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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, and 9-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 16, “controlling other at least one gate device” should read “controlling at least one other gate device”.
In claims 5, 10, 13, 14, and 17-19, “a direction of the travel of the user” should read “a direction of travel of the user”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sachdeva et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0096155; hereinafter Sachdeva).
Regarding claim 1, Sachdeva teaches a method for predicting an exit route of a user from an area having a restricted access restricted by a predictive gate system comprising at least two gate devices (Sachdeva: Par. 30; i.e., an access control system (e.g., physical or logical access control system) based on trajectory and intent prediction are described; Par. 62; i.e., accessing a secure asset or resource (e.g., door or secure area) protected by the access control device; Par. 75; i.e., two access control devices 220 and 222),
the method comprises: obtaining tracking data of the user within the restricted access area from a sensor system comprising a plurality of sensor devices (Sachdeva: Par. 74; i.e., the client device 120 (or access control device 110) may collect a set of observed 2D and/or 3D coordinates 230. The client device 120 (or access control device 110) may compute a current trajectory for the user; Par. 118; i.e., the I/O components 718 may include … motion components 734… The motion components 734 may include acceleration sensor components (e.g., accelerometer)… rotation sensor components (e.g., gyroscope)),
predicting the exit route of the user within the restricted access area based on the obtained tracking data of the user (Sachdeva: Par. 78; i.e., the trajectory and intent prediction system 144 predicts one or more trajectories based on the current trajectory and the user behavior information. The trajectory and intent prediction system 144 then identifies a predicted trajectory 240 along which the client device 120 is predicted to travel; as displayed in Figure 2, the exit route of the user is predicted),
estimating based on the predicted exit route a gate device belonging to the at least two gate devices of the predictive gate system through which the user will exit the restricted access area, and controlling the estimated gate device to allow access for the user to exit the restricted access area (Sachdeva: Par. 78; i.e., in response to determining that the predicted trajectory 240 falls within range of a first access control device 220, the trajectory and intent prediction system 144 instructs the authorization management system 140 to cause the first access control device 220 to grant access to the client device 120 (e.g., the first access control device 220 is instructed to perform an operation, such as unlocking an electronic door lock)).
Regarding claim 4, Sachdeva teaches the method according to claim 1. Sachdeva further teaches in response to controlling the estimated gate device to allow the access for the user, controlling other at least one gate device of the at least two gate devices of the predictive gate system to prevent access of the user to exit the restricted access area (Sachdeva: Par. 78; i.e., the trajectory and intent prediction system 144 instructs the authorization management system 140 to cause the first access control device 220 to grant access to the client device 120 (e.g., the first access control device 220 is instructed to perform an operation, such as unlocking an electronic door lock) and causes the second access control device 222 to deny access to the client device 120).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claims 1 and 4, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdeva and further in view of Laurila et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0415108; hereinafter Laurila).
Regarding claim 2, Sachdeva teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach generating, by at least one beam-based indication device of an indication system, visual guidance information based on the predicted exit route of the user to guide the user to exit the restricted access area through the estimated gate device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Laurila teaches generating, by at least one beam-based indication device of an indication system, visual guidance information based on the predicted exit route of the user to guide the user to exit the restricted access area through the estimated gate device (Laurila: Par. 51; i.e., the control unit 104 controls the at least one indication device 104 to generate a visual indication 114 comprising guidance information to a gate device 102a allocated for the detected at least one predefined object 110 in response to the detection of the at least one predefined object 110… The guidance information may comprise e.g. text- and/or figure-based guidance information; Par. 53; i.e., the visual indication 114 may be generated, e.g. projected, by one or more or projector devices on the floor in a vicinity of, e.g. in front of, the allocated gate device 102a as shown in the examples of FIGS. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Sachdeva to have further incorporated generating, by at least one beam-based indication device of an indication system, visual guidance information based on the predicted exit route of the user to guide the user to exit the restricted access area through the estimated gate device, as taught by Laurila. Doing so would allow the user to be aware of which gate to use for special uses and improve use capacity of the gate device (Laurila: Par. 51; i.e., this enables an on-demand indication of the gate device 102a allocated for a special use, i.e. for the detected at least one predefined object 110 with the special need… This in turn improves the use capacity of the allocated gate device 102a).
Regarding claim 3, Sachdeva in view of Laurila teaches the method according to claim 2. Laurila further teaches wherein the at least one beam-based indication device comprises at least one projector-based indication device and/or at least one laser-based indication device (Laurila: Par. 42; i.e., the at least one indication device 106 may comprise one or more projector devices configured to generate, e.g. project, the generated visual indication 114 on the floor in a vicinity of, i.e. in front of, the allocated gate device 102a as shown in the examples of FIGS. 1 and 2).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, Sachdeva in view of Laurila teaches the method according to claim 2. Sachdeva further teaches in response to controlling the estimated gate device to allow the access for the user, controlling other at least one gate device of the at least two gate devices of the predictive gate system to prevent access of the user to exit the restricted access area (Sachdeva: Par. 78; i.e., the trajectory and intent prediction system 144 instructs the authorization management system 140 to cause the first access control device 220 to grant access to the client device 120 (e.g., the first access control device 220 is instructed to perform an operation, such as unlocking an electronic door lock) and causes the second access control device 222 to deny access to the client device 120).
Claims 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdeva and further in view of Tiso et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0228419; hereinafter Tiso).
Regarding claim 5, Sachdeva teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the obtained tracking data of the user comprises a travel speed of the user and a direction of the travel of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tiso teaches wherein the obtained tracking data of the user comprises a travel speed of the user and a direction of the travel of the user (Tiso: Par. 40; i.e., sensors 15 or cameras 16 are used for the detection, at least partially, of the distance DT between the sensor 15 or camera 16 and the user or subject U approaching the gate … to calculate the instantaneous position, the instantaneous speed and the trajectory (and the entire tracking) of the user; Par. 68; i.e., the presence of a user U has been detected and calculated its direction relative to the gate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Sachdeva to have further incorporated wherein the obtained tracking data of the user comprises a travel speed of the user and a direction of the travel of the user, as taught by Tiso. Doing so would allow the system to predict the future trajectory of the user and secure passage more efficiently (Tiso: Par. 40; i.e., to predict the future evolution of such trajectory; Par. 71; i.e., in order to provide for securing the passage by blocking in advance and in a more efficient and effective way).
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 13, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdeva in view of Laurila and further in view of Tiso.
Regarding claim 13, Sachdeva in view of Laurila teaches the method according to claim 2, but does not teach wherein the obtained tracking data of the user comprises a travel speed of the user and a direction of the travel of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tiso teaches wherein the obtained tracking data of the user comprises a travel speed of the user and a direction of the travel of the user (Tiso: Par. 40; i.e., sensors 15 or cameras 16 are used for the detection, at least partially, of the distance DT between the sensor 15 or camera 16 and the user or subject U approaching the gate … to calculate the instantaneous position, the instantaneous speed and the trajectory (and the entire tracking) of the user; Par. 68; i.e., the presence of a user U has been detected and calculated its direction relative to the gate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Sachdeva and Laurila to have further incorporated wherein the obtained tracking data of the user comprises a travel speed of the user and a direction of the travel of the user, as taught by Tiso. Doing so would allow the system to predict the future trajectory of the user and secure passage more efficiently (Tiso: Par. 40; i.e., to predict the future evolution of such trajectory; Par. 71; i.e., in order to provide for securing the passage by blocking in advance and in a more efficient and effective way).
Claims 14 and 17-19 are rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of controlling gate devices in restricted areas based on predicted trajectories of users intending to pass through the gate devices includes Venetianer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0358250), Einberg et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0172281), Kincaid et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12608990), Pirch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11405784), and Junes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11217054).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights