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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amends the claim to recite “after the unlock code is entered into the remote computing device that is separate from the computing device” and argues that the applied reference fails to teach the amended limitation. In response, examiner clarifies that the applied reference teaches the amended limitation as shown below. Fig. 1 and Para 14-27 teaches a mobile device 102, a portable computer having a physical lid 104 and a remote server 106. The mobile device authenticates to the remote server using a passphrase/alphanumeric string. After the authentication, the remote server provides an unlock code to the portable computer to unlock the lid. The remote server which provides the unlock code is a separate device. In light of the explanation above, the rejection is maintained as the applied reference clearly anticipates the claims of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadu et al. (US-20140283018), and further in view of Hartway (US-20180365453).
Referring to claims 1, 7, 11 and 12:
Regarding claims 1, 7, 11 and 12, Dadu teaches a computing device comprising: a physical locking mechanism (Para 10 and 16… physical locking mechanism); a sensor (Para 19… NFC or biometric reader as sensor); a display device including a display area (Para 20… display); and a processor, wherein the processor is to: detect, via the sensor, an input to the computing device (Para 17 and 19…. input to the device); activate, in response to the input, the display device (Para 25…. activate the display device when the input is received) display, by the display device, an unlock code in the display area (Para 25… display the security validation); and cause, in response to an unlock signal being received by the computing device from a remote computing device after the unlock code is entered into the remote computing device that is separate from the computing device, the physical locking mechanism to disengage (See the response to argument and Para 14-27…. remote server send unlock code after authentication by mobile device using passphrase/alphanumeric string).
Dadu teaches the display and the unlock code but fails to explicitly recite displying the unlock code on the display device. However, displaying an unlock code on a display device is well known in the art and disclosed by Hartway in Para 56 (unlock code in the form of an alphanumeric character displayed on a device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unlock code of Dadu as alphanumeric characters and display them on the display as taught by Hartway for the purpose of verifying and validating the unlock code thereby ensuring the security of the system is not compromised.
Referring to claims 2 and 6:
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the combination of Dadu and Hartway teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein: the computing device includes a first housing and a second housing (See Dadu, Fig. 1…. portable computer); and the display device is located on an external surface of the first housing (See Dadu, Fig 1…. display 112).
Referring to claim 3:
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dadu and Hartway teaches the computing device of claim 2, wherein in response to the physical locking mechanism
Referring to claim 4:
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dadu and Hartway teaches the computing device of claim 2, wherein the processor is to cause the physical locking mechanism
Referring to claim 5:
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dadu and Hartway teaches the computing device of claim 2, wherein the processor is to cause the physical locking mechanism to be engaged in response to: the first housing being moved relative to the second housing to a closed orientation (See Dadu, Para 23, 30 and 16…. engaging the lock mechanism when receiving a lock signal); and the processor receiving a lock signal from the remote computing device (See Dadu, Para 23, 30 and 16…. engaging the lock mechanism when receiving a lock signal and closing the lid).
Referring to claims 13 and 14:
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination of Dadu and Hartway teaches the computing device of claim 11, wherein the remote computing device corresponds to a user profile of the computing device (See Dadu, Para 51 and 52…. logging into a BIOS profile of the computing device in response to the unlock signal)
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadu et al. (US-20140283018), and Hartway (US-20180365453), and further in view of Davis et al (US-20200090175).
Referring to claim 8:
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dadu and Hartway teaches the unlock signal received by the computing device but fails to teach the unlock signal as a hash. However, receiving a hash as an unlock code is well known in the art and taught by Davis in Para 76 (unlock signal including a hash). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Dadu by implementing the unlock signal as a hash for the purpose of ensuring data/signal integrity.
Referring to claim 9:
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Dadu, Hartway and Davis teach the non-transitory medium of claim 8, including further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to compare the hash received from the remote computing device to a hash table stored in a database (See Davis…. Para 76…. hash comparison).
Referring to claim 10:
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Dadu and Hartway teaches the non-transitory medium of claim 9, including further instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: cause the locking device of the computing device to disengage in response to the hash received from the remote computing device matching a hash included in the hash table (See Davis…. Para 76…. unlocking if comparison matches).
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 IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST.
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 at (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 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.
/IZUNNA OKEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights