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 application of Viswanathan for a “methods and systems of guaranteed digital key code delivery to a smart lock in a smart-device network” filed August 15, 2023 has been examined.
This application claims priority to U.S. provisional application number 63/532,904, which is filed on August 15, 2023 and claims priority to U.S. provisional application number 63/398,218, which is filed on August 15, 2022.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 depends on itself. It is suggested to change Claim 6 depends on Claim 5. Accordingly, the claim 6 has been further treated on the merits as claim 6 depends on Claim 5.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 depends on itself. It is suggested to change Claim 7 depends on Claim 6. Accordingly, the claim 7 has been further treated on the merits as claim 7 depends on Claim 6.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrase “a digital code to a smart lock in the plurality of smart locks” in line 5 is confusing and unclear. It is not understood what is meant by such a limitation. Is this digital code and smart lock different with the “a digital key code to a smart lock” in the preamble? Examiner believes that “a digital key code” in line 5 is the same as in the digital key code in the preamble and “a smart lock” in line 5 is the same as in the smart lock in the preamble. Therefore, “a digital key code to a smart lock in the plurality of smart locks” should be “the digital key code to the smart lock in the plurality of smart locks”.
Art rejection is applied as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 discussed above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transmitted code" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. And furthermore, is the transmitted code referring to the “key code” or the digital key code”? Examiner believes that “the transmitted code” is the “the transmitted digital key code”. And the “key code” is the same as “the digital key code”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transmission" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 4, the phrase “verifying a presence of the transmitted code” in line 1 is confusing and unclear. Examiner believes that “verifying a presence of the transmitted code” in line 1 is the same as in “the verifying a presence of the transmitted code” in line 7 of claim 1. Therefore, “verifying a presence of the transmitted code” should be “verifying the presence of the transmitted code”.
In claim 5, the phrase “the forced lookup on the smart lock negates a cached version of the digital key code on a cloud-computing server used to manage the delivery of a digital key code to plurality of smart locks” is confusing and unclear. It is not understood what is meant by such a limitation. Is the digital key code is render invalid on the cloud-computing server? Is the smart locks negates the cached version of the key code? Art rejection is applied as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 discussed above.
In claim 5, the phrase “a digital key code to the plurality of smart locks” in line 3 is confusing and unclear. It is not understood what is meant by such a limitation. Is this digital code different with the “a digital key code to a smart lock” in the preamble? Examiner believes that “a digital key code” in line 5 is the same as in the digital key code in the preamble. Therefore, “a digital key code to the plurality of smart locks” should be “the digital key code to the plurality of smart locks”.
Regarding claims 9-11, the phrase " a plurality of types" renders the claim(s) indefinite because use the term “type” extends scope of expression to render it indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) E.
Referring to claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected Claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nielsen (US# 7,012,503).
Referring to Claim 1, Nielsen discloses a computerized method for guaranteed key delivery of a digital key code (i.e. an access code) to a smart lock (221) (column 2 lines 16 to column 3 line 3; see Figures 1 to 7e) comprising:
providing a plurality of smart locks (221), wherein the plurality of smart locks (221) are communicatively coupled in a local area network (241) and wherein a key code (i.e. access code) (i.e. the access code management system 211 is a computer system, preferably comprising one or more standard computers, such as personal computers, workstations, application servers, database and web servers, interconnected via a local area network and with access to the communications network 241, for example via a service provider. The access code management system 211 generates and administers the access codes as described in connection with FIGS. 3 and 9a b) (column 12 lines 21 to 30);
transmitting, via the local area network (241), the digital key code to the smart lock (221) in the plurality of smart locks (i.e. the access code management system 211 transmits access codes to the electronic key device 201 and/or the lock control unit 221. The access codes may be transmitted upon request from a user or automatically (column 12 lines 30 to 41; see Figures 2c and 6b).; and
verifying a presence of the transmitted code (the access code) in the lock (221) once the transmission is performed (i.e. In step 689 the lock control unit verifies the received access code with the access codes stored in the memory of the lock control unit. If the received access code corresponds to one of the valid stored access codes, the lock mechanism is operated in step 690, thereby granting access to the location. The operation may comprise unlocking and/or locking the lock mechanism, since restricting access to a location may also require a granted access right. If the verification 689 of the access code fails, the lock mechanism is not operated. In both cases log data about the above session may be generated and stored in the memory of the lock control unit and/or the electronic key device, as illustrated by steps 691 and 692, respectively) (column 16 lines 60 to column 17 line 6; column 17 lines 34 to 44; see Figures 6a-6b).
Referring to Claim 2, Nielsen discloses the computerized method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting that the digital key code is absent in the smart lock (i.e. if the verification 689 of the access code fails (i.e. the access code is not in the storage or absent), the lock mechanism is not operated. In both cases log data about the above session may be generated and stored in the memory of the lock control unit and/or the electronic key device, as illustrated by steps 691 and 692) (column 17 lines 1 to 44; see Figures 6a-6b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US# 7,012,503) as applied to claim 2, and in view of Leman (WO 2005/078667).
Referring to Claim 3, Nielsen discloses the computerized method of claim 2, however, Nielsen did not explicitly disclose further comprising: automatically restoring the digital key code in the smart lock.
In the same field of endeavor of a locking device, Leman teach that automatically restoring the digital key code in the smart lock (i.e. the identification code may be set for each specific use of the device and then reset to a default value after each use. When the default value set the device can remain in a locked state until it is required again. In this manner any specific identification codes or even the format of such identification codes is not disclosed unless necessary) (page 7 line 6 to page 8 line 3; page 11 line 16 to 20) in order to improve security of the identification code.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a method of having the identification code to be reset to a default value after each use taught by Leman in the lock control unit for editing and rearrange the plurality of access codes for the lock mechanism of Nielsen because having the identification code to be reset to a default value after each use would improve security of operating and controlling access to the lock mechanism.
Referring to Claim 4, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 3, Nielsen discloses wherein the step of verifying a presence of the transmitted code (i.e. the access code) in the lock (221) once the transmission is performed by forcing a lookup on the smart lock (221) (i.e. In step 689 the lock control unit verifies the received access code with the access codes stored in the memory of the lock control unit. If the received access code corresponds to one of the valid stored access codes, the lock mechanism is operated in step 690, thereby granting access to the location. The operation may comprise unlocking and/or locking the lock mechanism, since restricting access to a location may also require a granted access right. If the verification 689 of the access code fails, the lock mechanism is not operated. In both cases log data about the above session may be generated and stored in the memory of the lock control unit and/or the electronic key device, as illustrated by steps 691 and 692, respectively) (column 16 lines 60 to column 17 line 6; column 17 lines 34 to 44; see Figures 6a-6b).
Referring to Claim 5, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 4, Nielsen discloses wherein the forced lookup on the smart lock negates a cached version of the digital key code on a cloud-computing server used to manage the delivery of a digital key code to plurality of smart locks (i.e. In step 689 the lock control unit verifies the received access code with the access codes stored in the memory of the lock control unit. If the received access code corresponds to one of the valid stored access codes, the lock mechanism is operated in step 690, thereby granting access to the location. The operation may comprise unlocking and/or locking the lock mechanism, since restricting access to a location may also require a granted access right. If the verification 689 of the access code fails, the lock mechanism is not operated. In both cases log data about the above session may be generated and stored in the memory of the lock control unit and/or the electronic key device, as illustrated by steps 691 and 692, respectively) (column 16 lines 54 to column 17 line 6; column 17 lines 34 to 44; see Figures 6a-6b).
Referring to Claim 6, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 5, Nielsen discloses wherein a plurality of digital codes are verified across multiple smart locks of the plurality of smart locks (i.e. each lock control unit may be provided with a specific set of valid access codes for that particular lock control unit. Therefore, a high degree of advanced functionality may be implemented by the method according to the invention, such as different security levels for a given building, self-destructive access codes, conditioned access codes, access codes for limited periods of times, etc.) (column 2 lines 21 to 28; column 10 line 55 to column 11 line 18; see Figure 2c).
Referring to Claim 7, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 6, Nielsen discloses wherein the plurality of smart locks are installed across a plurality of geographical locations (i.e. storing a plurality of access codes for a plurality of respective locations in the second storage means, one electronic key device may be used for a plurality of locations without reducing the level of security) (column 4 lines 52 to 56; column 13 lines 38 to 49).
Referring to Claim 8, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 7, Nielsen discloses wherein a periodicity of the verification is based on heartbeat operation (i.e. the access code may be transmitted periodically, in order to replace the access codes on a lock control unit and the corresponding electronic key devices, thereby improving the security of the system. The access code management system 211 may also automatically, or upon request, invalidate access codes by sending a corresponding control signal to the lock control unit 221 and/or the electronic key device 201) (column 2 lines 34 to 42; column 12 lines 30 to 41; see Figure 3).
Referring to Claim 9, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 8, Nielsen discloses wherein a plurality of types of digital key codes are utilized (i.e. each lock control unit may be provided with a specific set of valid access codes for that particular lock control unit. Therefore, a high degree of advanced functionality may be implemented by the method according to the invention, such as different security levels for a given building, self-destructive access codes, conditioned access codes, access codes for limited periods of times, etc.) (column 2 lines 21 to 28).
Referring to Claim 10, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 9, Nielsen discloses wherein the plurality of types of digital key codes a guest code, a staff code, a vendor code, an emergency code (i.e. the administrator 351 may provide additional services to be received 390 by the access right owner 352. Alternatively or additionally, the administrator 351 may provide services to the access right grantee 353 or a third party. Preferably these additional services include providing and/or analyzing information to the corresponding access rights, where the information may include information about: The location of the lock control units. The access rights and codes specifying the corresponding access right grantee 352, including a specification of the locations, lock control units, times of allowed access, types of allowed access, etc. the above services may also be used where there is a need for supervising the use of the granted access rights. This could be in situations where goods are promised to be delivered at a certain time and at a certain location, and where the administrator 351 may provide information about when, where and how access has been granted to relevant delivery staff) (column 14 lines 6 to 43).
Referring to Claim 11, Nielsen in view of Leman disclose the computerized method of claim 10, Nielsen discloses wherein the plurality of types of digital key codes are simultaneously validated for a presence in the plurality of smart locks (i.e. When the method further comprises the step of transmitting, via a communications network, at least one access code from an access code management system to a selected one of the electronic key device and the lock control unit, access codes may be generated and maintained at a central computer system and transmitted to the electronic key device or the lock control unit. It is an advantage of the invention that an access code may be transmitted to a plurality of electronic key devices and lock control units substantially simultaneously. Hence, a synchronization between lock control units and electronic key devices may be ensured at all times) (column 4 lines 29 to 40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
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).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685