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 following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 06/15/2026. Amendments received on 06/15/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-19 are pending of which claims 12-18 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As of claim 8, line 4, term “the access control device” should be --the second access control device--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brady et al. (US 10,573,106).
As of claims 1 and 11, Brady discloses a security system managing access to a site (see abstract), comprising:
a computing system adapted to obtain an augmented topology map of the site, the augmented topology map defining a plurality of spaces included in the site (Brady discloses that the intermediary device 150 determines a route to be travelled by a worker within a home (see col. 4, lines 16-35) so the intermediary device will obtain floor plan of the house as disclosed in figs. 1B, 1H and 6E);
the computing system adapted to identify respective space attribute values for each space included in the plurality of spaces (via floor plan including a plurality or rooms and their attributes (garage, living room, kitchen etc.; see col. 2, lines 61-66);
the computing system adapted to receive a request for an object to access a first space included in the plurality of spaces (via receiving a request for a worker to access the home; see col. 3, lines 55-65);
the computing system adapted to determine a route from a starting location of the object to the first space based in part on the respective space attribute values identified for each space included in the plurality of spaces and an identity of the object, the route including at least one monitoring device disposed between the starting location and the first space; (see fig. 1F; also see col. 4, lines 16-35, Once the worker 130 has been authenticated, the intermediary device 150 allow the worker 130 to access the home 160, e.g., by unlocking and opening the garage door 180-2, and perform services in the designated location, viz., the bathroom 165-4…The intermediary device 150 may also determine a route to be traveled by the worker 130 within the home 160, e.g., a shortest or optimal path, and may automatically unlock and/or open any intervening doors that are required to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4”. Brady further discloses that the intermediary device 150 operates the security cameras in the house to monitor the worker’s actives within house; also see col. 6, lines 7-18); and
the computing system adapted to push configuration parameters to a first access control device disposed on the route based in part on the identity of the object, the configuration parameters enabling the first access control device to permit the object to transit past the first access control device based in part on the identity of the object With regards to the limitation of pushing configuration parameter, the claim language does not state what are the configuration parameters other than “the configuration parameters enabling the first access control device to permit the object to transit past the first access control device based in part on the identity of the object”. Specification does not provide a specific definition of “configuration parameter”. Specification (paragraph [0125] states “the security system server 110 implements the PSMS 718 to push configuration parameters to one or more access control devices 104 included in the security system 100, remotely disengage, unlock, and/or open one or more access control devices 104, remotely engage, lock, and/or close one or more access control devices 104, and/or otherwise control operation of one or more access control devices 104”. So based on this explanation any signal that is received by an access control device to disengage, unlock or open is interpreted as “configuration parameter”. In the system of Brady, the intermediary device 150 determines a route to be traveled by the worker 130 within the home 160. Brady further discloses that the intermediary device is in communication with the doors in the home (see figs 2 and 6C; also see col. 9, lines 36-50) and automatically unlocks and/or opens any intervening doors that are required to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4. The intermediary device 150 also automatically lock and/or close any doors within the home 160 that need not be opened in order to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4 (see col. 4, lines 25-35), so when intermediary device 130 communicates instructions to the doors/locks to actuate it is interpreted as pushing configuration parameters and as disclosed above intermediary device decides which door to open and which to not open based on the workers identity, hence disclosing the limitation of “the configuration parameters enabling the first access control device to permit the object to transit past the first access control device based in part on the identity of the object”).
As of claim 2, Brady discloses that to determine the route, the computing system is adapted to identify at least one second space in the plurality of spaces through which the object is permitted to transit; and the computing system adapted to add the at least one second space to the route (via disclosing that the intermediary device 150 determines a route to be traveled by the worker 130 within the home 160, e.g., a shortest or optimal path, and automatically unlock and/or open any intervening doors (second space) that are required to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4; see col. 4, lines 25-30).
As of claim 3, Brady discloses that the identity of the object comprises one or more object attribute values that define the object (via detecting and identifying the worker 130 (object) and confirming his or intent to perform the services at the request of the owner; see col. 3, lines 53-60); and to identify the at least one second space in the plurality of spaces through which the object is permitted to transit, the computing system is adapted to compare the object attribute values to the respective space attribute values identified for each space included in the plurality of spaces; and the computing system adapted to determine, based on the comparison of the object attribute values to the respective space attribute values, that transiting through the at least one second space is in compliance with one or more active policies associated with the site (via disclosing that the intermediary device 150 determines a route to be traveled by the worker 130 within the home 160, e.g., a shortest or optimal path, and automatically unlock and/or open any intervening doors that are required to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4. The intermediary device 150 also automatically lock and/or close any doors within the home 160 that need not be opened in order to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4, so if the worker is allowed to pass through a room, the door to that room is unlocked and if a worker is not allowed to pass through a room the door to that room is locked; see col. 4, lines 25-35).
As of claim 4, Brady discloses that to determine the route, the computing system is adapted to identify at least one third space in the plurality of spaces through which the object is not permitted to transit; and the computing system adapted to determine not to add the at least one third space the route (via disclosing that the intermediary device 150 also automatically lock and/or close any doors within the home 160 that need not be opened in order to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4, so if the worker is allowed to pass through a room, the door to that room is unlocked and if a worker is not allowed to pass through a room the door to that room is locked and is not included in the route; see col. 4, lines 25-3).
As of claim 5, Brady discloses that the identity of the object comprises one or more object attribute values that define the object; and to identify the at least one third space in the plurality of spaces through which the object is not permitted to transit, the computing system is adapted to compare the object attribute values to the respective space attribute values identified for each space included in the plurality of spaces; and the computing system adapted to determine, based on the comparison of the object attribute values to the respective space attribute values, that transiting through the at least one second space is not in compliance with one or more active policies associated with the site (please see the rejection of claim 4. Brady further discloses that the intermediary device determines that the worker who is authorized to go to the living room is not authorized to go the bathroom or the bedroom and the intermediary device locks the door to those rooms; fig. 6E; also see col. 27, lines 26-35).
As of claim 6, Brady discloses that the object attribute values comprise a first clearance level value (via determining that the worker is an apprentice or new worker), the respective space attributes identified for the at least second space comprise a second clearance level value (areas or rooms where the worker is allowed), and the respective space attributes identified for the at least third space comprise a third clearance level attribute (areas or rooms where the worker is not allowed); wherein the first clearance level value is in compliance with one or more policies associated with the at least second space and wherein the first clearance level value is not in compliance with one or more active policies associated with the at least third space (via disclosing that the owner may grant unfettered access to the secure facility for the performance of the task, or may reduce or eliminate the level of monitoring within the secure facility during a performance of the task. Where the owner determines that the worker is an inexperienced individual (e.g., an apprentice), or an individual with whom the owner has no prior experience, the owner may identify a number of rooms, spaces or features (e.g., closets, safes or other secure spaces) within the secure facility that may not be accessed during the performance of the task, or may initiate or elevate a level of monitoring within the secure facility during the performance of the task. The owner may, in some embodiments, specify rooms, spaces or features to which access is granted or denied and the intermediary device grants access to the worker in order to perform a task therein, e.g., in accordance with any designations or modifications by the owner; see fig. 9, also see col. 31, lines 50-60 and col. 32, lines 10-15).
As of claim 8, Brady discloses that to permit the object to traverse the route, the computing system is adapted to unlock a second access control device that is disposed along the route; wherein the access control device includes an electronic door lock included in the security system (via disclosing that the intermediary device 150 determines a route to be traveled by the worker 130 within the home 160, and automatically unlock and/or open any intervening doors that are required to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4. The intermediary device 150 also automatically lock and/or close any doors within the home 160 that need not be opened in order to enable the worker 130 to access the bathroom 165-4; see col. 4, lines 25-35).
As of claim 10, Brady discloses that the computing system is adapted to display, via a display device, the route on the augmented topology map (via displaying the route to the location where the services are to be performed, such bathroom; see fig. 1F; also see col. 4, lines 58-66)); and wherein the computing system is adapted to store, via a database, the route in association with the identity of the object (via recording information regarding the work and the security footage captured by the cameras regarding the worker and the work performed (see col. 5, lines 35-55).
As of claim 19, Brady discloses that the computing system and the first access control device are connected via a network (Brady discloses that the intermediary device is in communication with any number of internal or external access points or entryways, such as doors or other portals, having components that may be operated manually as well as automatically (e.g., manually and/or automatically), and may be locked, unlocked, opened and/or closed, as necessary, and at the direction of an intermediary device, hence devices are connected via a network; see fig. 2; also see col. 9, lines 40-50).
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.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady (US 10,573,106) in view of Hayes (US Pub 2021/0190504).
As of claim 9, Brady discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, Brady discloses the function of determining optimal or short route to the destination (see col. 4, lines 16-350, however it does not explicitly disclose the function of identifying a plurality of routes and the computing system selecting a route from a plurality or routes as claimed in claim 9.
Hayes discloses a method of generating route instructions for a user, wherien a control system identifies plurality of routes and determines a route based on the object attributes and facility attributes (policies associated with a space) (see abstract; also see paragraphs [0098]-[0100] and [0184]).
From the teaching of Hayes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Brady to include the function of identifying plurality of routes and selecting a desired route as taught by Hayes I order to select an optimum route.
As of claim 7, Brady discloses that the first access control device is a badge scanner (via node device 2 communicating with the user’s mobile device (PIU) using RFID, NFC or Bluetooth, hence comprising a badge scanner; see paragraphs [0028] and [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly added limitations have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been rejected as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Davetta W 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights