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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUSHIMI (US 2020/0331431) in view of PEPIN (U.S. Pub. 2021/0065855).
Regarding claims 1 and 13,
Fushimi teaches an electronic access control apparatus, comprising:
an electronic lock comprising a locking mechanism configured to be selectively engaged between a locked state and an unlocked state (10, fig. 1);
a controller (ECU 4, fig. 1) operably engaged with the electronic lock to command the locking mechanism between the locked state and the unlocked state, wherein the controller is configured to perform one or more operations comprising:
receiving a first access request via a first interface, wherein the first access request comprises a first access request type (para. 0038 teaches near-field communication between antennas 27 and 28 in fig. 1);
receiving a second access request via a second interface, wherein the second access request comprises a second access request type (para. 0039 teaches wireless communications between key 3 and key verification unit 32);
receiving a third access request via a third interface, wherein the third access request comprises a third access request type (para. 0040 teaches that the user provides a biometric input into sensor 31);
processing one or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to authenticate an authorized electronic access code according to one or more configuration settings (para. 0039 teaches executing smart verification of the received IDs using the stored ID credentials);
actuating the electronic lock to the unlocked state in response to successfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code according to the one or more configuration settings (para. 0041 teaches that starting the engine is permitted); and
receiving an alternative access request (S12 in fig. 5) comprising an alternative access request type in response to unsuccessfully authenticating the one or more electronic access control credentials ([0010] teaches that the actuation permission unit is configured to permit starting of the engine if the biometric authentication fails but the alternative authentication is accomplished; [0044] teaches that the biometric authentication electronic key system 2 includes an alternative authentication unit 35 that executes alternative authentication when the user receives a failure notification. The alternative authentication may be tapping the sensor unit 31 a predetermined number of times and tracing the sensor unit 31 in a predetermined direction.)
Fushimi fails to expressly teach that authentication process comprises authenticating the authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type.
PEPIN teaches an authentication process wherein authentication comprises authenticating the authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type ([0007] teaches that authentication is determined based on user credentials i.e., an access code associated with the request and that the one or more users are assigned a role that is authorized for the requested type of access.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Fushimi device per the teachings of Pepin such that authentication is based upon authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type, for the purpose of providing a system whereby various users may receive and subsequently request different types of authentication.
Regarding claims 2 and 15,
Pepin teaches one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more user roles with one or more access request types ([0157] teaches consent data (corresponding to configurations for linking) associated with a data set and including data identifying the access request type i.e., permissible purpose of the access (e.g., for research purposes, clinical purposes, etc.); linking of one or more user roles is taught in [0161] which teaches that different roles and/or privileges may be assigned to each member of the entity and/or organization to which the subject has given consent (e.g. employees, academic staff, clinical institution staff).
Regarding claims 3 and 16,
Pepin teaches the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more access event types with the one or more user roles and the one or more access request types ([0157] teaches consent data (corresponding to configurations for linking) associated with a data set and including data identifying the event type i.e., type or level of access (e.g., read-only, read-write, anonymized or user-identified data, etc.) and the access request type i.e., permissible purpose of the access (e.g., for research purposes, clinical purposes, etc.); linking of one or more user roles is taught in [0161] which teaches that different roles and/or privileges may be assigned to each member of the entity and/or organization to which the subject has given consent (e.g. employees, academic staff, clinical institution staff).
Regarding claim 4,
Fushimi teaches that the one or more operations further comprise simultaneously receiving two or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request (para. 0039 teaches receiving near-field immobilizer communications via antenna 27 and key ID from key 3 at the key verification unit 32.)
Regarding claim 5,
Fushimi teaches that the operations further comprise processing the two or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to authenticate the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type according to the one or more configuration settings(para. 0039 teaches that the ECU receives an electronic key ID through the wireless communications in order to verify a match and obtains the immobilizer ID from the near-field communications between antennas 27 & 28 as per para. 0038 in order to verify a match).
Regarding claims 6 and 17,
Pepin teaches the one or more operations further comprise receiving a sensor input from at least one sensor device, wherein the sensor input comprises a fourth access request type ([0052] teaches a user interface input and output devices 330 may be integral with the computer system 300 in an attachable/detachable manner; [0053] teaches that the input device may comprise a biometric scanner).
Regarding claim 18,
Pepin teaches that the one or more operations further comprise selecting or configuring a primary access type and a secondary or alternative access type for at least one user role (para. 0154 teaches, "For any permutation of principal (e.g., subject, researcher, actor requesting access), action (e.g., read, modify, etc.), and/or dataset (e.g., uniquely identified, or by secondary context such the subject-owner of the data, etc.), the authorization subsystem 1310 may search for applicable rules. Those rules then may be evaluated in priority order to approve or deny access to particular subject data. In some embodiments, any internal or external component which may act upon a given principal's request to retrieve or modify a dataset may be required to first clear the request with the authorization subsystem 1310”).
Regarding claim 19,
PEPIN teaches an authentication process wherein authentication comprises authenticating the authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type ([0007] teaches that authentication is determined based on user credentials i.e., an access code associated with the request and that the one or more users are assigned a role that is authorized for the requested type of access.) While Fushimi teaches receiving an alternative access request (S12 in fig. 5) comprising an alternative access request type in response to unsuccessful authentication ([0010] teaches a scenario wherein a biometric authentication fails but the alternative authentication is accomplished; [0044] teaches that the biometric authentication electronic key system 2 includes an alternative authentication unit 35 that executes alternative authentication when the user receives a failure notification. The alternative authentication may be tapping the sensor unit 31 a predetermined number of times and tracing the sensor unit 31 in a predetermined direction.)
Regarding claim 20,
Fushimi teaches presenting a required combination of two or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to the controller of the electronic access control device( [0044] teaches that the biometric authentication electronic key system 2 includes an alternative authentication unit 35 that executes alternative authentication when the user receives a failure notification, corresponding to a first and a second access request, as broadly recited.
Claim(s) 7-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUSHIMI (US 2020/0331431) in view of PEPIN (U.S. Pub. 2021/0065855) and further in view of DROPPS (U.S. Patent 9,767,318).
Regarding claim 7,
Fushimi teaches an electronic access control apparatus, comprising:
an electronic lock comprising a locking mechanism configured to be selectively engaged between a locked state and an unlocked state (10, fig. 1);
a controller (ECU 4, fig. 1) operably engaged with the electronic lock to actuate the locking mechanism between the locked state and the unlocked state,
wherein the controller is configured to perform one or more operations comprising:
receiving a first access request via a first interface, wherein the first access request comprises a first access request type (para. 0038 teaches near-field communication between antennas 27 and 28 in fig. 1);
receiving a second access request via a second interface, wherein the second access request comprises a second access request type (para. 0039 teaches wireless communications between key 3 and key verification unit 32);
receiving a third access request via a third interface, wherein the third access request comprises a third access request type (para. 0040 teaches that the user provides a biometric input into sensor 31);
processing one or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to authenticate an authorized electronic access code according to one or more configuration settings (para. 0039 teaches executing smart verification of the received IDs using the stored ID credentials);
actuating the electronic lock to the unlocked state in response to successfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code according to the one or more configuration settings (para. 0041 teaches that starting the engine is permitted).
Fushimi fails to expressly teach that authentication process comprises authenticating the authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type.
PEPIN teaches an authentication process wherein authentication comprises authenticating the authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type ([0007] teaches that authentication is determined based on user credentials i.e., an access code associated with the request and that the one or more users are assigned a role that is authorized for the requested type of access.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the Fushimi device per the teachings of Pepin such that authentication is based upon authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type, for the purpose of providing a system whereby various users may receive and subsequently request different types of authentication.
The combined teachings of Fushimi and Pepin fail to expressly teach overriding the one or more configuration settings in response to a first input from an electronic key.
DROPPS teaches a secure controller system utilizing configuration setting and further teaches overriding the one or more configuration settings in response to a first input from an electronic key (claim 7 teaches using a manually entered override code to reach the unlocked state, when the fail counter has reached the threshold value).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the system of Fushimi per the teachings of Dropps such that an electronic key may be utilized in order to override one or more configuration settings, for the purpose of ensuring that the configuration settings meet system requirements.
Regarding claim 8,
Dropps teaches the system of claim 7 wherein the electronic key is operably engaged with the controller to configure the one or more configuration settings (col. 13:24-36 teaches requiring an override code to the programmable control to complete an update action.)
Regarding claim 9,
Pepin teaches that the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more user roles with one or more access request types([0157] teaches consent data (corresponding to configurations for linking) associated with a data set and including data identifying the access request type i.e., permissible purpose of the access (e.g., for research purposes, clinical purposes, etc.); linking of one or more user roles is taught in [0161] which teaches that different roles and/or privileges may be assigned to each member of the entity and/or organization to which the subject has given consent (e.g. employees, academic staff, clinical institution staff).
Regarding claim 10,
Pepin teaches that the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more access event types with the one or more user roles and the one or more access request types ([0157] teaches consent data (corresponding to configurations for linking) associated with a data set and including data identifying the event type i.e., type or level of access (e.g., read-only, read-write, anonymized or user-identified data, etc.) and the access request type i.e., permissible purpose of the access (e.g., for research purposes, clinical purposes, etc.); linking of one or more user roles is taught in [0161] which teaches that different roles and/or privileges may be assigned to each member of the entity and/or organization to which the subject has given consent (e.g. employees, academic staff, clinical institution staff).
Regarding claims 11 and 14,
Dropps teaches that the electronic key is operably engaged with the controller to update a firmware of the controller in response to a second input from the electronic key (col. 13:24-43 teaches that the override code may be entered following the entry of an authorization code to permit a program store update).
Regarding claim 12,
Pepin teaches that the one or more operations further comprise receiving a sensor input from at least one sensor device, wherein the sensor input comprises a fourth access request type ([0052] teaches a user interface input and output devices 330 may be integral with the computer system 300 in an attachable/detachable manner; [0053] teaches that the input device may comprise a biometric scanner).
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 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); 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 to TRAPANI. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant claim are broader than and therefore encompass the features disclosed in claims 1-20 pf the patent.
Regarding claim 1,
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “An electronic access control apparatus, comprising: an electronic lock comprising a locking mechanism configured to be selectively engaged between a locked state and an unlocked state; a controller operably engaged with the electronic lock to command the locking mechanism between the locked state and the unlocked state, wherein the controller is configured to perform one or more operations comprising: receiving a first access request via a first interface, wherein the first access request comprises a first access request type; receiving a second access request via a second interface, wherein the second access request comprises a second access request type; receiving a third access request via a third interface, wherein the third access request comprises a third access request type; processing one or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to authenticate an authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type according to one or more configuration settings; actuating the electronic lock to the unlocked state in response to successfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type according to the one or more configuration settings; and receiving an alternative access request comprising an alternative access request type in response to unsuccessfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type.”
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more user roles with one or more access request types.”
Regarding claim 3,
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more access event types with the one or more user roles and the one or more access request types.”
Regarding claim 4,
Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more operations further comprise simultaneously receiving two or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request.”
Regarding claim 5,
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more operations further comprise processing the two or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to authenticate the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type according to the one or more configuration settings.”
Regarding claim 6,
Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more operations further comprise receiving a sensor input from at least one sensor device, wherein the sensor input comprises a fourth access request type.”
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “An electronic access control system, comprising: an electronic lock comprising a locking mechanism configured to be actuated between a locked state and an unlocked state; a controller operably engaged with the electronic lock to actuate the locking mechanism between the locked state and the unlocked state, wherein the controller is configured to perform one or more operations comprising: receiving a first access request via a first interface, wherein the first access request comprises a first access request type; receiving a second access request via a second interface, wherein the second access request comprises a second access request type; receiving a third access request via a third interface, wherein the third access request comprises a third access request type; processing one or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to authenticate an authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type according to one or more configuration settings; actuating the electronic lock to the unlocked state in response to successfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type according to the one or more configuration settings; and overriding the one or more configuration settings in response to a first input from an electronic key.”
Regarding claim 8,
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the electronic key is operably engaged with the controller to configure the one or more configuration settings.”
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more user roles with one or more access request types.”
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more access event types with the one or more user roles and the one or more access request types.”
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the electronic key is operably engaged with the controller to update a firmware of the controller in response to a second input from the electronic key.”
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more operations further comprise receiving a sensor input from at least one sensor device, wherein the sensor input comprises a fourth access request type.”
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “An electronic access control method, comprising: configuring, with an input device communicably engaged with a controller of an electronic access control device, one or more configuration settings associated with the electronic access control device; receiving, with the controller of the electronic access control device, a first access request comprising a first access request type; receiving, with the controller of the electronic access control device, a second access request comprising a second access request type; receiving, with the controller of the electronic access control device, a third access request comprising a third access request type; processing, with the controller of the electronic access control device, one or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to authenticate an authorized electronic access code, an authorized user role and an authorized access request type for the electronic access control device according to the one or more configuration settings; actuating, with the controller of the electronic access control device, the electronic access control device from a locked state to an unlocked state in response to successfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type according to the one or more configuration settings; and receiving, with the controller of the electronic access control device, an alternative access request comprising an alternative access request type in response to unsuccessfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type.”
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “… updating a firmware of the controller of the electronic access control device in response to receiving, with the controller of the electronic access control device, at least one input from an electronic key.”
Regarding claim 15,
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “… wherein the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more user roles with one or more access request types.”
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “… wherein the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for linking one or more access event types with the one or more user roles and the one or more access request types.”
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “… receiving, with the controller of the electronic access control device, a sensor input from at least one sensor device, wherein the sensor input comprises a fourth access request type.”
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more operations further comprise selecting or configuring a primary access type and a secondary or alternative access type for at least one user role.”
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “…wherein the one or more operations further comprise receiving an alternative access request comprising an alternative access request type in response to unsuccessfully authenticating the authorized electronic access code, the authorized user role and the authorized access request type.”
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,875 teaches, “wherein the one or more configuration settings comprise configurations for presenting a required combination of two or more of the first access request, the second access request and the third access request to the controller of the electronic access control device.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights