Ex Parte Kannan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

13366927 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/366,927 02/06/2012
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
08/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kamal Kannan
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0029161 4874/114673 2016
EXAMINER
ALAM, MIRZA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAMAL KANNAN 1
Appeal2014-007330
Application 13/366,927
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Honeywell International, Inc., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007330
Application 13/366,927
Invention
Appellant discloses a system for making visitor appointments that
includes wireless communications of a registration form, image,
appointment request, available appointment times, approval request, and
approval confirmation. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim l, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized and
marked as recitations [a}---{e], is representative:
1. A method comprising:
wirelessly transmitting a registration form to a visitor
device;
wirelessly receiving a completed registration form from
the visitor device;
[a] validating a visitor to a visited building;
[b] wirelessly transmitting an image to the visitor device,
the image is used by the visitor to check in with security of the
visited building or open doors associated with access points of
the visited building;
wirelessly receiving an appointment request from a
visitor device;
processing the appointment request;
[ c] wirelessly transmitting a message with available
appointment times for an employee in the visited building to the
visitor device;
[ d] wirelessly receiving an approval request from the
visitor device; and
[ e] wirelessly transmitting an approval confirmation
message to the visitor device.
2
Appeal2014-007330
Application 13/366,927
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over O'Neil et al. (US 2004/0225887 Al;
Nov. 11, 2004) and Tor et al. (US 2005/0114192 Al; May 26, 2005). Final
Act. 3-24.
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over O'Neil, Tor, and Mallick et al. (US 2003/0058082
Al; Mar. 27, 2003). Final Act. 24--26.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of O'Neil and Tor
teaches or suggests the claim 1 recitations [a]-[ e ]?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds O'Neil's mobile
authentication registration system, by authenticating a user, transmitting
images to the user, and receiving and responding to a request to access
application information, teaches validating a visitor, wirelessly transmitting
an image to the visitor device, wirelessly receiving an approval request from
the visitor device, and wirelessly transmitting an approval confirmation
message to the visitor device. Final Act. 4 (citing, e.g., O'Neil i-fi-15, 39, 45,
3
Appeal2014-007330
Application 13/366,927
66, 95, 100, 103). The Examiner finds Tor's display of time slots available
for visiting an inmate teaches or suggests transmitting a message with
available appointment times for an employee in a visited building to a visitor
device. Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Tor i1i17, 70, 71).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "O'Neil et al. merely
discloses access to a website and Tor et al. discloses an appointment request
system for use by a prisoner." App. Br. 7. Appellant's arguments are
unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Tor's management of inmate
visitation management to teach or suggest access to a building and on
O'Neil's communications with a mobile device to teach or suggest the use of
wireless transmissions as part of such an access management process.
Appellant's arguments, being unresponsive to the Examiner's rejection, are
unpersuasive.
Appellant further argues that it "would be apparent to those of skill in
the art, a prison would not authenticate visitors through the Internet or
transmit images that could be used without strict scrutiny." App. Br. 7-8;
see also Reply Br. 3--4. However, as the Examiner finds, Tor teaches or
suggests the use of an image-such as a confirmation number-as part of
the process of registering, approving, and scheduling inmate visitors. Ans. 3
(citing Tor i-f 14, Fig. 6). Appellant does not persuasively dispute the
Examiner's reliance on Tor's confirmation number to teach or suggest the
claimed image. Rather, Appellant argues that "displaying images
confirming an appointment with an inmate (as under Tor et al.) is not the
same as 'wirelessly transmitting an image ... used by the visitor to check in
with security of the visited building .... "' Reply Br. 4. However, Tor
teaches or suggests the use of a confirmation number (i.e., an image
4
Appeal2014-007330
Application 13/366,927
confirming an appointment with an inmate) for check in with security (e.g., a
department of corrections official). See Tor i-f 53 ("when the visitor arrives
at the prison, the visitor presents the confirmation number to one or more of
a department of corrections official or to, for example, a ticket reader").
Thus, Appellant's argument that images would not be used in visitor
authentication does not accord with Tor's teachings and suggestions and is,
therefore, unpersuasive.
Appellant also argues "O'Neil et al could not be changed for use in
controlling access to a building without changing the principle of operation
of O'Neil et al." App. Br. 8. However, Appellant does not identify a
principal of operation in 0 'Neil's centralized authentication system that
would be changed by applying O'Neil's teachings and suggestions as part of
the authentication of visitors to a physical location.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
O'Neil and Tor teaches or suggests: [a] "validating a visitor to a visited
building"; [b] "wirelessly transmitting an image to the visitor device, the
image is used by the visitor to check in with security of the visited building
or open doors associated with access points of the visited building"; [ c]
"wirelessly transmitting a message with available appointment times for an
employee in the visited building to the visitor device"; [ d] "wirelessly
receiving an approval request from the visitor device"; and [ e] "wirelessly
transmitting an approval confirmation message to the visitor device," as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-20, which Appellant does not argue
separately. App. Br. 11. Appellant does not raise additional arguments with
5
Appeal2014-007330
Application 13/366,927
respect to dependent claims 4 and 6. Therefore, we also sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6