DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s Amendment which is filed on January 12, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Because this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous action is withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The submission filed on January 12, 2026, has been entered.
An amendment to amend the claims 1, 46-49, 51, 55-59 and 61 has been entered and made of record in the application of Denison et al. for an “access control electronics for wireless locks” filed October 11, 2023.
Claims 5, 10, 13-45, 52-54 and 63-70 have been cancelled.
A new set of claims 71-93 is introduced.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 46-51, 55-62 and 71-93 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as discussed below. Applicant's amendment and argument with respect to the pending claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 46-51, 55-62 and 71-93, filed on January 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
On page 11, third paragraph, Applicant's arguments with respect to the invention in Ghabra does not teach or suggest that an access control electronics for unlocking wireless lock is not persuasive.
As defined by claim 1, the system (10) of Ghabra is may be automatically locked when an occupant walks away from the vehicle in a passive manner and also execute other remote keyless entry (RKE) functions (i.e. unlock, panic, alarm, etc.) as an RKE mode operation. When active, the RKE command to unlock the vehicle 12 would be executed and the vehicle 12 would be unlocked. The duty cycle during which the receiver 22 is alternated between the inactive and active states may be selectably controlled according to desired performance parameters (column 2 lines 63 to column 3 line 3; column 4 lines 10 lines 25; see Figures 1). Clearly, Ghabra discloses the access control electronics for unlocking wireless lock of the vehicle and therefore, Ghabra is also analogous arts of the access control electronics.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 1, 55, 74, 84 and 89. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for unlocking wireless lock” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Additionally, the non-contact control method of Tung includes the master control module (10) (i.e. a latch tool installed in the body of the vehicle) and a slave control module (20) (i.e. the non-contact key, mobile phone or PDA). Both the master control module and the slave control module include a radio frequency identify (RFID) component and a Bluetooth component. In the master control module and the slave control module, the RFID component serves as first-layer authentication and unlocking and starts the Bluetooth component, and the Bluetooth component serves as second-layer authentication and unlocking and triggers a circuit control device. The master control module actively starts the slave control module and performs pairing and unlocking, so as to achieve a non-contact locking and control mode with low energy consumption and high security (page 2 paragraphs 0024-0028; see Figures 1 to 4). Clearly, Tung discloses the access control electronics for unlocking wireless lock of the vehicle and therefore, Tung is also analogous arts of the access control electronics for unlock vehicle door same as Ghabra.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the master control module with the first Bluetooth transceiver and also with the RFID emitter for communication using multiple protocols taught by Tung in automatic detection locking of the vehicle of Ghabra et al. because having the master control module with the first Bluetooth transceiver and also with the RFID emitter for communication using multiple protocols would provide the device to make the access control reader device with multiple communication protocol readers.
For at least these reasons, the examiner maintains that the references cited.
Claim Objections
Claim 78 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The access control electronics of claim 74” should be “The access control electronics of claim 77”. An appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11-12, 46-51, 55-57, 60-62, 74, 79-80, 82-86, 88-91 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghabra et al. (US# 8,203,424) in view of Tung (Pub. No. US 2012/0007712) and Lagerstedt et al. (US# 10,050,948).
Referring to claim 1, Ghabra et al. disclose access control electronics (i.e. a vehicle with controller (14)) for unlocking wireless locks (22) (lock of the vehicle 14) (column 1 lines 39 to 50; see Figures 1 to 2) comprising:
a processor (14) (column 1 lines 39 to 50; see Figure 1);
proximity detection circuit (22) for detecting a user presenting a wireless transmitting device (20) (i.e. the ability to automatically lock the doors may be helpful when the occupant has simply forgotten to lock the vehicle 12. The controller 14 may be configured to monitor a position of the fob 20 relative to the vehicle 12 in order to determine whether the occupant has walked away, and optionally, a need to automatically lock the doors) (column 1 lines 51 to 62; see Figure 1), wherein the periodically enabled proximity detection circuit (22) is configured lor sensing the wireless transmitting device (20) (i.e. the controller 14 may transmit a LF presence request signal 58 as a polling signal to request the fob 20 to respond with a presence response 59 if the fob 20 receives the request. Transmission of the presence request signal 58 may be triggered by vehicle shutdown, door opening/closing, or other triggers representative of the occupant exiting the vehicle 12. The receiver 22 may actively remain in SES mode for a short period after transmitting the presence request signal 58 in order to process any SES response 59 from the fob 20) (column 3 lines 22 to 53; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, Ghabra et al. did not explicitly disclose at least one of a first circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device, a second circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device, and a third circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless device.
In the same field of endeavor of a wireless remote control communication system, Tung teaches that at least one of a first circuit (14) temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device (20) (i.e. The first Bluetooth transceiver 14 is a wireless transmission element satisfying Bluetooth communication specifications. the first Bluetooth transceiver 14, and the first microprocessor 16 can be integrated into a system-on-chip (SOC) integrated circuit (IC), or each is an individual IC. The first microprocessor 16 is electrically connected to a switch 15. When a user changes a state of the switch 15, for example, switches the switch 15 from "OFF" to "ON", the switch 15 transmits a start signal to the first microprocessor 16. The first microprocessor 16 turns on the RFID emitter 12 and the first Bluetooth transceiver 14. Here, the RFID emitter 12 sends a low-frequency start signal, and the first Bluetooth transceiver 14 searches whether another Bluetooth transceiver exists nearby) (page 2 paragraphs 0025 to 0028; paragraph 0032; see Figures 1 and 2) in order to transmit and to receive signal from the slave control module with multiple communication protocols or specifications.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the master control module with the first Bluetooth transceiver and also with the RFID emitter for communication using multiple protocols taught by Tung in automatic detection locking of the vehicle of Ghabra et al. because having the master control module with the first Bluetooth transceiver and also with the RFID emitter for communication using multiple protocols would provide the device to make the access control reader device with multiple communication protocol readers.
In the same field of endeavor of a wireless access control system, Lagerstedt et al. teaches that a second circuit (216) temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device (204); and a third circuit (224) temporarily enabled for reading the wireless device (204) (i.e. Credentials 204 may also be in other form factors such as card-type credentials, stickers, key fobs, Integrated Circuit (IC) chips, microprocessors within the user device 116, and the like. Physical credentials 204 may carry logical credentials (e.g., access permissions in the form of data and protocols for communicating the data) that are communicated by the physical credential 204 to readers 216 and/or reader writers 224 via predefined protocols. the readers 216 and/or reader/writers 224 may communicate with the physical credential 204 using known wireless communication protocols. For instance, data can be exchanged between the credential 204 and a reader 216 by data modulation of a carrier wave having a particular carrier frequency (e.g., 125 kHz, 13.56 MHz, ultra-high frequencies, etc.) in order to provide flexible exchange communication signal.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having a plurality of readers and/or reader/writer in communication with the credentials using multiple protocols for accessing assets in the access control system taught by Lagerstedt et al. in automatic detection locking of the vehicle of Ghabra et al. in view of Tung because having a plurality of readers and/or reader/writer in communication with the credentials using multiple protocols for accessing assets would provide the credential device to able to communicate with the plurality of readers using different protocol.
Referring to claim 4, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 1, Lagerstedt et al. disclose wherein the second circuit (216) comprises a short-range radio frequency antenna configured for a frequency of 13.56 MHz (i.e. the readers 216 and/or reader/writers 224 may communicate with the physical credential 204 using known wireless communication protocols. For instance, data can be exchanged between the credential 204 and a reader 216 by data modulation of a carrier wave having a particular carrier frequency (e.g., 125 kHz, 13.56 MHz, ultra-high frequencies, etc.) (column 11 lines 32 to 38; see Figure 2).
Referring to claim 6, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 1, Tung discloses farther comprising a battery (18) for powering the access control electronics (i.e. the power of the master control module 10 is supplied by the power supply 18. The power supply 18 may be a storage battery (a battery jar) of the vehicle) (page 2 paragraph 0024; see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the periodically enabled detection, the first circuit and the second circuit each define a customizable detection range and detection angle. It is well-known, as admitted by Applicant, that the detection range and detection angle of a capacitive touch sensor differs from the detection range and detection angle of the first and second RFID antenna. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a detection angle of the proximity detection circuit differ from a detection range and a detection angle of the first and second circuit for reading RFID devices since doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 46-51, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 1, Tung discloses the RFID emitter (12) and a first Bluetooth transceiver (14) can connect in series to the microprocessor (16) (page 2 paragraphs 0025-0026; see Figure 1) in order to transmit and to receive signal from the slave control module with multiple communication specifications.
Referring to independent claims 55, 74, 84 and 89, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose access control electronics for unlocking wireless locks, although different in scope from the claims 1, the claims 55, 74, 84 and 89 contains similar limitations in that the claim 1 already addressed above therefore claims 55, 74, 84 and 89 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claim 1.
Referring to claims 60-62, 80, 83, 86, 88, 90-91 and 93, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics for unlocking wireless locks of claims 59, 74 and 84, although different in scope from the claims 50-51, 47 and 49, the claims 60-62, 80, 83, 86, 88, 90-91 and 93 contains similar limitations in that the claims 50-51, 47 and 49 already addressed above therefore claims 60-62, 80, 83, 86, 88, 90-91 and 93 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claims 50-51, 47 and 49.
Regarding claim 22, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 13, Tung discloses further comprising a periodically enabled third circuit comprising a Bluetooth antenna (i.e. the master control module 10 comprises an a first Bluetooth transceiver (14) (a first Bluetooth component) connects to the antenna) (page 2 paragraph 0023 to 0027; see Figures 1 and 2) in order to transmit and to receive signal from the slave control module with multiple communication specifications. At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the master control module with the first Bluetooth transceiver with first Bluetooth component and also with the RFID emitter for communication using multiple protocols taught by Tung in the access control reader device having the periodically enabled third circuit of McLeod et al. in view of Vuillet et al. because having the master control module with the first Bluetooth transceiver would provide the device to make the access control reader device with additional multiple communication protocol readers.
Regarding claim 56, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 55, Tung discloses wherein the wireless transmitting device (20) is a portable smartphone (page 2 paragraph 0034; see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 57, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 55, Tung discloses wherein the Bluetooth antenna is configured to read a Bluetooth signal from the wireless transmitting device (page 2 paragraph 0025).
Regarding claims 79 and 85, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claims 74 and 84, Lagerstedt et al. disclose that a second radio frequency receiver (216) for reading the wireless transmitting device (204) (i.e. Credentials 204 may also be in other form factors such as card-type credentials, stickers, key fobs, Integrated Circuit (IC) chips, microprocessors within the user device 116, and the like. Physical credentials 204 may carry logical credentials (e.g., access permissions in the form of data and protocols for communicating the data) that are communicated by the physical credential 204 to readers 216 and/or reader writers 224 via predefined protocols) (column 10 lines 47 to 55; see Figure 2) in order to provide flexible exchange communication signal.
Claims 2, 71, 75, 81, 87 and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghabra et al. (US# 8,203,424) in view of Tung (Pub. No. US 2012/0007712) and Lagerstedt et al. (US# 10,050,948) as applied to claims 1, 55, 74, 84 and 89, and further in view of Vuillet et al. (Pub. No. 2012/0208604).
Referring to claim 2, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 1, however, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein the periodically enabled proximity detection circuit comprises at least one proximity sensor pad and a capacitive sensing circuit.
In the same field of endeavor of a wireless remote control communication system, Vuillet et al. disclose wherein the periodically enabled proximity detection circuit (52a) comprises at least one proximity sensor pad (multizone touch-sensitive pad) and a capacitive sensing circuit (i.e. a finger has approached if any one of the capacitive touch sensors 52a, 52b, 54a, 54b of the pairs of side buttons 22 and 24, or if any of the sensors 50a to 50d of the central button 20, delivers a signal that exceeds a predetermined threshold. Nevertheless, if a signal is detected simultaneously on a plurality of side capacitive touch sensors 52a, 52b, 54a, 54b, or simultaneously on one of the side sensors 52a, 52b, 54a, 54b and on at least one of the central sensors 50a to 50d, then the situation is not considered as being intended to activate any command and it is not considered as constituting a "finger approach" in the meaning of the algorithm) (page 4 paragraph 0077; page 5 paragraph 0120 to 0104; see Figures 1 to 6).
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the multizone touch-sensitive pad and the capacitive sensing circuit in the proximity detection circuit for detecting the user presenting the wireless transmitting device taught by Vuillet et al. in automatic detection locking of the vehicle of Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. because having the multizone touch-sensitive pad and a capacitive sensing circuit in the proximity detection circuit for detecting the user presenting the wireless transmitting device would provide the device to analyze the signal with more precision in the access control reader device.
Referring to claims 71, 75, 81, 87 and 92 Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose access control electronics for unlocking wireless locks of claims 55, 74, 84 and 89, although different in scope from the claim 2, the claims 71, 75, 81, 87 and 92 contains similar limitations in that the claim 2 already addressed above therefore claims 71, 75, 81, 87 and 92 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claim 2.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 58, 59 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghabra et al. (US# 8,203,424) in view of Tung (Pub. No. US 2012/0007712) and Lagerstedt et al. (US# 10,050,948) as applied to claims 1, 55 and 74, and further in view of McLeod et al. (US# 10,438,425).
Referring to claim 3, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 1, however, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein the first circuit comprises a short-range radio frequency antenna configured for a frequency of 125 KHz.
In the same field of endeavor of a wireless remote control communication system, McLeod et al. disclose wherein the first circuit (120) comprises a short-range radio frequency antenna configured for a frequency of 125 KHz (i.e. the RFID reader 124 preferably operates the LF RFID antenna 166 at a range between about 125 kHz and about 134 kHz. The RFID reader 124 can use the LF RFID antenna 166 to detect RF signals at a range between about 1 cm and about 10 cm.) (column 8 lines 36 to 52; see Figures 1 to 3).
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the short-range radio frequency antenna configured for a frequency of 125 KHz in the LF RFID reader taught by McLeod et al. in automatic detection locking of the vehicle of Ghabra et al. in view of Tung because having the short-range radio frequency antenna configured for a frequency of 125 KHz in the LF RFID reader would provide the reader to detect the RF signals at a close range in the access control reader device.
Referring to claim 7, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 1, McLeod et al. disclose wherein the periodically enabled proximity detection circuit (128) and the first circuit (120) are in close proximity (column 5 lines 14 to 23; see Figure 1).
Referring to claim 8, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung, Lagerstedt et al. and McLeod et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 7, Tung discloses wherein the periodically enabled proximity detection circuit and the second circuit are co-planar (page 2 paragraph 0025; see Figure 1).
Referring to claim 76, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose access control electronics for wireless locks, although different in scope from the claim 3, the claim 76 contains similar limitations in that the claim 3 already addressed above therefore claim 76 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 58, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 55, McLeod et al. disclose wherein the short-range radio frequency antenna is configured to read a Near Field Communication (NFC) signal from the wireless transmitting device (column 8 lines 36 to 52; see Figures 1 to 3).
Regarding claim 59, Ghabra et al. in view of Tung and Lagerstedt et al. disclose the access control electronics of Claim 55, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of modifying a device to be capable of receiving multiple protocols of short-range signals comprising Bluetooth antenna and a short-range radio frequency antenna for selectively reading a wireless transmitting device as disclosed by Ghabra et al. in view of Tung thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so since it would improve wireless compatibility of a system with a range of devices and communication protocols.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 46-51, 55-62 and 71-93 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,837,039. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the instant application, the access control electronics for wireless locks includes a processor; a periodically enabled proximity detection circuit for detecting a user presenting a wireless transmitting device; a first circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device. and a second circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the instant application did not include additional limitations that wherein proximity detection circuit includes at least one proximity sensor pad and a periodically enabled capacitive sense circuit operatively connected to the at least one proximity sensor pad.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the instant application claims are generic to the species of the invention covered by the respective patent claims in the U.S. Patent No. 11,837,039. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
The following claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is
anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims:
Instant Application U.S. Patent No. 11,837,039
1 1
55 11
74 1
84 1
89 1
Referring to claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-12, 46-51, 56-62, 71-, 71, 75-83, 85-88 and 90-93 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected Claims 1, 55, 74, 84, and 89 above.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 46-51, 55-62 and 71-93 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,488,429. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the instant application, the access control electronics for wireless locks includes a processor; a periodically enabled proximity detection circuit for detecting a user presenting a wireless transmitting device; a first circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device. and a second circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device.
The different is that the Claim 1 of the instant application did not include additional limitations that wherein proximity detection circuit includes at least one proximity sensor pad and a periodically enabled capacitive sense circuit operatively connected to the at least one proximity sensor pad.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the instant application claims are generic to the species of the invention covered by the respective patent claims in the U.S. Patent No. 11,488,429. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
The following claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is
anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims:
Instant Application U.S. Patent No. 11,488,429
1 1
55 11
74 1
84 1
89 1
Referring to claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-12, 46-51, 56-62, 71-, 71, 75-83, 85-88 and 90-93 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected Claims 1, 55, 74, 84 and 89 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 72-73 and 77-78 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claim 9, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the periodically enabled proximity detection circuit and the first circuit are on adjacent parallel planes.
Referring to claim 72, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the proximity detection circuit includes first power management electronics for periodically enabling the proximity detection circuit, and wherein the processor includes second power management electronics for periodically enabling the at least one of a first circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device, a second circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless transmitting device, and a third circuit temporarily enabled for reading the wireless device.
Referring to claim 77, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the proximity detection circuit includes first power management electronics for periodically enabling the proximity detection circuit, and wherein the processor includes second power management electronics for periodically enabling the radio frequency receiver.
Claims 73 and 78 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claims 72 and 77; therefore, these claims are also allowed by virtue of their dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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 NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685