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 final office action in response to the amendments filed 9/11/2025. Amendments received on 9/11/2025 have been entered. As per applicant claims 1, 3, 8 and 12 were previously canceled. Accordingly claims 2, 4-7, 9-11 and 13-14 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 1 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 selected 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 associated with 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, identifying a first one or more access control devices associated with the first 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 providing access to first type of area and a second task provides access to a second set of one or more access control devices providing access to second type of area, the second set different than the first set; at the backend server, provisioning credentials for the first one or more access control devices associated with the first task to the first mobile device, 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; at the backend server, identifying a second one or more access control devices that the user is to be granted credentials in order to complete the second task, the second one or more access control devices different than the first one or more access control devices; and at the backend server, provisioning credentials for the second one or more access control devices associated with the second task to the first mobile device, 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
6
7
7
7
9
9
10
10
11
11
13
13
14
14
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, 4-7, 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banczak (US Pub 2018/0350223) in view of Elfstrom et al. (US Pub 2014/0247111).
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 selected 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 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 (via maintenance worker scheduling a maintenance job; see paragraph [0058]);
at the backend server, identifying a first one or more access control devices associated with the first task;
at the backend server, provisioning credentials for the first one or more access control devices associated with the first task to the first mobile device, 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);
at the backend server, identifying a second one or more access control devices that the user is to be granted credentials in order to complete the second task, the second one or more access control devices different than the first one or more access control devices; and at the backend server, provisioning credentials for the second one or more access control devices associated with the second task to the first mobile device, 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”).
Banczak discloses that 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 (In the system of Banczak a maintenance worker can schedule a job (cleaning) at a first property and based on that task (first type of task) he/she will be provided access to the electronic lock of the first property and when the maintenance worker schedules a second job (cleaning or plumber, property maintenance) at a second property and based on that task (second type of task) he/she will be provided access to an electronic lock of the second property; see paragraphs [0056]-[0058]). With regards to this limitation applicant argues that Banczak discloses providing access to an electronic lock based on the property of the task, not based on the type of task. However as claimed in claim 4 of the application, the type of tasks includes one or more of occupant unit access, lobby access, inter-level access, and a building shared space access. “Occupant unit access” suggests that the type of tasks is based occupants’ property. Further as disclosed above access to the property is provided based on the tasks (cleaning, property maintenance). With regards to the amended limitation of first type of task provides access….to first type of area and a second task provides access …to second type of area. The claim language does not define “area”, so “first type of area” and “second type of area” is interpreted to be any area.
In order to further support Examiner’s assertion Elfstrom discloses a method for managing a plurality of access control devices (see abstract). Elfstrom further discloses wherein identifying one or more access control devices includes identifying the one or more access control devices based on type of task (see paragraph [0032] - access control modules may be identified by type of access area, e.g., room, corridor, elevator, safes within a room, etc...), wherein a first type of task provides access to a first set of one or more access control devices providing access to first type of area and a second task provides access to a second set of one or more access control devices providing access to second type of area, the second set different than the first set (see paragraph [0032] - each secured asset type may have its own access module [i.e., room access task may have first access control device and elevator access task may have second access control device]. Elfstrom further discloses that a guest traveling to a room (say room 678, first type of task) through elevator or corridor will be provided credentials for room 678 and elevator and corridor (see paragraphs [0066]-[0067]). This rule will be applicable to second guest traveling to a different room (say room 580, second type of task) and the second guest will be provided credentials for room 580 and elevator or corridor. Further with regards to the limitation of “types of areas”, claim 4 states that the types of areas include “one or more of occupant units, lobbies, inter-levels and shared space”. Elfstrom discloses that the type of tasks include one or more of occupant unit access (room access task), lobby access (access to multi-room facility [e.g., lobby]), inter-level access (safe within room), and a building shared space access (elevator/corridor access task; see paragraph [0032]) and the type of areas include one or more occupant units (room), lobbies (lobby), inter-levels (safe within room) and shared space (elevator/corridor access task; see paragraph [0032]).
(The Examiner would further like to point out that allowing access to different areas based on the task, Brady discloses that a system, wherein different doors to different rooms are unlocked based on the workers task (see col. 4, lines 25-50, 60-66 and col. 27, 20-30. Note: Brady is not used to reject the claims but to support the Examiner’s assertion that it is well known in the art that a first type of task provides access to a first set of one or more access control devices providing access to a first type of area and a second type of task provides access to a second set of one or more access control devices providing access to a second type of area).
From the teaching of Elfstrom it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide access to different access control devices based on a route to be travel by a user to reach a destination as taught by Elfstrom. In the case of a worker or service providers that would involve allowing access to access control device that are required to enable the worker or service provider to access the location where a task or service is needed to be performed.
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]).
Elfstrom further discloses wherein the type of tasks include one or more of occupant unit access (room access task), lobby access (access to multi-room facility [e.g., lobby]), inter-level access (safe within room), and a building shared space access (elevator/corridor access task; see paragraph [0032]) and the type of areas include one or more occupant units (room), lobbies (lobby), inter-levels (safe within room) and shared space (elevator/corridor access task; see paragraph [0032]).
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]).
As of claims 6, 10 and 14, Banczak discloses that identifying one or more access control devices includes identifying the one or more access control devices based on an occupant profile associated with the task, wherein the one or more access control devices include an access control device for an occupant unit identified in the occupant profile (see paragraph [0058], “the maintenance worker schedules the maintenance job 134 when the maintenance worker accepts the maintenance request. In such an embodiment, 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. So, in the system of Banczak property owner will have a profile with the property information and lock information for the server to generate the passcode (credential) for the lock of the property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Newly added limitations “providing access to first type of area…providing access to second type of area” are rejected as explained in the rejection above.
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 NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686