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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s original submittal made on 07/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 claims at issue 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,540 and 540’ hereinafter. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to the following:
(19/268066) Claim 1, 9 and 16 …detecting a short range communication device being in range of a control panel; capturing one or more still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel subsequent and in response to detecting the short range communication device in range of the control panel; performing facial recognition on the one or more still images or videos; and controlling a security/access device responsive to identifying an authorized person based on the facial recognition performed on the one or more still images or videos; maps to (540’) detecting, by one or more processors of a control panel, one or more short range communication devices being in range of the control panel; capturing one or more still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel subsequent and in response to detecting the one or more short range communication devices in range of the control panel; using the one or more still images or videos to perform facial recognition; and determining, based on the facial recognition, whether one or more individuals associated with the one or more short range communication devices are authorized to be present at a premises.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0342851 and Holz hereinafter) in view of FRIEDLI (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0126338 and FRIEDLI hereinafter).
As to claims 1, 9 and 16, Holz teaches a method comprising:
performing facial recognition on the one or more still images or videos (i.e., …teaches in par. 0092 the following: “existing facial recognition systems that enables such systems to actually determine whether the image being captured and/or recorded is that of an actual person (e.g., the user's face), as opposed to a non-human representation.”);
and controlling a security/access device responsive to identifying an authorized person based on the facial recognition performed on the one or more still images or videos (i.e., …teaches in par. 0091 the following: “In Step 406, the anti-spoofing engine 302 determines whether to attempt to authenticate a user by facial recognition based on the live-ness determination of Step 404. That is, if the computing device does not determine that the captured image is that of a human being (from FIGS. 4B-4E), then the computing device executing the anti-spoofing engine 302 may not run one or more facial recognition programs on the captured facial image. However, if there is a successful determination from Step 404 (i.e., FIGS. 4B-4E) that the captured image represents an actual human being, then the computing device may run one or more facial recognition programs on the captured facial image in order to authenticate the user (e.g., allow access to the device and/or program subject to an access request).”).
Holz does not expressly teach:
detecting a short range communication device being in range of a control panel;
capturing one or more still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel subsequent and in response to detecting the short range communication device in range of the control panel.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference FRIEDLI.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “detecting a short range communication device being in range of a control panel”, FRIEDLI teaches in par. 0036 the following: “Once a user 2 is within radio range of the transceiver 14, his/her mobile device 6 automatically communicates with the transceiver 14 and the mobile device 6 sends its identifier to the transceiver 14. In the situation according to FIG. 1, the transceiver 14 receives a plurality of identifiers. The access system 1 therefore “knows” how many mobile devices 6 are located within radio range at a particular point in time and, if their users 2 are registered users 2, to which users 2 the mobile devices 6 belong. These users 2 may be combined to form a group of users 2 present. If one of the users 2 present now wishes to access the access-restricted zone 8, the access control system 1 ascertains a dataset with facial features of this user 2 as part of an image processing and of a facial recognition process and compares this ascertained dataset with stored (facial feature) datasets assigned to the users 2 present. This comparison is therefore limited to the group of users 2 present; thus, only datasets of this group are searched to see whether the ascertained dataset matches one of the stored datasets. The facial recognition process is quicker, since not all datasets created in the access control system 1 need to be searched, and it can be decided more quickly whether the user 2 is access-authorized or not.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “capturing one or more still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel subsequent and in response to detecting the short range communication device in range of the control panel”, FRIEDLI teaches in par. 0036 the following: “Once a user 2 is within radio range of the transceiver 14, his/her mobile device 6 automatically communicates with the transceiver 14 and the mobile device 6 sends its identifier to the transceiver 14. In the situation according to FIG. 1, the transceiver 14 receives a plurality of identifiers. The access system 1 therefore “knows” how many mobile devices 6 are located within radio range at a particular point in time and, if their users 2 are registered users 2, to which users 2 the mobile devices 6 belong. These users 2 may be combined to form a group of users 2 present. If one of the users 2 present now wishes to access the access-restricted zone 8, the access control system 1 ascertains a dataset with facial features of this user 2 as part of an image processing and of a facial recognition process and compares this ascertained dataset with stored (facial feature) datasets assigned to the users 2 present. This comparison is therefore limited to the group of users 2 present; thus, only datasets of this group are searched to see whether the ascertained dataset matches one of the stored datasets. The facial recognition process is quicker, since not all datasets created in the access control system 1 need to be searched, and it can be decided more quickly whether the user 2 is access-authorized or not.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Holz with the teachings of FRIEDLI by having their system comprise an enhanced authentication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify user access, wherein the enhanced authentication process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control access.
As to claims 2, 10 and 17, the system of Holz and FRIEDLI as applied to claim 1 teaches access control, specifically Holz does not expressly teach a method of claim 1, further comprising generating an output indication responsive to not identifying any authorized people based on the facial recognition performed on the one or more still images or videos.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference FRIEDLI.
FRIEDLI teaches in par. 0048 the following: “If, on the other hand, there is no such match, the result signal generated by the evaluation module 24 indicates that the user 2 is not access-authorized.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Holz with the teachings of FRIEDLI by having their system comprise an enhanced authentication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify user access, wherein the enhanced authentication process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control access.
As to claims 3, 11 and 18, the system of Holz and as applied to claim 1 teaches access control, specifically Holz does not expressly teach a method of claim 1, wherein the short range communication device comprises a smartphone.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference FRIEDLI.
FRIEDLI teaches in par. 0049 the following: “The mobile device 6 may be, for example, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a tablet PC or a smartwatch, these devices usually being equipped with hardware that enables communication via a near-field radio network.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Holz with the teachings of FRIEDLI by having their system comprise an enhanced authentication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify user access, wherein the enhanced authentication process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control access.
As to claims 4, 12 and 19 the system of Holz and as applied to claim 1 teaches access control, specifically Holz does not expressly teach a method of claim 1, wherein the security/access device comprises a door, and wherein controlling the security/access device comprises unlocking the door.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference FRIEDLI.
FRIEDLI teaches in par. 0018 the following: “a control signal may be generated as a function of the result signal, in order to release or to block a (physical) barrier (for example, barrier, door, or turnstile).”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Holz with the teachings of FRIEDLI by having their system comprise an enhanced authentication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify user access, wherein the enhanced authentication process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control access.
As to claims 5, 13 and 20, the system of Holz and as applied to claim 1 teaches access control, specifically Holz expressly teach a method of claim 1, further comprising performing a multi-factor authentication based on the facial recognition and at least one other form of authentication (i.e., …illustrates in figure4A authentication from image… illustrates in figure 4B using the activities of a user to authenticate. Teaches in par. 0103 the following: “For example, Process 420 can involve displaying an object on the screen of the computing device (Step 422) and tracking the user's pupils in response to the displayed object (Step 424). If both eyes are determined to move (or “jump”) into the direction of the displayed object, the implicit verification module 308 can determine that an actual person is sitting in front of the camera (Step 426).”).
As to claims 6 and 14, the system of Holz and as applied to claim 1 teaches access control, specifically Holz teaches a method of claim 5, wherein the at least one other form of authentication comprises a passcode or biometric information (i.e., …The examiner notes that the usage of the term “or” places the above limitation(s) in alternative form. As such as it pertains to applicant’s alternative form of, “biometric information”, Holz teaches in par. 0103 the following: “For example, Process 420 can involve displaying an object on the screen of the computing device (Step 422) and tracking the user's pupils in response to the displayed object (Step 424). If both eyes are determined to move (or “jump”) into the direction of the displayed object, the implicit verification module 308 can determine that an actual person is sitting in front of the camera (Step 426) … teaches in par. 0003 the following: “Such authentication information may take various forms, including, but not limited to, alphanumeric passcodes and biometric information including, but not limited to fingerprints, retina scans, and facial images.”).
As to claims 7 and 15, the system of Holz and as applied to claim 1 teaches access control, specifically Holz teaches a method of claim 6, further comprising receiving the passcode via a user interface of the control panel (i.e., …teaches in par. 0003 the following: “Such authentication information may take various forms, including, but not limited to, alphanumeric passcodes and biometric information including, but not limited to fingerprints, retina scans, and facial images.”).
As to claim 8, the system of Holz and as applied to claim 1 teaches access control, specifically Holz does not expressly teach a method of claim 1, wherein detecting the short range communication device comprises using a radio in the control panel.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference FRIEDLI.
FRIEDLI teaches in par. 0019 the following: “the radio connection takes place between the transmitting and receiving device and a mobile electronic device of a user in accordance with a Bluetooth standard or a WLAN/WiFi standard.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Holz with the teachings of FRIEDLI by having their system comprise an enhanced authentication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify user access, wherein the enhanced authentication process helps facilitate security within the network and makes it easier to control access.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights