Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 25-45 are currently pending and have been considered below. Claim 25, 34 and 36 are independent claim. Claim 1-24 are previously cancelled. Claims 25, 34 and 36 have been amended.
Double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 07/08/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments added in the amendment filed on 06/17/2025 have been fully considered but moot in view of new ground of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
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 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 of this title, 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 25-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munns (US Patent No 9,460,319 B1) in view of Edelstein (US Patent Application Publication No 2011/0187532 A1) and further in view of Morris (US Patent Application Publication No 2005/0243059 A1) and further in view of Zalewski (US Patent No 9,888,337 B1).
Regarding Claim 25, Munns discloses a port security device (Munns, Fig-1) comprising:
a plug positionable in a port of a computing device (Munns, Fig-1, col 6, line 60-65, security device is configured to be inserted into a computer port);
a housing configured to cover and restrict access to the plug when the plug is positioned in the port of the computing device (Munns, col 7, line 55-60, the housing, element 20 in Fig-1, is typically constructed such that, once inserted into the port, element 80, there are no openings on the exposed portion of the housing that could provide access to the interior of the housing and specifically the locking/securing mechanism. Various communication ports of the housing are constructed and/or positioned such that the interior of the housing is not accessible),
wherein the port security device is positionable between a locked position in which the housing inhibits access to the port and an unlocked position in which the housing allows access to the port, the plug being accessible and removable from the port when the port security device is in the unlocked position (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Col 11, line 45-55, locking arms and the locking hooks to be lifted away from the slots, thereby unlocking the security device so that it is typically withdrawn from the receptacle without requiring any manual input. Col 12, line 50-60, unlocking the security device based on user authentication credential); and
Munns does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Edelstein teaches:
an alarm disposed within an interior space of the housing and configured to provide an indication when the port security device moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0049], when the acceleration sensed by the accelerometer 208 exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the processor 210 provides a control signal to the audio driver 203, which energizes the siren 202 to emit the alarm sound 103);
a power source disposed within the interior space of the housing and configured to provide power to the alarm and the transceiver when the port security device is in the active mode (Edelstein, ¶[0047], disposed within the enclosure 112 are a siren 202 for producing the alarm sound 103, an audio driver 203 for driving the siren 202, a battery 204 for providing electrical power to the security device);
wherein the housing includes a sidewall that prevents objects on an exterior of the housing from contacting the speaker (Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0047], disposed within the enclosure 112 are a siren 202 for producing the alarm sound 103, an audio driver 203 for driving the siren 202).
Munns in view of Edelstein are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “lock mechanism for data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein to include the idea of inserting a locking system that can lock and unlock the data port. It will enhance the security on an electronic device which has external access port whereby they are constructed and arranged for the ease of sharing information.
Munns in view of Edelstein does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Morris teaches:
real-time information relating to an operational status of the port security device to an access point, wherein the port security device has a sleep mode in which the port security device is inactive and an active mode in which the transceiver transmits the real-time information to the access point (Morris, Fig-6, ¶[0069], the wireless unit 116 for the wireless mouse 106 transitions into and out of sleep state under the control of its MAC layer 208. In the case in which the wireless unit 116 is awakened due to expiration of this time-out interval, the counters associated with each of the three directional axes are compared against a predefined value (e.g., 2). If none of the counters exceed this threshold, the time-out is restarted and Sleep resumed; otherwise, a mouse report message is sent to the host transceiver 112 and these counters are reset to zero. As is shown in FIG. 6, once receipt of this mouse report message is acknowledged by the host transceiver 112, the wireless unit 116 returns to sleep State).
Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “lock mechanism for data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris to include the idea of having a sleep mode and a wake mode and configured for wireless communication. It will enhance the power consumption of a device.
Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Zalewski teaches:
a transceiver disposed within the interior space of the housing and configured to wirelessly transmit (Zalewski, col 15, line 40-45, the wireless coded signal may indicate the desired switch state upon transition from on to off. Col 87, line 10-20, the WCC logic can wirelessly transmit data to an end node);
wherein upon detecting movement from the lock position, the alarm is configured to activate and simultaneously the transceiver is programmed to wirelessly transmit the real-time information (Zalewski, col 28, line 10-20, existing smoke detector may be integrated into a home automation system by coupling a preloaded sound activated wireless coded communication device in close proximity to a smoke alarm whereby activation of the legacy alarm causes trigger of the WCC, prompting the WCC to send a coded communication signal to a desired endpoint. Col 49, line 35-45, the recommendation may be in response to detected motion or triggering of an alarm. Col 78, line 35-45, Fig-42G, the WCC may receive wireless commands to lock and unlock the outlet).
Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “security data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski to include the idea of having a smart cover that includes a housing plate, a secure element coupled to the housing plate, a transceiver in communication with the secure element, and an antenna coupled to the transceiver. The transceiver and the antenna are coupled to the housing plate as well. The housing plate couples to the mobile communications device to provide protection for electronics in the mobile communications device (Zalewski, col 19, line 10-15).
Regarding Claim 26, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device of claim 25 further comprising a sensor configured to detect when the port security device moves from the locked position to the unlocked position, wherein the port security device is in sleep mode when the port security device remains in the locked position and is switched from the sleep mode to the active mode when sensor detects that the port security device moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (Munns, col 3, line 5-10, a linear actuator comprising a shaft, wherein the linear actuator is configured to cause a linear displacement of the shaft.).
Regarding Claim 27, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device of claim 26 wherein the power source is completely enclosed in the housing and is configured to provide power to the sensor (Munns, col 8, line 45-55, transmitting power and control signals between computer port and the controller device).
Regarding Claim 28, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device in accordance with claim 25, wherein the housing defines an interior space and includes a first end and a second end, and wherein the housing is configured to receive a cable connected to the port, the cable extending through the interior space from the first end to the second end, the plug being connected to the cable (Munns, Fig-4a & 4b, col 13, line 45-50, a control cable is configured to connect a peripheral device inserted into the port).
Regarding Claim 29, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device in accordance with claim 28, wherein the housing includes a sidewall extending about the cable, the sidewall defining an opening on each of the first end and the second end for the cable to extend through (Munns, Fig-4a & 4b).
Regarding Claim 30, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device in accordance with claim 29 further comprising a lock configured to secure the housing in the locked position (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Col 11, line 45-55, locking arms and the locking hooks to be lifted away from the slots, thereby unlocking the security device so that it is typically withdrawn from the receptacle without requiring any manual input. Col 12, line 50-60, unlocking the security device based on user authentication credential. Also Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0047], disposed within the enclosure 112 are a siren 202 for producing the alarm sound 103, an audio driver 203 for driving the siren 202).
Regarding Claim 31, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device in accordance with claim 30 further comprising a collar configured to attach to the cable and engage the lock when the port security device is in the locked position (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Col 11, line 45-55, locking arms and the locking hooks to be lifted away from the slots, thereby unlocking the security device so that it is typically withdrawn from the receptacle without requiring any manual input. Col 12, line 50-60, unlocking the security device based on user authentication credential. Also Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0047], disposed within the enclosure 112 are a siren 202 for producing the alarm sound 103, an audio driver 203 for driving the siren 202).
Regarding Claim 32, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device in accordance with claim 25, wherein the plug and the housing are connected in assembly, and wherein the port security device is configured to connect to the port without a cable being connected to the port (Munns, col 7, line 55-60, the housing, element 20 in Fig-1, is typically constructed such that, once inserted into the port, element 80, there are no openings on the exposed portion of the housing that could provide access to the interior of the housing and specifically the locking/securing mechanism. Various communication ports of the housing are constructed and/or positioned such that the interior of the housing is not accessible. Also Morris, Fig-6, ¶[0069], the wireless unit 116 for the wireless mouse 106 transitions into and out of sleep state under the control of its MAC layer 208. In the case in which the wireless unit 116 is awakened due to expiration of this time-out interval, the counters associated with each of the three directional axes are compared against a predefined value (e.g., 2). If none of the counters exceed this threshold, the time-out is restarted and Sleep resumed; otherwise, a mouse report message is sent to the host transceiver 112 and these counters are reset to zero. As is shown in FIG. 6, once receipt of this mouse report message is acknowledged by the host transceiver 112, the wireless unit 116 returns to sleep state).
Regarding Claim 33, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device in accordance with claim 32, wherein the housing is spaced from the plug when the port security device is in the unlocked position (Munns, col 7, line 55-60, the housing, element 20 in Fig-1, is typically constructed such that, once inserted into the port, element 80, there are no openings on the exposed portion of the housing that could provide access to the interior of the housing and specifically the locking/securing mechanism. Various communication ports of the housing are constructed and/or positioned such that the interior of the housing is not accessible).
Regarding Claim 34, Munns discloses a method of securing a port of a computing device, the method comprising:
positioning a port security device adjacent the port (Munns, Fig-1, col 6, line 60-65, security device is configured to be inserted into a computer port. col 7, line 55-60, the housing, element 20 in Fig-1, is typically constructed such that, once inserted into the port, element 80, there are no openings on the exposed portion of the housing that could provide access to the interior of the housing and specifically the locking/securing mechanism. Various communication ports of the housing are constructed and/or positioned such that the interior of the housing is not accessible),
the port security device including a housing, wherein the port security device is positionable between a locked position in which the housing inhibits access to the port and an unlocked position in which the housing allows access to the port (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Col 11, line 45-55, locking arms and the locking hooks to be lifted away from the slots, thereby unlocking the security device so that it is typically withdrawn from the receptacle without requiring any manual input. Col 12, line 50-60, unlocking the security device based on user authentication credential);
switching the port security device between the unlocked position and the locked position (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Col 11, line 45-55, locking arms and the locking hooks to be lifted away from the slots, thereby unlocking the security device so that it is typically withdrawn from the receptacle without requiring any manual input. Col 12, line 50-60, unlocking the security device based on user authentication credential); and
Munns does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Edelstein teaches:
indicating, using an alarm disposed within the interior space of the housing, in real-time when the port security device switches from the locked position to the unlocked position (Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0049], when the acceleration sensed by the accelerometer 208 exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the processor 210 provides a control signal to the audio driver 203, which energizes the siren 202 to emit the alarm sound 103).
Munns in view of Edelstein are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “lock mechanism for data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein to include the idea of inserting a locking system that can lock and unlock the data port. It will enhance the security on an electronic device which has external access port whereby they are constructed and arranged for the ease of sharing information.
Munns in view of Edelstein does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Morris teaches:
switching the port security device between the unlocked position and the locked position based on the signal received by the transceiver, (Morris, Fig-6, ¶[0069], the wireless unit 116 for the wireless mouse 106 transitions into and out of sleep state under the control of its MAC layer 208. In the case in which the wireless unit 116 is awakened due to expiration of this time-out interval, the counters associated with each of the three directional axes are compared against a predefined value (e.g., 2). If none of the counters exceed this threshold, the time-out is restarted and Sleep resumed; otherwise, a mouse report message is sent to the host transceiver 112 and these counters are reset to zero. As is shown in FIG. 6, once receipt of this mouse report message is acknowledged by the host transceiver 112, the wireless unit 116 returns to sleep state).
switching the port security device from the sleep mode to the active mode when the port security device moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (Morris, Fig-6, ¶[0069], the wireless unit 116 for the wireless mouse 106 transitions into and out of sleep state under the control of its MAC layer 208. In the case in which the wireless unit 116 is awakened due to expiration of this time-out interval, the counters associated with each of the three directional axes are compared against a predefined value (e.g., 2). If none of the counters exceed this threshold, the time-out is restarted and Sleep resumed; otherwise, a mouse report message is sent to the host transceiver 112 and these counters are reset to zero. As is shown in FIG. 6, once receipt of this mouse report message is acknowledged by the host transceiver 112, the wireless unit 116 returns to sleep state).
Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “lock mechanism for data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris to include the idea of having a sleep mode and a wake mode and configured for wireless communication. It will enhance the power consumption of a device.
Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Zalewski teaches:
receiving, by a transceiver disposed within an interior space of the housing, a signal wherein the transceiver is configured to wirelessly transmit information (Zalewski, col 15, line 40-45, the wireless coded signal may indicate the desired switch state upon transition from on to off. Col 87, line 10-20, the WCC logic can wirelessly transmit data to an end node);
wherein upon detecting movement from the lock position, the alarm is configured to activate and simultaneously the transceiver is programmed to wirelessly transmit the real-time information (Zalewski, col 28, line 10-20, existing smoke detector may be integrated into a home automation system by coupling a preloaded sound activated wireless coded communication device in close proximity to a smoke alarm whereby activation of the legacy alarm causes trigger of the WCC, prompting the WCC to send a coded communication signal to a desired endpoint. Col 49, line 35-45, the recommendation may be in response to detected motion or triggering of an alarm. Col 78, line 35-45, Fig-42G, the WCC may receive wireless commands to lock and unlock the outlet).
Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “security data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski to include the idea of having a smart cover that includes a housing plate, a secure element coupled to the housing plate, a transceiver in communication with the secure element, and an antenna coupled to the transceiver. The transceiver and the antenna are coupled to the housing plate as well. The housing plate couples to the mobile communications device to provide protection for electronics in the mobile communications device (Zalewski, col 19, line 10-15).
Regarding Claim 35, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the method in accordance with claim 34 further comprising detecting, using a sensor, when the port security device switches from the unlocked position to the locked position (Munns, col 3, line 5-10, a linear actuator comprising a shaft, wherein the linear actuator is configured to cause a linear displacement of the shaft. Edelstein, ¶[0008], motion sensor).
Regarding Claim 36, Munns discloses a system including:
a computing device including a port (Munns, Fig-1, col 6, line 60-65, security device is configured to be inserted into a computer port); and
a port security device configured to restrict access to the port, the port security device comprising:
a plug positionable in the port of the computing device (Munns, col 7, line 55-60, the housing, element 20 in Fig-1, is typically constructed such that, once inserted into the port, element 80, there are no openings on the exposed portion of the housing that could provide access to the interior of the housing and specifically the locking/securing mechanism. Various communication ports of the housing are constructed and/or positioned such that the interior of the housing is not accessible);
a housing configured to restrict access to the plug when the plug is positioned in the port of the computing device (Munns, col 7, line 55-60, the housing, element 20 in Fig-1, is typically constructed such that, once inserted into the port, element 80, there are no openings on the exposed portion of the housing that could provide access to the interior of the housing and specifically the locking/securing mechanism. Various communication ports of the housing are constructed and/or positioned such that the interior of the housing is not accessible),
wherein the port security device is positionable between a locked position in which the housing inhibits access to the port and an unlocked position in which the housing allows access to the port, the plug being accessible and removable from the port when the port security device is in the unlocked position (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Col 11, line 45-55, locking arms and the locking hooks to be lifted away from the slots, thereby unlocking the security device so that it is typically withdrawn from the receptacle without requiring any manual input. Col 12, line 50-60, unlocking the security device based on user authentication credential); and
Munns does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Edelstein teaches:
an alarm comprising a speaker positioned within an interior space of the housing and configured to provide a real-time indication to people in the vicinity of the computing device when the port security device moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0049], when the acceleration sensed by the accelerometer 208 exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the processor 210 provides a control signal to the audio driver 203, which energizes the siren 202 to emit the alarm sound 103);
wherein the housing includes a sidewall that prevents objects on an exterior of the housing from contacting the speaker (Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0047], Disposed within the enclosure 112 are a siren 202 for producing the alarm sound 103, an audio driver 203 for driving the siren 202).
Munns in view of Edelstein are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “lock mechanism for data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein to include the idea of inserting a locking system that can lock and unlock the data port. It will enhance the security on an electronic device which has external access port whereby they are constructed and arranged for the ease of sharing information.
Munns in view of Edelstein does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Morris teaches:
real-time information relating to an operational status of the port security device to an access point (Morris, Fig-6, ¶[0069], the wireless unit 116 for the wireless mouse 106 transitions into and out of sleep state under the control of its MAC layer 208. In the case in which the wireless unit 116 is awakened due to expiration of this time-out interval, the counters associated with each of the three directional axes are compared against a predefined value (e.g., 2). If none of the counters exceed this threshold, the time-out is restarted and Sleep resumed; otherwise, a mouse report message is sent to the host transceiver 112 and these counters are reset to zero. As is shown in FIG. 6, once receipt of this mouse report message is acknowledged by the host transceiver 112, the wireless unit 116 returns to sleep State).
Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “lock mechanism for data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris to include the idea of having a sleep mode and a wake mode and configured for wireless communication. It will enhance the power consumption of a device.
Munns in view of Edelstein and Morris does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Zalewski teaches:
a transceiver disposed within the interior space of the housing and configured to wirelessly transmit (Zalewski, col 15, line 40-45, the wireless coded signal may indicate the desired switch state upon transition from on to off. Col 87, line 10-20, the WCC logic can wirelessly transmit data to an end node);
wherein upon detecting movement from the lock position, the alarm is configured to activate and simultaneously the transceiver is programmed to wirelessly transmit the real-time information (Zalewski, col 28, line 10-20, existing smoke detector may be integrated into a home automation system by coupling a preloaded sound activated wireless coded communication device in close proximity to a smoke alarm whereby activation of the legacy alarm causes trigger of the WCC, prompting the WCC to send a coded communication signal to a desired endpoint. Col 49, line 35-45, the recommendation may be in response to detected motion or triggering of an alarm. Col 78, line 35-45, Fig-42G, the WCC may receive wireless commands to lock and unlock the outlet).
Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “security data port”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski to include the idea of having a smart cover that includes a housing plate, a secure element coupled to the housing plate, a transceiver in communication with the secure element, and an antenna coupled to the transceiver. The transceiver and the antenna are coupled to the housing plate as well. The housing plate couples to the mobile communications device to provide protection for electronics in the mobile communications device (Zalewski, col 19, line 10-15).
Regarding Claim 37, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the system of claim 36 further comprising a sensor configured to detect when the port security device moves from the locked position to the unlocked position (Munns, col 3, line 5-10, a linear actuator comprising a shaft, wherein the linear actuator is configured to cause a linear displacement of the shaft. Also Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0049], when the acceleration sensed by the accelerometer 208 exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the processor 210 provides a control signal to the audio driver 203, which energizes the siren 202 to emit the alarm sound 103).
Regarding Claim 38, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the system of claim 37, wherein the port security device further comprises a power source disposed within an interior space of the housing and configured to provide power to the sensor and to the alarm, wherein the power source is completely enclosed in the housing (Munns, col 8, line 45-55, transmitting power and control signals between computer port and the controller device. Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0047], a battery for providing electrical power).
Regarding Claim 39, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the system of claim 36, wherein the port security device includes a transceiver configured to transmit real-time information relating to an operational status of the port security device to a remote computing device (Munns, Fig-1, col 6, line 60-65, security device is configured to be inserted into a computer port. Also Edelstein, Fig-2).
Regarding Claim 40, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the system of claim 39, wherein the real-time information relating to the operational status includes at least one of a power level, activity data, diagnostic data, communication data, sensor status, or an alert (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Also Edelstein, Fig-2, ¶[0049], when the acceleration sensed by the accelerometer 208 exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the processor 210 provides a control signal to the audio driver 203, which energizes the siren 202 to emit the alarm sound 103).
Regarding Claim 41, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the system in accordance with claim 36, wherein the port security device further comprises a lock configured to secure the housing in the locked position (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port).
Regarding Claim 42, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the system in accordance with claim 41, wherein the housing is spaced from the plug when the port security device is in the unlocked position (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port).
Regarding Claim 43, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device of claim 25 further comprising a transceiver configured to transmit real-time information relating to an operational status of the port security device to a remote computing device (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port. Also Morris, Fig-6, ¶[0069], the wireless unit 116 for the wireless mouse 106 transitions into and out of sleep state under the control of its MAC layer 208. In the case in which the wireless unit 116 is awakened due to expiration of this time-out interval, the counters associated with each of the three directional axes are compared against a predefined value (e.g., 2). If none of the counters exceed this threshold, the time-out is restarted and Sleep resumed; otherwise, a mouse report message is sent to the host transceiver 112 and these counters are reset to zero. As is shown in FIG. 6, once receipt of this mouse report message is acknowledged by the host transceiver 112, the wireless unit 116 returns to sleep state).
Regarding Claim 44, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device of claim 43, wherein the real-time information relating to the operational status includes at least one of a power level, activity data, diagnostic data, communication data, sensor status, or an alert (Munns, col 11, line 15-30, locking the security device so that it can not be physically withdrawn from the receptacle without damaging the port).
Regarding Claim 45, Munns in view of Edelstein, Morris and Zalewski discloses the port security device of claim 25, wherein the port security device switches from the sleep mode to the active mode when the port security device moves from the locked position to the unlocked position or when the port security device receives a signal from the access point (Morris, Fig-6, ¶[0069], the wireless unit 116 for the wireless mouse 106 transitions into and out of sleep state under the control of its MAC layer 208. In the case in which the wireless unit 116 is awakened due to expiration of this time-out interval, the counters associated with each of the three directional axes are compared against a predefined value (e.g., 2). If none of the counters exceed this threshold, the time-out is restarted and Sleep resumed; otherwise, a mouse report message is sent to the host transceiver 112 and these counters are reset to zero. As is shown in FIG. 6, once receipt of this mouse report message is acknowledged by the host transceiver 112, the wireless unit 116 returns to sleep state).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIKA NIPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8923. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7:30 - 5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFRY PWU can be reached on 571-272-6798. 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.
/WASIKA NIPA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433