Ex Parte Kannan

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 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. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6