DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final office action in response to the RCE filed 08/25/2026. Amendments received on 08/25/2026 have been entered. Claims 16-20 and 22-23 were previously canceled. Accordingly claims 1-15, 21 and 24-27 are pending.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the remote device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davis et al. (US Pub 2021/0256783).
As of claims 1 and 21, Davis discloses a security system for a plurality of server racks, comprising:
a plurality of electronic keys (via users issued electronic keys 120; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0018]);
a plurality of electronic locks each configured to secure a respective server rack, (via locks 110; sees fig. 1 and 5; also see paragraph [0022], Davis discloses that the access control system assigns one or more resources to users of keys for authorizing the keys to unlock the locks for the assigned resources, wherein the resources are server racks (see paragraphs [0018], [0022] and [0069]-[0071])), each of the electronic locks configured to communicate with any one of the electronic keys for determining whether the electronic key is authorized to unlock the electronic lock for accessing the server rack (via locks 110 configured to communicate with any one of the keys 120 for determining whether the key 120 is authorized to unlock the lock 110; see paragraph [0015]); and
a ticketing system configured to assign one or more of the server racks to users of each of the plurality of electronic keys based on a work order or maintenance request associated with the assigned server racks for authorizing the plurality of electronic keys to unlock one or more of the plurality of electronic locks for the assigned server racks (via access control system dynamically assigning one or more locks 110/resources to users of each of the plurality of keys 120 based on condition (maintenance, task) of the resource, hence comprising a ticking system; see paragraphs [0069]-[0071] and [0080], [0084] and [0090]-[0091]);
wherein the ticketing system is configured to communicate with each of the plurality of electronic locks for assigning one or more server racks to users (via communicating access schedule to the lock via the key device for assigning resource (server rack) to user; see paragraphs [0022] and [0075]).
As of claim 24, Davis discloses that the server rack comprises a cabinet and a door, and wherein each of the electronic locks is configured to communicate with any one of the electronic keys for determining whether the electronic key is authorized to unlock the electronic lock for opening the door of the server rack (vis resources including enclosure such as server racks, cabinets, lockers, rooms, closets and other enclosed or confined spaces; see paragraph [0022]).
As of claim 25, Davis discloses that each of the plurality of electronic locks is configured to be attached to a respective server rack (via lock 110 configured to be attached to a resource (server rack; see paragraphs [0015] and [0022]).
As of claim 2, Davis discloses a programming station for authorizing the plurality of electronic keys (via access control terminal 210; see paragraph [0028]).
As of claim 3, Davis discloses that at least one of the plurality of electronic keys is configured to be authorized for unlocking one or more different electronic locks than at least one other electronic key (Davis discloses that an electronic key can access a set of one or more locks; see abstract).
As of claim 4, Davis discloses that each of the plurality of electronic keys comprises an authorization protocol for confirming the identity of the user prior to authorizing the electronic key to unlock the electronic lock of the assigned server rack (via performing biometric identification of a user of the key; see paragraph [0019]).
As of claim 5, Davis discloses that the authorization protocol is a biometric identification of a user of the electronic key (via performing biometric identification of a user of the key; see paragraph [0019]).
As of claim 6, Davis discloses that the authorization protocol is facial recognition of a user of the electronic key (via performing facial recognition; see paragraph [0021] and [0073]).
As of claim 7, Davis discloses that the authorization protocol is a pin code (via a personal identification number (PIN) or biometric; see paragraph [0073]).
As of claim 8, Davis discloses wherein the ticketing system is configured to dynamically configure access to the assigned server racks only for a specific time period corresponding to the work order or maintenance request (via disclosing that scheduled access permissions” denotes the specific set of resources a user is authorized to access, along with corresponding time periods defining when a user may access each of the set of resources; see paragraph [0069]. Davis further discloses that the maintenance staff is granted access based on temporal schedule and won’t be allowed access after the allowed time window, hence dynamically configuring access fo a specific time period corresponding to maintenance request).
As of claim 9, Davis discloses that the remote device is configured to authorize the plurality of electronic keys (via smart device 160 authorizing key 120; see paragraph [0092] and [0109]).
As of claim 10, Davis discloses that each of the plurality of electronic keys is configured to be authorized to unlock any one of the plurality of electronic locks for accessing the server rack based on a security code stored by the electronic lock matching a security code stored by the electronic key (via access credentials comprising a unique identification code and password stored in the key and the lock; see paragraph [0037]).
As of claim 12, Davis discloses that the ticketing system is configured to dynamically authorize the plurality of electronic keys (via dynamically authorizing the keys 120; see paragraph [0017] and [0080]).
As of claim 13, Davis discloses that the ticketing system is configured to authorize each of the plurality of electronic keys to access assigned server racks at a specific time (via access schedule defining one or more authorized time periods during which access to a lock is permitted; see abstract; also see paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
As of claim 14, Davis discloses that the ticketing system is configured to automatically communicate access rights for each of the plurality of electronic keys (via automatically adjusting access schedules and generating a corresponding key configuration for the key; see abstract; also see paragraph [0113]).
As of claim 15, Davis discloses that the ticketing system is configured to communicate with each of the plurality of electronic keys for assigning one or more server racks to users (via communicating with keys 110 for assigning access control information; see paragraph [0060]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US Pub 2021/0256783) in view of Grant et al. (US Pub 2017/0372543).
As of claim 11, Davis discloses all the limitation of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the lock is unlocked based on a serial number stored by the lock matching a serial number stored by the key.
Grant discloses an access control system wherien a key is configured to be authorized to unlock a lock based on a serial number stored by the lock matching a serial number stored by the key (see paragraph [0005]).
From the teaching of Grant, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Davis to include the function of using a serial number as unlocking code as taught by Grant since it is known that different credentials, pin, password, identifiers or serial number could be used to unlock a locking device.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US Pub 2021/0256783) in view of Gockcebay et al. (US Pub 10,697,203).
As of claim 26-27, Davis discloses all the limitation of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the ticketing system if configured to communicate directly with each of the plurality of electronic locks for assigning one or more server racks to users.
Gockcebay discloses a security system wherein a manger uses a computer 566 to directly communicate with each of a plurality of locks 560 for assigning locks to the users to set credentials, such as determining which user is authorized to pen which locks and at what time (see col. 14, lines 8-25).
From the teaching of Gockcebay, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Davis to include the function of programming locks remotely as taught by Gockcebay in order to allow an administrator to program locks for different users.
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 1-15, 21 and 24-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/722,315 in view of Davis et al. (US Pub 2021/0256783). The claim 1 of application 18/722315 discloses all the limitation of the claimed invention except it discloses that the lock is configured to secure a single fixture. Davis however discloses that the lock is configured to secure a server rack as disclosed in the art rejection above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As of claims 1 and 21, applicant argues that Davis does not disclose “a ticketing system configured to assign one or more server racks to users of each of the plurality of electronic keys based on a work order or maintenance request associated with the assigned server racks for authorizing the plurality of electronic keys to unlock one or more of the plurality of electronic locks for the assigned server racks.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that during examination, claims are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation . . ..” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).1 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard noted above, the Examiner maintains her interpretations.
Davis discloses that the access to a resource (server rack) secured by lock 110 is restricted during certain time periods or on particular dates or days of the week. Davis further discloses that the “scheduled access permissions” denotes the specific set of resources a user is authorized to access, along with corresponding time periods defining when a user may access each of the set of resources (see paraqgrpah [0069]). Davis further discloses that in the context of electronic key 120, scheduled access permissions specify the set of electronic locks 110 that the key is authorized to unlock and, for each lock, the corresponding time period that an unlocking event can be initiated (see paragraph [0070]). Davis further discloses that a maintenance technician is assigned scheduled access permission to a resource to facilitate repairs (see paragraph [0083] an d[0090]-[0092]). Based on the explanation it is the Examiner position that the Davis discloses the limitation of assigning resources to users of keys based on work order or maintenance request associated with the resource.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Novozhenets (US Pub 2019/0180535) discloses an access control system, wherien a technician is provided with on-demand credentials in response to maintenance or service request (see abstract).
Fares et al. (US Pub 2017/0213406) discloses an access control system, wherien an opening code is transmitted to an electronic key 150 to access a resource based on a service request regarding the resource (see paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
1 See also MPEP §2111; In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
