DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the first amendment to non-final filed on September 23, 2025.
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 23, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1–20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 18, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 2, 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iregui, WIPO Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2017/182012 A1 (“Iregui”) in view of Park, Korean Patent App. Pub. No. KR 2019-0075658 A (“Park”) and Kalous, U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0285726 (“Kalous”).
For claim 1, Iregui teaches:
A system comprising (page 17, ¶ 5–18, ¶ 1: example system):
a lock box (page 18, ¶ 1: main housing safety box); and
a piggy bank comprising a network interface and a processing circuit, the network interface configured to facilitate data communication with a user device via a network, the processing circuit comprising a processor . . ., the processing circuit configured to (page 17, ¶ 5–page 18, ¶ 1: piggy bank comprising a computer and connected to network for communicating data) . . ..
Iregui does not teach: a memory; receive, from an input device of the lock box, a first user input from a first user, wherein the first user input sets an authentication factor for opening the lock box; prompt a second user to provide the authentication factor; receive, from the input device, a second user input from a second user, the second user input comprising the authentication factor; compare the authentication factor inputted by the second user with the authentication factor inputted by the first user to determine that the second user is authorized to access the lock box by: analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user; transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock; automatically unlock the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box; and transmit, to the user device associated with the first user, a notification indicating that the lock box has been unlocked.
Park, however, teaches:
a memory (page 3, ¶ 8–page 4, ¶ 1: computer-readable medium);
receive, from an input device of the lock box, a first user input from a first user, wherein the first user input sets an authentication factor for opening the lock box (page 8, ¶ 3: input for setting password);
prompt a second user to provide the authentication factor (page 7, ¶ 2: multiple users; page 6, ¶ 5: safe open request);
receive, from the input device, a second user input from a second user, the second user input comprising the authentication factor (page 6, ¶ 4: biometric information received through biometric authentication means);
compare the authentication factor inputted by the second user with the authentication factor inputted by the first user to determine that the second user is authorized to access the lock box (page 6, ¶ 4: biometric information received compared to biometric information stored to authenticate user) by . . .; and
transmit, to the user device associated with the first user, a notification indicating that the lock box has been unlocked (page 6, ¶ 3: terminal device includes mobile device; page 7, ¶ 5–page 8, ¶ 2: confirms identification information same).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui by adding the authentication from Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving safe security efficiently—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Park (page 3, ¶ 2–3: key or password required for safe, but lock device can increase size too much; page 6, ¶ 3–4: invention provides safe with terminal device and biometric authentication).
The combination of Iregui and Park does not teach: analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user; transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock; automatically unlock the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box.
Kalous, however, teaches:
analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user (¶ 62, 153, 159: input credential matched to authorized credential, or compared based on similarity score; Fig. 6, ¶ 78: multiple user devices for providing encrypted package and providing authentication input respectively);
transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock (¶ 62, 154, 159: if credential matched, or similarity score high enough, device permits user access to product by opening lock mechanism; ¶ 38: signals control lock mechanism); and
automatically unlock the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box (¶ 155: product activates lock mechanism to open or unlock, permitting user to access).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui and the authentication in Park by adding the authentication comparison from Kalous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating providing authentication for electronic locks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kalous (¶ 2: current process of providing biometrics for electronic locks can be cumbersome; ¶ 3: invention provides access to locking devices by matching biometric inputs to authorized user). Iregui, Park, and Kalous are all related in part to authentication of container locks, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 2, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Iregui further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the piggy bank further includes a touch screen configured to receive an input (page 18, ¶ 1: touch sensitive screen).
For claim 9, Iregui teaches:
a processing circuit of a piggy bank (page 17, ¶ 5–page 18, ¶ 1: piggy bank comprising a computer and connected to network for communicating data) . . ..
Iregui does not teach: A method comprising: receiving, . . . from an input device of a lock box, a first user input from a first user, wherein the first user input sets an authentication factor for opening the lock box; prompting, by the processing circuit, a second user to provide the authentication factor; receiving, by the processing circuit and from the input device, a second user input from a second user, the second user input comprising the authentication factor; comparing, by the processing circuit, the authentication factor inputted by the second user with the authentication factor inputted by the first user to determine that the second user is authorized to access the lock box by: analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user; transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock; automatically unlocking, by the processing circuit, the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box; and transmitting, by the processing circuit and to a user device associated with the first user, a notification indicating that the lock box has been unlocked.
Park, however, teaches:
A method comprising (page 6, ¶ 4: example method):
receiving, . . . from an input device of a lock box, a first user input from a first user, wherein the first user input sets an authentication factor for opening the lock box (page 8, ¶ 3: input for setting password);
prompting, by the processing circuit, a second user to provide the authentication factor (page 7, ¶ 2: multiple users; page 6, ¶ 5: safe open request);
receiving, by the processing circuit and from the input device, a second user input from a second user, the second user input comprising the authentication factor (page 6, ¶ 4: biometric information received through biometric authentication means);
comparing, by the processing circuit, the authentication factor inputted by the second user with the authentication factor inputted by the first user to determine that the second user is authorized to access the lock box (page 6, ¶ 4: biometric information received compared to biometric information stored to authenticate user) by . . .; and
transmitting, by the processing circuit and to a user device associated with the first user, a notification indicating that the lock box has been unlocked (page 6, ¶ 3: terminal device includes mobile device; page 7, ¶ 5–page 8, ¶ 2: confirms identification information same).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui by adding the authentication from Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving safe security efficiently—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Park (page 3, ¶ 2–3: key or password required for safe, but lock device can increase size too much; page 6, ¶ 3–4: invention provides safe with terminal device and biometric authentication).
The combination of Iregui and Park does not teach: analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user; transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock; automatically unlocking, by the processing circuit, the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box.
Kalous, however, teaches:
analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user (¶ 62, 153, 159: input credential matched to authorized credential, or compared based on similarity score; Fig. 6, ¶ 78: multiple user devices for providing encrypted package and providing authentication input respectively);
transmitting, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box, a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock (¶ 62, 154, 159: if credential matched, or similarity score high enough, device permits user access to product by opening lock mechanism; ¶ 38: signals control lock mechanism); and
automatically unlocking, by the processing circuit, the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box (¶ 155: product activates lock mechanism to open or unlock, permitting user to access).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui and the authentication in Park by adding the authentication comparison from Kalous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating providing authentication for electronic locks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kalous (¶ 2: current process of providing biometrics for electronic locks can be cumbersome; ¶ 3: invention provides access to locking devices by matching biometric inputs to authorized user). Iregui, Park, and Kalous are all related in part to authentication of container locks, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 10, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Iregui further teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the piggy bank further includes a touch screen configured to receive an input (page 18, ¶ 1: touch sensitive screen).
For claim 17, Iregui teaches:
a processing circuit of a piggy bank (page 17, ¶ 5–page 18, ¶ 1: piggy bank comprising a computer and connected to network for communicating data) . . ..
Iregui does not teach: A non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processing circuit . . ., causes the processing circuit to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving, from an input device of a lock box, a first user input from a first user, wherein the first user input sets an authentication factor for opening the lock box; prompting a second user to provide the authentication factor; receiving, from the input device, a second user input from a second user, the second user input comprising the authentication factor; comparing the authentication factor inputted by the second user with the authentication factor inputted by the first user to determine that the second user is authorized to access the lock box by: analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user; transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock; automatically unlocking the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box; and transmitting, to the user device associated with the first user, a notification indicating that the lock box has been unlocked.
Park, however, teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processing circuit . . ., causes the processing circuit to perform operations, the operations comprising (page 3, ¶ 8–page 4, ¶ 1: computer-readable medium including computer readable code):
receiving, from an input device of a lock box, a first user input from a first user, wherein the first user input sets an authentication factor for opening the lock box (page 8, ¶ 3: input for setting password);
prompting a second user to provide the authentication factor (page 7, ¶ 2: multiple users; page 6, ¶ 5: safe open request);
receiving, from the input device, a second user input from a second user, the second user input comprising the authentication factor (page 6, ¶ 4: biometric information received through biometric authentication means);
comparing the authentication factor inputted by the second user with the authentication factor inputted by the first user to determine that the second user is authorized to access the lock box (page 6, ¶ 4: biometric information received compared to biometric information stored to authenticate user) by . . .; and
transmitting, to the user device associated with the first user, a notification indicating that the lock box has been unlocked (page 6, ¶ 3: terminal device includes mobile device; page 7, ¶ 5–page 8, ¶ 2: confirms identification information same).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui by adding the authentication from Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving safe security efficiently—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Park (page 3, ¶ 2–3: key or password required for safe, but lock device can increase size too much; page 6, ¶ 3–4: invention provides safe with terminal device and biometric authentication).
The combination of Iregui and Park does not teach: analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user; transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock; automatically unlocking the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box.
Kalous, however, teaches:
analyzing the authentication factor inputted by the second user to determine at least one of (i) whether the inputted authentication factor is an exact match with the authentication factor set by the first user or (ii) whether the inputted authentication factor has a similarity value at or above a threshold value compared to the authentication factor set by the first user (¶ 62, 153, 159: input credential matched to authorized credential, or compared based on similarity score; Fig. 6, ¶ 78: multiple user devices for providing encrypted package and providing authentication input respectively);
transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock (¶ 62, 154, 159: if credential matched, or similarity score high enough, device permits user access to product by opening lock mechanism; ¶ 38: signals control lock mechanism); and
automatically unlocking the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box (¶ 155: product activates lock mechanism to open or unlock, permitting user to access).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui and the authentication in Park by adding the authentication comparison from Kalous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating providing authentication for electronic locks—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Kalous (¶ 2: current process of providing biometrics for electronic locks can be cumbersome; ¶ 3: invention provides access to locking devices by matching biometric inputs to authorized user). Iregui, Park, and Kalous are all related in part to authentication of container locks, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
Claims 3–6, 11–14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iregui, WIPO Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2017/182012 A1 (“Iregui”) in view of Park, Korean Patent App. Pub. No. KR 2019-0075658 A (“Park”); Kalous, U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0285726 (“Kalous”); and Suchan et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2023/0273985 (“Suchan”).
For claim 3, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 2 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: wherein the authentication factor is a shape, and wherein the shape is received by the touch screen.
Suchan, however, teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein the authentication factor is a shape, and wherein the shape is received by the touch screen (¶ 92–93: shapes including gestures on touch-sensitive input elements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 4, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Iregui further teaches:
The system of claim 1, the piggy bank further comprising: an animatronic animal (page 18, ¶ 1: ornamental design of animal) . . ..
The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: a microphone; a speaker; and a camera.
Suchan, however, teaches:
a microphone (¶ 66: microphones);
a speaker (¶ 66: speakers); and
a camera (¶ 68: cameras).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 5, Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan teach all the limitations of claim 4 above, and Suchan further teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the authentication factor is a spoken phrase, and wherein the spoken phrase is received by the speaker (¶ 162: biometric voice authentication; ¶ 119: detection of voice command).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 6, Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan teach all the limitations of claim 4 above, and Suchan further teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein the authentication factor is a hand gesture or body movement (¶ 82–83: gesture identified, including body or hand movements), and wherein the hand gesture or body movement is detected by the camera (¶ 68, 78: hand-tracking camera including image sensors for capturing movement).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 11, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 10 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: wherein the authentication factor is a shape, and the method further comprising receiving the shape by the touch screen.
Suchan, however, teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the authentication factor is a shape, and the method further comprising receiving the shape by the touch screen (¶ 92–93: shapes including gestures on touch-sensitive input elements).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 12, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Iregui further teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the piggy bank further comprises an animatronic animal (page 18, ¶ 1: ornamental design of animal) . . ..
The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: a microphone, a speaker, and a camera.
Suchan, however, teaches:
a microphone (¶ 66: microphones),
a speaker (¶ 66: speakers), and
a camera (¶ 68: cameras).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 13, Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan teach all the limitations of claim 12 above, and Suchan further teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the authentication factor is a spoken phrase, and the method further comprising receiving the spoken phrase by the speaker (¶ 162: biometric voice authentication; ¶ 119: detection of voice command).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 14, Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan teach all the limitations of claim 12 above, and Suchan further teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the authentication factor is a hand gesture or a body movement (¶ 82–83: gesture identified, including body or hand movements), and the method further comprising detecting the hand gesture or the body movement by the camera (¶ 68, 78: hand-tracking camera including image sensors for capturing movement).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 18, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 17 above, and Iregui further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the piggy bank further comprises an animatronic animal (page 18, ¶ 1: ornamental design of animal) . . ..
The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: a microphone, a speaker, and a camera.
Suchan, however, teaches:
a microphone (¶ 66: microphones),
a speaker (¶ 66: speakers), and
a camera (¶ 68: cameras).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the authentication options from Suchan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authorization of secure operations—by making them more efficient and intuitive—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Suchan (¶ 5: need for improved methods of authorizing secure operations; ¶ 6: invention addresses problems through additional authorization options). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Suchan are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
Claims 7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iregui, WIPO Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2017/182012 A1 (“Iregui”) in view of Park, Korean Patent App. Pub. No. KR 2019-0075658 A (“Park”); Kalous, U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0285726 (“Kalous”); and Hewitt et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0156473 (“Hewitt”).
For claim 7, Iregui, Park, and Suchan teach all the limitations of claim 4 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Suchan does not teach: wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: receive, from the input device of the lock box, an authentication factor hint provided by the first user; provide, by the speaker, the authentication factor hint based on determining that the second user has provided an incorrect authentication factor input.
Hewitt, however, teaches:
The system claim 4, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: receive, from the input device of the lock box, an authentication factor hint provided by the first user (¶ 51: hint or clue provided by user to system);
provide, by the speaker, the authentication factor hint based on determining that the second user has provided an incorrect authentication factor input (¶ 50–53: hint or clue provided upon incorrect token or denial of authentication system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, the authentication comparison in Kalous, and the authentication options in Suchan by adding the hint from Hewitt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authentication options—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Hewitt (¶ 5–6: challenges implementing various authentication options with the available devices, which can be cumbersome; ¶ 7: invention provides authentication system). Iregui, Park, Kalous, Suchan, and Hewitt are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 15, Iregui, Park, and Suchan teach all the limitations of claim 12 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Suchan does not teach: receiving, by the processing circuit and from the input device of the lock box, an authentication factor hint provided by the first user; and providing, by the processing circuit and by the speaker, the authentication factor hint based on determining that the second user has provided an incorrect authentication factor input.
Hewitt, however, teaches:
The method claim 12, further comprising: receiving, by the processing circuit and from the input device of the lock box, an authentication factor hint provided by the first user (¶ 51: hint or clue provided by user to system); and
providing, by the processing circuit and by the speaker, the authentication factor hint based on determining that the second user has provided an incorrect authentication factor input (¶ 50–53: hint or clue provided upon incorrect token or denial of authentication system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, the authentication comparison in Kalous, and the authentication options in Suchan by adding the hint from Hewitt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authentication options—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Hewitt (¶ 5–6: challenges implementing various authentication options with the available devices, which can be cumbersome; ¶ 7: invention provides authentication system). Iregui, Park, Kalous, Suchan, and Hewitt are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 19, Iregui, Park, and Suchan teach all the limitations of claim 18 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Suchan does not teach: receiving, from the input device of the lock box, an authentication factor hint provided by the first user; providing, by the speaker, the authentication factor hint based on determining that the second user has provided an incorrect authentication factor input.
Hewitt, however, teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 18, further comprising: receiving, from the input device of the lock box, an authentication factor hint provided by the first user (¶ 51: hint or clue provided by user to system);
providing, by the speaker, the authentication factor hint based on determining that the second user has provided an incorrect authentication factor input (¶ 50–53: hint or clue provided upon incorrect token or denial of authentication system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, the authentication comparison in Kalous, and the authentication options in Suchan by adding the hint from Hewitt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of improving authentication options—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Hewitt (¶ 5–6: challenges implementing various authentication options with the available devices, which can be cumbersome; ¶ 7: invention provides authentication system). Iregui, Park, Kalous, Suchan, and Hewitt are all related in part to authentication, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this authentication even more effective by combining these references together.
Claims 8, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iregui, WIPO Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2017/182012 A1 (“Iregui”) in view of Park, Korean Patent App. Pub. No. KR 2019-0075658 A (“Park”); Kalous, U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0285726 (“Kalous”); and Watabe, Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. JPH 6117154 A (“Watabe”).
For claim 8, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 2 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: wherein the lock box further includes a motion sensor and a weight sensor, and wherein the processing circuit is further configured to prevent the lock box from locking if movement is detected within the lock box based on data received from at least one of the motion sensor or the weight sensor.
Watabe, however, teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the lock box further includes a motion sensor and a weight sensor, and wherein the processing circuit is further configured to prevent the lock box from locking if movement is detected within the lock box based on data received from at least one of the motion sensor or the weight sensor (¶ 8, 9, 19: locker remains unlocked based on detection by human body sensor and infrared sensor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the automatic locking and unlocking from Watabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of keeping a locker unlocked while it is being accessed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Watabe (¶ 4–5: problem of unlocking locker when necessary, such as when person accessing; ¶ 7: invention solves problems through sensors). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Watabe are all related in part to locked containers, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these containers even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 16, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 9 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: wherein the lock box further includes a motion sensor and a weight sensor, and the method further comprising preventing, by the processing circuit, the lock box from locking if movement is detected within the lock box based on data received from at least one of the motion sensor or the weight sensor.
Watabe, however, teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the lock box further includes a motion sensor and a weight sensor, and the method further comprising preventing, by the processing circuit, the lock box from locking if movement is detected within the lock box based on data received from at least one of the motion sensor or the weight sensor (¶ 8, 9, 19: locker remains unlocked based on detection by human body sensor and infrared sensor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the automatic locking and unlocking from Watabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of keeping a locker unlocked while it is being accessed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Watabe (¶ 4–5: problem of unlocking locker when necessary, such as when person accessing; ¶ 7: invention solves problems through sensors). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Watabe are all related in part to locked containers, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these containers even more effective by combining these references together.
For claim 20, Iregui, Park, and Kalous teach all the limitations of claim 17 above. The combination of Iregui, Park, and Kalous does not teach: wherein the lock box further includes a motion sensor and a weight sensor, and the operations further comprising preventing the lock box from locking if movement is detected within the lock box based on data received from at least one of the motion sensor or the weight sensor.
Watabe, however, teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 17, wherein the lock box further includes a motion sensor and a weight sensor, and the operations further comprising preventing the lock box from locking if movement is detected within the lock box based on data received from at least one of the motion sensor or the weight sensor (¶ 8, 9, 19: locker remains unlocked based on detection by human body sensor and infrared sensor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the piggy bank in Iregui, the authentication in Park, and the authentication comparison in Kalous by adding the automatic locking and unlocking from Watabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of keeping a locker unlocked while it is being accessed—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Watabe (¶ 4–5: problem of unlocking locker when necessary, such as when person accessing; ¶ 7: invention solves problems through sensors). Iregui, Park, Kalous, and Watabe are all related in part to locked containers, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these containers even more effective by combining these references together.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 13, ¶ 2) filed September 23, 2025, with respect to claims 1–20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but claims 1–20 do recite authenticating user access, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction and the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The claims also recite comparing authentication factors, which is the abstract idea of mental processes because they involve observations and evaluations that can be performed by the human mind.
Claims 1–20, however, further recite additional elements that are integrated into a practical application because the specific combination of steps applies the judicial exception in a way that is beyond a general linking to the technological environment. These claims recite “transmit, based on the second user being authorized to access the lock box a signal to the input device of the lock box to cause a locking mechanism of the lock box to unlock” and “automatically unlock the lock box upon receipt of the signal by the lock box”. The claims therefore involve making an authentication determination, and then transmitting a signal to automatically unlock a lock box based on the determination. The claims here are similar to Claim 2 in Example 46 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. See October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_app1.pdf (October 2019). Even though Claim 2 in Example 46 was directed to the judicial exception of a mental determination, the claim added a meaningful limitation by applying the information obtained via judicial exception to physically control a feed dispenser in a particular way. See id. (“Thus, limitation (d) does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception (the mental analysis of whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany) to operate the feed dispenser. . . . Using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action such that the monitoring component is operable to control the feed dispenser in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall livestock management scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The claim is eligible”). The claims in the present application similarly make a complex authentication determination, and then apply that determination to physically operate the lock box in a particular way. The claims therefore recite an unconventional arrangement of technology that is more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to generic computer technology. Thus, the limitations of claims 1–20, in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For these reasons, in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 9, and 17 and argues that the combination of Iregui (WIPO Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2017/182012 A1) and Park (Korean Patent App. Pub. No. KR 2019-0075658 A) does not disclose these additional limitations. Claims 1, 9, and 17, however, are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Iregui in view of Park and Kalous (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0285726). Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17 are moot.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claims 1, 9, and 17, which were amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. As discussed above, however, claims 1, 9, and 17 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Iregui in view of Park and Kalous. Thus, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20 are moot.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Van Os et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0080189, discloses various additional biometric authentication techniques.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights