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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-8, 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Mlynarczyk et al. (US 2019/0057566).
Regarding claim 1, Mlynarczyk et al. (US 2019/0057566) teaches a mobile secure network system (figs. 1-4) comprising: a computing apparatus configured to extend a remote home network to a current location of the network device so that one or more endpoint devices at the current location of the network device can join the remote home network (i.e., mobile cabinet/EMS vehicle/enclosure connected to a server/network to provide secure storage of various items [0004]-[0006], [0039], [0148], [0179], [0367]-[0369]); a housing supporting the computing apparatus and constructed and arranged for mobile transport including a back-up power supply supported thereon (i.e., a housing with lockable door to enforce security having a power source for powering electronically actuated lock [0040]-[0045], [0149]-[0150]); an access control mechanism to allow access to the computing apparatus (i.e., access control for controlled drugs for use on a mobile EMS vehicle, preferably comprising providing a closable enclosure having an electronically actuated lock system for selectively allowing locking and unlocking of such enclosure by an authorized user [0062]); a mobility mechanism supporting the housing and including a motor and one or more motion members configured to impart motion to the mobile secure network device (i.e., cabinet integrated in mobile EMS vehicle [0062], [0095], [0179]); sensors positioned in various locations on an exterior of the housing configured to collect data from the surrounding environment (i.e., an environmental sensor for monitoring of at least one of temperature, humidity, and vibrations [0043]); and wherein the one or more sensors are communicatively connected to the computing apparatus supported within the housing in order to provide data regarding the surrounding terrain (i.e., system may further include a temperature sensor associated with such enclosure; and such microprocessor based control circuit may maintain temperature limit settings for stored inventory, and may monitor the output of such temperature sensor to set off an alarm if monitored temperatures are outside of limit settings. In yet other instances, such system may further include an environmental sensor for monitoring of at least one of temperature, humidity, and vibrations [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Mlynarczyk further teaches the mobility mechanism includes one or more tract drives (i.e., drives are inherently present [0177]).
Regarding claim 3, Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism includes one or more wheels (i.e., mobile EMS vehicle [0049], [0062]).
Regarding claim 4, Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism include sone or more articulated legs (can be easily mounted manually beneath the cabinet/enclosue to set it on the surface).
Regarding claim 5, Mlynarczyk further teaches the mobility mechanism is semi-autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095).
Regarding claim 6, Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism is autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Mlynarczyk further teaches sensor data provides input for the semi autonomously controlled system ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 10, Mlynarczyk et al. (US 2019/0057566) teaches a mobile secure network device (figs. 1-4) comprising: a computing apparatus configured to extend a remote home network to a current location of the network device so that one or more endpoint devices at the current location of the network device can join the remote home network (i.e., mobile cabinet/EMS vehicle/enclosure connected to a server/network to provide secure storage of various items [0004]-[0006], [0039], [0148], [0179], [0367]-[0369]); a local cache of data stored by the computing apparatus ([0159]); a housing supporting the computing apparatus and constructed and arranged to be independently driven by a mobility mechanism including a motor and one or more motion members configured to impart motion to the mobile secure network device when receiving commands from the computing apparatus (i.e., access control for controlled drugs for use on a mobile EMS vehicle, preferably comprising providing a closable enclosure having an electronically actuated lock system for selectively allowing locking and unlocking of such enclosure by an authorized user [0062]), cabinet integrated in mobile EMS vehicle [0062], [0095], [0179]); a back-up power supply supported by the housing (i.e., a housing with lockable door to enforce security having a power source for powering electronically actuated lock [0040]-[0045], [0149]-[0150]); and wherein data from the various sensors are received by the computing apparatus supported within the housing in order to negotiate changing conditions in terrain (i.e., system may further include a temperature sensor associated with such enclosure; and such microprocessor based control circuit may maintain temperature limit settings for stored inventory, and may monitor the output of such temperature sensor to set off an alarm if monitored temperatures are outside of limit settings. In yet other instances, such system may further include an environmental sensor for monitoring of at least one of temperature, humidity, and vibrations [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Mlynarczyk further teaches to secure the data on the local cache the data is deleted from the local cache and access to the remote home network is disabled ([0098], [0119]).
Regarding claim 12, Mlynarczyk further teaches the mobility mechanism includes one or more tract drives (i.e., drives are inherently present [0177]).
Regarding claim 13, Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism includes one or more wheels (i.e., mobile EMS vehicle [0049], [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism include sone or more articulated legs (can be easily mounted manually beneath the cabinet/enclosue to set it on the surface).
Regarding claim 15, Mlynarczyk further teaches , wherein the independent mobility mechanism is remotely controlled ([0016], [0095).
Regarding claim 16, Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism is semi-autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 17, Mlynarczyk further teaches wherein the independent mobility mechanism is autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 18, Mlynarczyk further teaches the remotely controlled system uses an encrypted link ([0158]).
Regarding claim 19, Mlynarczyk further teaches prior to deleting the data from the local cache it is transferred to the home network ([0098], [0119]).
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.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mlynarczyk et al. (US 2019/0057566) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 2016/0307681).
Regarding claim 8, Mlynarczyk teaches all the limitations above except a security control module communicationally connected to the access control mechanism and configured to deny access to the housing upon occurrence of one or more predefined occurrences selected from a group including unverified users attempting to gain access to the computing apparatus through the access control mechanism, failure to synchronize a local cache with a remote cache on a parent network, a physical breach of the housing, and power loss.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of communications. In combination with detailing which users can access or open which electronic locks taught by Mlynarczyk ([0010], [0014], [0043]), Shaffer teaches Shaffer teaches the power control system includes a microcontroller programmed to stagger delivery of operating currents to two or more lock mechanisms so as to reduce the peak current needed from the circuit. In another aspect of the invention, the power control system is configured to turn off power to an electromagnet actuator of the lock mechanism and/or an access credential device when the credential device is not being used to control the lock mechanism ([0002], [0026], [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Shaffer within the system Mlynarczik in order to keep the enclosure without power until an authorized code is received prior to unlock the door of the enclosure.
Claims 9, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mlynarczyk et al. (US 2019/0057566) in view of Gerhardt et al. (US 2012/0280783).
Regarding claim 9, Mlynarczyk teaches all the limitations above except a request for assistance is sent to the home network before proceeding when an exception event is encountered by the sensors and relayed to the computing apparatus.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of communications. Gerhardt teaches it is possible for the lock to confirm reception of the signal by sending a signal back to the remote. It is also possible that the lock may signal other information back to the remote including current battery status as well as any malfunction that occurs on the lock. Along with this, a lock with an associated key pad can relay the key pad command signals to the remote which are in turn passed through the lock server to web service to authenticate a user without a personal electronic device ([0045]-[0046])… The web service in turn can request the state of the user's session from the cookie and look up associated information with that user. This session state can then be relayed to the user, indicating whether or not they need to present appropriate credentials through the browser in order to manipulate the lock ([0057])… Any actions by an authenticated user will be relayed to a local lock web server (802) near the door (on the secured side) that will in turn trigger either a remote control that wirelessly transmits commands to the door lock or an electrical relay that is directly wired into the door lock or strike of the door ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Gerhardt within the system of Mlynarczyk in order to allow the portable electronic device to communicate with the lock or we service, and facilitating users to keep the cabinet/enclosure safe.
Regarding claims 20-21, Mlynarczyk teaches all the limitations above except a request for assistance is sent to the home network before proceeding when an exception event is encountered by the sensors and relayed to the computing apparatus.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of communications. Gerhardt teaches it is possible for the lock to confirm reception of the signal by sending a signal back to the remote. It is also possible that the lock may signal other information back to the remote including current battery status as well as any malfunction that occurs on the lock. Along with this, a lock with an associated key pad can relay the key pad command signals to the remote which are in turn passed through the lock server to web service to authenticate a user without a personal electronic device ([0045]-[0046])… The web service in turn can request the state of the user's session from the cookie and look up associated information with that user. This session state can then be relayed to the user, indicating whether or not they need to present appropriate credentials through the browser in order to manipulate the lock ([0057])… Any actions by an authenticated user will be relayed to a local lock web server (802) near the door (on the secured side) that will in turn trigger either a remote control that wirelessly transmits commands to the door lock or an electrical relay that is directly wired into the door lock or strike of the door ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Gerhardt within the system of Mlynarczyk in order to allow the portable electronic device to communicate with the lock or we service, and facilitating users to keep the cabinet/enclosure safe.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 10-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky et al. (US 2019/0057566).
Regarding claim 1, Patent No. 11,356,432 teaches a mobile secure network system comprising: a computing apparatus configured to extend a remote home network to a current location of the network device so that one or more endpoint devices at the current location of the network device can join the remote home network (mobile secure network system comprising: a computing apparatus configured to extend a remote home network to a current location of a network device so that one or more endpoint devices at the current location of the network device can join the remote home network [claim 1]); a housing supporting the computing apparatus and constructed and arranged for mobile transport including a back-up power supply supported thereon (a housing supporting the computing apparatus and constructed and arranged for mobile transport and including a back-up power supply supported thereon [claim 1]); an access control mechanism to allow access to the computing apparatus (an access control mechanism to allow access to the computing apparatus [claim 1]);
US Patent No. 11,356,432 does not specifically teach a mobility mechanism supporting the housing and including a motor and one or more motion members configured to impart motion to the mobile secure network device; sensors positioned in various locations on an exterior of the housing configured to collect data from the surrounding environment; and wherein the one or more sensors are communicatively connected to the computing apparatus supported within the housing in order to provide data regarding the surrounding terrain.
However, the preceding limitations are known in the art of communications. Mlynarczky teaches a mobility mechanism supporting the housing and including a motor and one or more motion members configured to impart motion to the mobile secure network device (i.e., cabinet integrated in mobile EMS vehicle [0062], [0095], [0179]); sensors positioned in various locations on an exterior of the housing configured to collect data from the surrounding environment (i.e., an environmental sensor for monitoring of at least one of temperature, humidity, and vibrations [0043]); and wherein the one or more sensors are communicatively connected to the computing apparatus supported within the housing in order to provide data regarding the surrounding terrain (i.e., system may further include a temperature sensor associated with such enclosure; and such microprocessor based control circuit may maintain temperature limit settings for stored inventory, and may monitor the output of such temperature sensor to set off an alarm if monitored temperatures are outside of limit settings. In yet other instances, such system may further include an environmental sensor for monitoring of at least one of temperature, humidity, and vibrations [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Mlynarczky within the system of US Patent No. 11,356,432 in order to have a mobile secure system and device that provides security and accountability of the use of the computer network and equipment contained within the mobile security system, wherever it is located, is therefore desirable.
Regarding claim 2, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the mobility mechanism includes one or more tract drives (i.e., drives are inherently present [0177]).
Regarding claim 3, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism includes one or more wheels (i.e., mobile EMS vehicle [0049], [0062]).
Regarding claim 4, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism include sone or more articulated legs (can be easily mounted manually beneath the cabinet/enclosue to set it on the surface).
Regarding claim 5, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the mobility mechanism is semi-autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095).
Regarding claim 6, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism is autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 7, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches sensor data provides input for the semi autonomously controlled system ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 14, US Patent No. 11,356,432 does not specifically teach mobile secure network device comprising (A mobile secure network device comprising [claim 14]): a computing apparatus configured to extend a remote home network to a current location of the network device so that one or more endpoint devices at the current location of the network device can join the remote home network (a computing apparatus configured to extend a remote home network to a current location of a network device so that one or more endpoint devices at the current location of the network device can join the remote home network [claim 14]); a local cache of data stored by the computing apparatus (a local cache of data stored by the computing apparatus [claim 20]); a back-up power supply supported by the housing (a back-up power supply supported thereon [claim 14]).
US Patent No. 11,356,432 does not specifically teach a housing supporting the computing apparatus and constructed and arranged to be independently driven by a mobility mechanism including a motor and one or more motion members configured to impart motion to the mobile secure network device when receiving commands from the computing apparatus; and wherein data from the various sensors are received by the computing apparatus supported within the housing in order to negotiate changing conditions in terrain.
However, the preceding limitations are known in the art of communications. Mlynarczky teaches a mobility mechanism supporting the housing and including a motor and one or more motion members configured to impart motion to the mobile secure network device (i.e., cabinet integrated in mobile EMS vehicle [0062], [0095], [0179]); sensors positioned in various locations on an exterior of the housing configured to collect data from the surrounding environment (i.e., an environmental sensor for monitoring of at least one of temperature, humidity, and vibrations [0043]); and wherein the one or more sensors are communicatively connected to the computing apparatus supported within the housing in order to provide data regarding the surrounding terrain (i.e., system may further include a temperature sensor associated with such enclosure; and such microprocessor based control circuit may maintain temperature limit settings for stored inventory, and may monitor the output of such temperature sensor to set off an alarm if monitored temperatures are outside of limit settings. In yet other instances, such system may further include an environmental sensor for monitoring of at least one of temperature, humidity, and vibrations [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Mlynarczky within the system of US Patent No. 11,356,432 in order to have a mobile secure system and device that provides security and accountability of the use of the computer network and equipment contained within the mobile security system, wherever it is located, is therefore desirable.
Regarding claim 11, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches to secure the data on the local cache the data is deleted from the local cache and access to the remote home network is disabled ([0098], [0119]).
Regarding claim 12, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the mobility mechanism includes one or more tract drives (i.e., drives are inherently present [0177]).
Regarding claim 13, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism includes one or more wheels (i.e., mobile EMS vehicle [0049], [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism include sone or more articulated legs (can be easily mounted manually beneath the cabinet/enclosue to set it on the surface).
Regarding claim 15, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches , wherein the independent mobility mechanism is remotely controlled ([0016], [0095).
Regarding claim 16, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the independent mobility mechanism is semi-autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 17, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches wherein the independent mobility mechanism is autonomously controlled ([0016], [0095]).
Regarding claim 18, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches the remotely controlled system uses an encrypted link ([0158]).
Regarding claim 19, US Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky teaches all the limitations above. Mlynarczyk further teaches prior to deleting the data from the local cache it is transferred to the home network ([0098], [0119]).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky et al. (US 2019/0057566) further in view of Shaffer et al. (US 2016/0307681).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczyk teaches all the limitations above except a security control module communicationally connected to the access control mechanism and configured to deny access to the housing upon occurrence of one or more predefined occurrences selected from a group including unverified users attempting to gain access to the computing apparatus through the access control mechanism, failure to synchronize a local cache with a remote cache on a parent network, a physical breach of the housing, and power loss.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of communications. In combination with detailing which users can access or open which electronic locks taught by Mlynarczyk ([0010], [0014], [0043]), Shaffer teaches Shaffer teaches the power control system includes a microcontroller programmed to stagger delivery of operating currents to two or more lock mechanisms so as to reduce the peak current needed from the circuit. In another aspect of the invention, the power control system is configured to turn off power to an electromagnet actuator of the lock mechanism and/or an access credential device when the credential device is not being used to control the lock mechanism ([0002], [0026], [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Shaffer within the system U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczik in order to keep the enclosure without power until an authorized code is received prior to unlock the door of the enclosure.
Claims 9, 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczky et al. (US 2019/0057566) further in view of Gerhardt et al. (US 2012/0280783)
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczyk teaches all the limitations above except a request for assistance is sent to the home network before proceeding when an exception event is encountered by the sensors and relayed to the computing apparatus.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of communications. Gerhardt teaches it is possible for the lock to confirm reception of the signal by sending a signal back to the remote. It is also possible that the lock may signal other information back to the remote including current battery status as well as any malfunction that occurs on the lock. Along with this, a lock with an associated key pad can relay the key pad command signals to the remote which are in turn passed through the lock server to web service to authenticate a user without a personal electronic device ([0045]-[0046])… The web service in turn can request the state of the user's session from the cookie and look up associated information with that user. This session state can then be relayed to the user, indicating whether or not they need to present appropriate credentials through the browser in order to manipulate the lock ([0057])… Any actions by an authenticated user will be relayed to a local lock web server (802) near the door (on the secured side) that will in turn trigger either a remote control that wirelessly transmits commands to the door lock or an electrical relay that is directly wired into the door lock or strike of the door ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Gerhardt within the system of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczyk in order to allow the portable electronic device to communicate with the lock or we service, and facilitating users to keep the cabinet/enclosure safe.
Regarding claims 20-21, U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczyk teaches all the limitations above except a request for assistance is sent to the home network before proceeding when an exception event is encountered by the sensors and relayed to the computing apparatus.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of communications. Gerhardt teaches it is possible for the lock to confirm reception of the signal by sending a signal back to the remote. It is also possible that the lock may signal other information back to the remote including current battery status as well as any malfunction that occurs on the lock. Along with this, a lock with an associated key pad can relay the key pad command signals to the remote which are in turn passed through the lock server to web service to authenticate a user without a personal electronic device ([0045]-[0046])… The web service in turn can request the state of the user's session from the cookie and look up associated information with that user. This session state can then be relayed to the user, indicating whether or not they need to present appropriate credentials through the browser in order to manipulate the lock ([0057])… Any actions by an authenticated user will be relayed to a local lock web server (802) near the door (on the secured side) that will in turn trigger either a remote control that wirelessly transmits commands to the door lock or an electrical relay that is directly wired into the door lock or strike of the door ([0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have implemented the technique of Gerhardt within the system of U.S. Patent No. 11,356,432 in view of Mlynarczyk in order to allow the portable electronic device to communicate with the lock or we service, and facilitating users to keep the cabinet/enclosure safe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN ALLAND GELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7842. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FR 9-6 PM.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/JEAN A GELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643