device, obtain second request information based on the first request information, and provide the second request information to the reader device using the first communication protocol,
wherein whether the processor obtains the first request information is determined based on an authentication result based on at least one of an identification information of the first device, an identification information of a user of the first device, or an identification information of the sub-reader device.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the Instant Application did not explicitly disclose wherein a third request information is provided from a second device to the reader device without an authentication of information related to the third request information, when the reader device directly communicates to the second device using the first communication protocol.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that claim 1 of the instant application is broader than the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,500. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,500 except without the limitation "wherein a third request information is provided from a second device to the reader device without an authentication of information related to the third request information, when the reader device directly communicates to the second device using the first communication protocol." The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,755,500 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
The following claims are patentably similar from each other:
Instant Application Patent No. 10,755,500
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
8 7
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 16
17 17
18 18
20 19
21 20
Referring to claims 2-19 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected Claim 1 above.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,462,063. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the Instant Application, a sub-reader device communicating with a reader device such that the reader device communicating using a first communication protocol communicates with a first device communicating using a second communication protocol different from the first communication protocol via the sub-reader device, wherein the second communication protocol is not supported by the reader device, the sub-reader device comprising:
a processor configured to obtain first request information using the second communication protocol from the first device, obtain second request information based on the first request information, and provide the second request information to the reader device using the first communication protocol,
wherein whether the processor obtains the first request information is determined based on an authentication result based on at least one of an identification information of the first device, an identification information of a user of the first device, or an identification information of the sub-reader device.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the Instant Application did not explicitly disclose wherein the first information is obtained from a server or pre-stored in the sub-reader device.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that claim 1 of the instant application is broader than the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,462,063. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim of U.S. Patent No. 11,462,063 except without the limitation " wherein the first information is obtained from a server or pre-stored in the sub-reader device." The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,462,063 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
The following claims are patentably similar from each other:
Instant Application Patent No. 11,462,063
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 20
20 21
21 22
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 and 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11/887,417. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the Instant Application, a sub-reader device communicating with a reader device such that the reader device communicating using a first communication protocol communicates with a first device communicating using a second communication protocol different from the first communication protocol via the sub-reader device, wherein the second communication protocol is not supported by the reader device, the sub-reader device comprising:
a processor configured to obtain first request information using the second communication protocol from the first device, obtain second request information based on the first request information, and provide the second request information to the reader device using the first communication protocol,
wherein whether the processor obtains the first request information is determined based on an authentication result based on at least one of an identification information of the first device, an identification information of a user of the first device, or an identification information of the sub-reader device.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the Instant application did not disclose wherein the sub-reader obtains the first request information when the first device receives information related to the first request information from the server.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that claim 1 of the instant application is broader than the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11/887,417. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11/887,417 except without the limitation " wherein the sub-reader obtains the first request information when the first device receives information related to the first request information from the server." The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11/887,417 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
The following claims are patentably similar from each other:
Instant Application Patent No. 11/887,417
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 21
21 22
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,347,251. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the Instant Application, a sub-reader device communicating with a reader device such that the reader device communicating using a first communication protocol communicates with a first device communicating using a second communication protocol different from the first communication protocol via the sub-reader device, wherein the second communication protocol is not supported by the reader device, the sub-reader device comprising:
a processor configured to obtain first request information using the second communication protocol from the first device, obtain second request information based on the first request information, and provide the second request information to the reader device using the first communication protocol,
wherein whether the processor obtains the first request information is determined based on an authentication result based on at least one of an identification information of the first device, an identification information of a user of the first device, or an identification information of the sub-reader device.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the Instant application did not disclose wherein the sub-reader configured to transmit at least one of identification information of the sub-reader device or an encryption key to the first device and to obtain the first request information from the first device after at least one of the identification information of the sub-reader device or the encryption key has been transmitted to the first device.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that claim 1 of the instant application is broader than the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,347,251. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,347,251 except without the limitation " wherein the sub-reader configured to transmit at least one of identification information of the sub-reader device or an encryption key to the first device and to obtain the first request information from the first device after at least one of the identification information of the sub-reader device or the encryption key has been transmitted to the first device." The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,347,251 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
The following claims are patentably similar from each other:
Instant Application Patent No. 12,347,251
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claim 8, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the sub-reader device transmits the first request information to the server to request authentication of the first request information.
Referring to claim 10, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the sub-reader device obtains the first request information when the first device requests the server to perform authenticating the first request information and the first request information is authenticated by the server.
Claim 9 depend directly upon independent claim 8; therefore, these claims are also allowed by virtue of their dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
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).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights