DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In particular, claim 17 recites “wherein the biometric input device comprises a fingerprint scanner; and f wherein the secure access token device comprises a display carried by the portable housing and coupled to the processor’, however it should recite “wherein the biometric input device comprises a fingerprint scanner; and [[f]] wherein the secure access token device comprises a display carried by the portable housing and coupled to the processor.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, claim 1 recites “a processor carried by the portable housing and coupled to the battery, the biometric input device, the at least one status visual indicator, the RF antenna, the local wireless transceiver, the at least one user input button, and the memory; the processor configured to store at least one unique token in the memory, transit an RF signal, via the RF antenna, based upon the at least one unique token when the biometric data matches an authentic biometric data template, and transit an alert beacon signal, via the local wireless transceiver, to at least one local base station based upon the at least one user input button”, however it is unclear why the RF signal is transited when the biometric data matches, and it is further unclear why the alert beacon signal is transited based upon the at least one user input button when the claim limitation does not involve the use of a user in which an alert condition would require the use of the at least one user input button. To further prosecution the examiner will interpreted that the biometric match meets a condition to check identification of a user to enable activation of the secure access token device and/or verify a user to enable access to a protected resource. Claims 2-10 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, claims 11 and 18 have similar issues as claim 1, and therefore are indefinite. Subsequently claims 12-17 and 19-20 are indefinite due to their respective dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US 20070198436 A1) in view of Burke (US 20230099358 A1) and Mullen et al. (“Mullen”, US 20090159712 A1). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 18, Weiss discloses a secure access token device (Fig. 21: first wireless device/responder 2210) comprising: a portable housing (Fig. 21 illustrates components illustrated to be housed within the interior of the first wireless device/responder 2210); a battery carried by the portable housing (¶165; Fig. 21: power source 2138); a biometric input device ()Fig. 21: biometric sensor 2130) carried by the portable housing (Fig. 21) and configured to generate biometric data of a user (¶165); at least one status visual indicator (Fig. 21: display 2128) carried by the portable housing (Fig. 21); a radio frequency (RF) antenna (¶163; wireless transmitter/receiver (T/R) 2114) carried by the portable housing (Fig. 21); a local wireless transceiver carried by the portable housing (Fig. 21: additional wireless T/R 2142); at least one user input button (¶165; Fig. 21: user interface (UI) 2126) carried by the portable housing (Fig. 21); a memory (Fig. 21: memory 2118) carried by the portable housing (Fig. 21); and a processor (Fig. 21: uProcessor 2116) carried by the portable housing (Fig. 21) and coupled to the battery, the biometric input device, the at least one status visual indicator, the RF antenna, the local wireless transceiver, the at least one user input button, and the memory (¶¶163-164; Fig. 21). As per the limitation the processor configured to store at least one unique token in the memory, transit an RF signal, via the RF antenna, based upon the at least one unique token when the biometric data matches an authentic biometric data template. Weiss discloses, in ¶164, using biometric sensor to enable biometric data of a user to be used for user authentication purposes. While, Weiss does not specify that the memory stores biometric data templates Burke discloses, in ¶¶129-133 with reference to Fig. 2, the concept of storing biometric signatures (corresponding to biometric data templates) to enable user authentication features that a wireless signal (132) to be sent once a biometric match has been determined for access control features. Notice that user ID database may be integrated into a wireless device, see ¶136. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of storing biometric signatures to enable user authentication features that a wireless signal to be sent once a biometric match has been determined for access control features, with the motivation to enhance the access control features of the system. As per the limitation transit an alert beacon signal, via the local wireless transceiver, to at least one local base station based upon the at least one user input button. Weiss discloses, in ¶¶12, 105, 161 that the system may be used for ATM, merchant and other access control system systems. Weiss further discloses, in ¶¶140-141, providing a plurality of secure system Mullen discloses, in ¶¶113, 121,128, the concept of providing a panic button that initiates a panic signal to a ATM terminal (corresponding to a base station) to provide panic response features once a user presses the panic button. Thus, in view of Weiss system use of two wireless T/R that are able to communicate with a ATM system, see ¶12. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a panic button that initiates a panic signal to a ATM terminal to provide panic response features once a user presses the panic button to be provided by the additional wireless T/R to enable intended wireless transmission desired, with the motivation to enhance communication features and for integration of a user safety feature for the system. 2) Regarding claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to activate the at least one status visual indicator when the biometric data matches the authentic biometric data template (Weiss discloses, in ¶¶188-189 with reference to Fig. 9, the concept of confirming biometric signature matches to enable a user selection to be inputted based on the match which is subsequently followed by displaying corresponding content (available funds, which is interrupted as providing a financial status based on the confirmed matched biometric signatures). 3) Regarding claim 9, wherein the biometric input device comprises a fingerprint scanner (Weiss: ¶164). 4) Regarding claim 10, further comprising a display carried by the portable housing and coupled to the processor (Weiss: Fig. 21: display 2128).
Claim(s) 2 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke and Mullen, and in further view of Russikoff (US 20040168067 A1). 1) Regarding claims 2 and 19, wherein the processor is configured to receive a confirmation signal from the at least one local base station, the at least one local base station configured to transmit the confirmation signal when the alert beacon signal is received. In the art of providing distress signal occurring at an ATM it has been known to integrate the process of providing a prompt (corresponding to providing a confirmation signal) response in response to the distress signal, as indicated by Russikoff ¶3. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the process of providing a prompt response in response to the distress signal, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke and Mullen, and in further view of Murchison (US 9706380 B1). 1) Regarding claim 3, further comprising a haptic feedback motor carried by the portable housing; and wherein the processor is coupled to the haptic feedback motor and configured to activate the haptic feedback motor when the confirmation signal is received. Murchison discloses, in Col. 3, line 52 through Col. 2, the concept of providing a haptic feedback response to a user of a mobile device based on a panic alert sent by the mobile device being received, hence the mobile device is provided with a haptic feedback motor. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a haptic feedback response to a user of a mobile device based on a panic alert sent by the mobile device being received, with the motivation to enhance the panic notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke and Mullen, and in further view of Klein et al. (“Klein”, US 20110237287 A1). 1) Regarding claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to activate the at least one status visual indicator when the confirmation signal is received. Klein discloses, in ¶48, the concept of providing haptic feedback and visual feedback based on an alert signal. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing visual feedback based on an alert signal, with the motivation to enhance the panic notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke and Mullen, and in further view of Yan (CN 114014121 A). 1) Regarding claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to periodically transmit the alert beacon signal until the confirmation signal is received. Yan discloses, on page 5, the concept of re-sending an emergency alert information after a set time (1 second) until a feedback signal is received. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of re-sending an emergency alert information after a set time until a feedback signal is received, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke and Mullen, and in further view of Couronne et al. (“Couronne”, US 20040012524 A1). 1) Regarding claim 6, wherein the at least one local base station comprises a plurality of local base stations; and wherein each local base station is configured to determine a signal strength value of the alert beacon signal, and generate location data based upon respective signal strength values of the alert beacon signal for the plurality of local base stations. In the art of monitoring for distress signals, Couronne discloses, in ¶12, the concept of using a plurality of devices to measure signal strength of a received distress signal to enable location data to be determined for the location of a distress transmitting device. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a plurality of devices to measure signal strength of a received distress signal to enable location data to be determined for the location of a distress transmitting device, with the motivation to enhance the distress/panic monitoring features of the system.
Claim(s) 11 &17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke and Mullen, and in further view of Beard et al. (“Beard”, US 9972146 B1). 1) Regarding claim 11, Weiss, Burke and Mullen with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 18 teach a access system for a secured area (Weiss: ¶137: Figs. 17-18b; Burke: ¶¶4; 133), the access system comprising: As per the limitation a plurality of local base stations positioned throughout the secured area. Beard discloses, in Col. 4, lines 11-34 with reference to Fig. 1B, the concept of providing a plurality devices position throughout a secured area positioned to enable location tracking of a access device. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a plurality devices position throughout a secured area positioned to enable location tracking of a access device, with the motivation to enhance the security features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to activate the at least one status visual indicator when the biometric data matches the authentic biometric data template (see analysis of the rejection of claim 8); wherein the biometric input device comprises a fingerprint scanner (Weiss: ¶164); and f wherein the secure access token device comprises a display (Weiss: Fig. 21: display 2128) carried by the portable housing and coupled to the processor (Weiss: Fig. 21).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke, Mullen and Beard, and in further view of Russikoff. 1) Regarding claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to receive a confirmation signal from the at least one local base station, the at least one local base station configured to transmit the confirmation signal when the alert beacon signal is received. In the art of providing distress signal occurring at an ATM it has been known to integrate the process of providing a prompt (corresponding to providing a confirmation signal) response in response to the distress signal, as indicated by Russikoff ¶3. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the process of providing a prompt response in response to the distress signal, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke, Mullen and Beard, and in further view of Murchison and Klein. 1) Regarding claim 13, wherein the secure access token device comprises a haptic feedback motor carried by the portable housing; wherein the processor is coupled to the haptic feedback motor and configured to activate the haptic feedback motor when the confirmation signal is received. Murchison discloses, in Col. 3, line 52 through Col. 2, the concept of providing a haptic feedback response to a user of a mobile device based on a panic alert sent by the mobile device being received, hence the mobile device is provided with a haptic feedback motor. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a haptic feedback response to a user of a mobile device based on a panic alert sent by the mobile device being received, with the motivation to enhance the panic notification features of the system. As per the limitation wherein the processor is configured to activate the at least one status visual indicator when the confirmation signal is received. Klein discloses, in ¶48, the concept of providing haptic feedback and visual feedback based on an alert signal. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing haptic feedback and visual feedback based on an alert signal, with the motivation to enhance the panic notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke, Mullen and Beard, and in further view of Yan. 1) Regarding claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to periodically transmit the alert beacon signal until the confirmation signal is received. Yan discloses, on page 5, the concept of re-sending an emergency alert information after a set time (1 second) until a feedback signal is received. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of re-sending an emergency alert information after a set time until a feedback signal is received, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke, Mullen and Beard, and in further view of Couronne. 1) Regarding claim 15, wherein the at least one local base station comprises a plurality of local base stations; and wherein each local base station is configured to determine a signal strength value of the alert beacon signal, and generate location data based upon respective signal strength values of the alert beacon signal for the plurality of local base stations. In the art of monitoring for distress signals, Couronne discloses, in ¶12, the concept of using a plurality of devices to measure signal strength of a received distress signal to enable location data to be determined for the location of a distress transmitting device. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a plurality of devices to measure signal strength of a received distress signal to enable location data to be determined for the location of a distress transmitting device, with the motivation to enhance the distress/panic monitoring features of the system.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss in view of Burke and Mullen, and in further view of Murchison, Klein and Yan. 1) Regarding claim 20, further comprising operating the processor to activate a haptic feedback motor when the confirmation signal is received. Murchison discloses, in Col. 3, line 52 through Col. 2, the concept of providing a haptic feedback response to a user of a mobile device based on a panic alert sent by the mobile device being received, hence the mobile device is provided with a haptic feedback motor. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing a haptic feedback response to a user of a mobile device based on a panic alert sent by the mobile device being received, with the motivation to enhance the panic notification features of the system. As per the limitation operating the processor to activate the at least one status visual indicator when the confirmation signal is received. Klein discloses, in ¶48, the concept of providing haptic feedback and visual feedback based on an alert signal. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing haptic feedback and visual feedback based on an alert signal, with the motivation to enhance the panic notification features of the system. As per the limitation operating the processor to periodically transmit the alert beacon signal until the confirmation signal is received. Yan discloses, on page 5, the concept of re-sending an emergency alert information after a set time (1 second) until a feedback signal is received. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of re-sending an emergency alert information after a set time until a feedback signal is received, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 & 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130036480 A1; US 20130024384 A1; US 20020104006 A1, system using biometric to permit access to a secure resource.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights