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 non-final office action in response to the RCE filed 4/23/26. Amendments received on 4/23/26 have been entered. As per applicant claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 are canceled. Accordingly claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,610,445. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Present application (18/176,282) Claim 2:
A method for managing a plurality of access control devices, the method comprising: providing, at a backend server, a plurality of tasks to be performed by individuals; providing a plurality of applications for execution on respective mobile devices, the plurality of applications configured to: display one or more of the plurality of tasks on a respective mobile device; receive a selection of a first task of the plurality of tasks from a user of the respective mobile device; and in response to the selection, send a request to schedule the selected task to the backend server; each of at least a subset of the plurality of tasks preconfigured with an associated one or more of the plurality of access control devices that an individual is granted access to in order to complete the corresponding task; at a backend server, receiving, from a first application of the plurality of applications, the first application executing on a first mobile device, a request to schedule a first task of the at least a subset of tasks; at the backend server, provisioning, to the first mobile device, credentials for the first one or more access control devices associated with the first task, such that the first one or more access control devices grant access to the first mobile device;
at the backend server, receiving, from the first application of the plurality of applications, a request to schedule a second task of the at least a subset of tasks; and at the backend server, provisioning, to the first mobile device, credentials for a second one or more access control devices associated with the second task, such that the second one or more access control devices grant access to the first mobile device.
Conflicting Patent (11, 610,445) Claim 1+2:
A method for managing a plurality of access control devices, the method comprising: providing, at a backend server, a plurality of tasks for selection by a plurality of occupants of a multi-unit building; providing a plurality of occupant apps for the plurality of occupants, each occupant app configured to: receive a selection of a selected task of the plurality of tasks from an occupant of the plurality of occupants; and in response to the selection, send a request to schedule the selected task to the backend server: each of the plurality of tasks associated with one or more of a plurality, of non-occupant accounts to complete the corresponding task; each of at least a subset of the plurality of tasks associated with one or more of the plurality of access control devices that the one or more non-occupant accounts are granted access to in order to complete corresponding task; at a backend server, receiving, from a first occupant app of the plurality of occupant apps an indication that general authorized access is allowed for tasks assigned to a first non-occupant account: at the backend server, receiving, from the first occupant app, an indication that general authorized access is not allowed for tasks assigned to a second non-occupant account; at a backend server, receiving a request to schedule a first task of the at least a subset of tasks from the first occupant app of the plurality of apps; if the first task is associated with the first non-occupant account: at the backend server, identifying one or more access control devices that the first non-occupant account is to be granted credentials in order to complete the first task; at the backend server, provisioning credentials for the one or more access control devices associated with the first task to the first non-occupant account based on the general authorized access without further authorization from the first occupant app; if the first task is associated with the second non-occupant account, restricting access to the one or more access control devices until further authorization is received from the first occupant app; at the backend server, receiving a request to schedule a second task of the at least a subset of tasks from a second occupant app of the plurality of occupant apps: at the backend server, identifying one or more access control devices that a non-occupant account is to be granted credentials in order to complete the second task; and at the backend server, provisioning credentials for the one or more access control devices associated with the second task to the non-occupant account selected to complete the second task;
wherein identifying one or more access control devices includes identifying the one or more access control devices based on type of task, wherein a first type of task provides access to a first set of one or more access control devices and a second task provides access to a second set of one or more access control devices, the second set different than the first set.
Comments
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”
Dependent claims are rejected as follows:
Present application (18/176,282)
Conflicting Patent (11, 610,445)
4
3
5
5
7
7
9
9
11
11
13
13
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 14, term “a backend server” should be –the backend server--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 9 and 13 recite the limitation "the types of areas" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 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 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banczak (US Pub 2018/0350223) in view of Kuenzi et al. (US Pub 2020/0351661).
As of claims 2, 7 and 11, Banczak discloses a method for managing a plurality of access control devices, the method comprising:
providing, at a backend server (via server 30), a plurality of tasks to be performed by individuals (via task lists; see paragraphs [0035]-[0036]);
providing a plurality of applications for execution on respective mobile devices (via scheduling managing app 14 for execution on respective local computing device 38a; see paragraph [0031]), the plurality of applications configured to:
display one or more of the plurality of tasks on a respective mobile device (via displaying one or more of the plurality of tasks; see paragraph [0035]);
receive a selection of a first task of the plurality of tasks from a user of the respective mobile device (via selecting a task; see paragraph [0035]); and in response to the selection, send a request to schedule the selected task to the backend server (via using the schedule management app to schedule a service/task; see paragraphs [0035]-[0036]);
each of at least a subset of the plurality of tasks associated with one or more of the plurality of access control devices that an individual is granted access to in order to complete corresponding task (Even though Banczak does not explicitly disclose the use of plurality of apps for a plurality of occupants, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the schedule management app could be downloaded by different occupants to schedule different tasks at a location. Banczak discloses that a maintenance worker may be a cleaner, a yard maintenance worker, a plumber, an electrician, or a contractor (see paragraph [0035]), so if one occupant requires a service of a cleaner, he/she could use the schedule management app to request a service of the cleaner through the server 30. In the same manner if a second different occupant requires a service of a plumber, he/she could use the schedule management app to request a service of the plumber and the service provider is given access to different locks (access control devices; see paragraph [0056]-[0057]);
at the backend server, receiving, from a first application of the plurality of applications, the first application executing on a first mobile device, a request to schedule the first task of the at least a subset of tasks (via maintenance worker scheduling a maintenance job; see paragraph [0058]);
at the backend server, provisioning, to the first mobile device, credentials for a first one or more access control devices associated with the first task, such that the first one or more access control devices grant access to the first mobile device (see paragraph [0058] “ upon receiving the maintenance job 134 date and time period from the maintenance worker, the schedule management app 14 queries the passcode determination algorithm 54 in the memory 46 to determine the passcode 58a-58n for the electronic lock 26 to match the date and time of the maintenance job 134 selected by the maintenance worker”);
at the backend server, receiving, from the first application of the plurality of applications, a request to schedule a second task of the at least a subset of tasks (In the system of Banczak, maintenance worker can schedule different jobs at different properties);
and at the backend server, provisioning, to the first mobile device, credentials for the second one or more access control devices associated with the second task, such that the second one or more access control devices grant access to the first mobile device (see paragraph [0058] In the system of Banczak upon receiving the maintenance job 134 date and time period from the maintenance worker of a second job, the schedule management app 14 will query the passcode determination algorithm 54 in the memory 46 to determine the passcode 58a-58n for the electronic lock 26 to match the date and time of the maintenance job 134 selected by the maintenance worker”).
However, Banczak does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of tasks pre-configured with an associated one or more of the plurality of access control devices.
Kuenzi discloses an access control system wherein a credential server 70 (backend server) provision a mobile device 12 with credentials (see fig. 1). Kuenzi discloses that the credential server uses access categories 300 (tasks preconfigured with an associated one or more of the plurality of access control devices). Kuenzi discloses that the access categories 300 operate to grant the user access to a particular grouping of access controls 16b that have collective meaning. For example, one access category could be ‘Public Rooms’ for access to a pool, business center, elevator, and wall readers. In the context of a hotel reservation, when the mobile device 12 communicates with the credential service 70 to download the encrypted mobile credential, the credential service 70 generates credentials for each lock in one or more access categories that the guest has been granted access (see paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
From the teaching of Kuenzi 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 Banczak to include the function of tasks pre-configured with access control devices as taught by Kuenzi in order to facilitate the efficient management of multiple access controls in a system where the mobile device can open multiples of locks .
As of claims 4, 9 and 13, Banczak discloses that the type of tasks include one or more of occupant unit access, lobby access, inter-level access, and a building shared space access (via occupant unit access; see paragraph [0056]).
Kuenzi discloses the tasks (one access category) could be ‘Public Rooms’ for access to a pool, business center, elevator (see paragraph [0073]).
As of claim 5, Banczak discloses that the plurality of tasks include one or more of a short stay task indicating that a unit is available for short stay rental, and a shared space rental task indicating that access to a shared space in the building is available to be rented to a non- occupant (via rental reservation; see paragraph [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 2689
Prosecution Insights