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 final office action in response to the amendments filed 02/24/2026. Amendments received on 02/24/2026 have been entered. As per applicant claims 6 and 13 have been canceled. Accordingly claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurmuehlen et al. (US Pub 2015/0179006) in view of Goetz et al. (US 11,620,866) further in view of Hall (US Pub 2018/0285814).
As of claims 1, 8 and 15, Zurmuehlen discloses a method for controlling access to a physical space using a target lock, the target lock being an electronic lock capable of being unlocked both in a remote-control procedure (via unlocking securable enclosure 106 using kiosk 102; see fig. 1) and in a local control procedure (via unlocking securable enclosure with its own dedicated keypad 404; see paragraph [0039]), the method comprising:
In the remote-control procedure, an access control device performing the following:
obtaining a passcode entered on a keypad, wherein the keypad is associated with a plurality of electronic locks (via obtaining a PIN entered on a kiosk 102, wherien the kiosk is associated with a plurality of securable enclosure 106 comprising locks 314; see figs. 1 and 3; also see paragraph [0022]- [0023]);
determining the target lock as being associated with the passcode, the target lock being one of the plurality of electronic locks that are associated with the keypad; determining that the passcode is valid; and triggering the target lock to be set in a simplified opening state, where no further credential is required for a user to subsequently open the target lock (see paragraphs [0026], “The user then enters the securable enclosure number along with the previously user defined PIN. The system 100 determines whether the locker designation and the PIN provided by the user go together. If the provided locker designation and PIN code go together then the kiosk system 100 unlocks and pops open the designated locker 106 so that the user can remove the items that were stored therein”, hence no further credential is required to open the lock; also see paragraphs [0030] and [0033]). The term “simplified opening state” does not have an art recognized meaning. The specification paragraph [0035] states “The simplified opening state implies that no credential (e.g. in the form of an electronic key or biometrics) is needed to open the lock.” In the system of Zurmuehlen, once the locker is unlocked and opened, the user does not need any credential to open the locker, hence disclosing the limitation as claimed. (Note: the Examiner would further like to point out that it is well known in the art, that once a user is authenticated, a lock mechanism might simultaneously unlock the locker and open the locker or lock mechanism may unlock the locker but the locker may remain in a closed state (which could be interpreted as “simplified opening state” and the user is able to transition the locker from its closed to open state manually, without further authentication (see Boston, US 2022/0375289 paragraph [0068]; also see Marcelle (US Pub 2007/0257772) paragraph [0043]. Boston and Marcelle are not used to reject the claims but to emphasize the Examiner’s position).
Zurmuehlen discloses that in the local control procedure each of securable enclosures 402 comprises its own dedicated keypad 404 configured for enabling a user to, among other things, unlock a rented securable enclosure 402 (see fig. 4; also see paragraph [0039]).
Zurmuehlen does not explicitly disclose that in the local control procedure the target lock checking authenticity and authority of a portable key device over a short-range wireless interface.
Goetz discloses a target lock performing the following: checking authenticity and authority of a portable key device over a short-range wireless interface (via locker 200 comprising an authentication device 102 which receives authentication information from a user’s smartphone via short-range communication (see fig. 2; also see col. 4 lines 41-55 and col. 11, lines 44-65) and setting the target lock in an unlocked state in response to a positive outcome of checking authenticity and authority of the portable key device without requiring passcode entry (via disclosing that user may tap their mobile device on the authentication device 102 to provide data from the mobile device to the authentication device 102. The data may be used for authenticating the user. Where the authentication circuit 304 authenticates the user, the authentication circuit 304 may control the authentication device 102 (or the locking device(s) 202 directly) to unlock the locker door 204 to provide access to the storage space 208 for the locker 200 (see col. 12, lines 1-10).
Hence the prior includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In combination, Zurmuehlen performs the same function as it does separately of unlocking a securable enclosure by obtaining a passcode on a keypad, wherein the keypad is associated with a plurality of securable enclosures. Goetz performs the same function as it does separately of authenticating a user’s mobile device at a specific locker and unlocking the locker without requiring passcode entry.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in allowing a user to mobile device to unlock a specific locker.
Combination of Zurmuehlen and Goetz discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the passcode is valid for a predetermined number of times prior to an electronic key being required to unlock the target lock.
Hall discloses that access code has parameters in an electronic locking system wherein the parameters include a number of times an access could be used prior to expiration, an amount of time the access code is valid, days or time when the access code is usable (see paragraph [0067]). Hall further discloses that the owner 102 can have a permanent access code to unlock a lock, so in this case after the temporary access code expires a permanent access is required to unlock the lock (see paragraph [0067]). Hall further discloses that the access code is transmitted to the lock using a mobile device (see paragraph [0069]). So, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that in the system of Hall after an access code expires, the user can still unlock the lock by transmitting a permanent code via a mobile device.
From the teaching of Hall, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Zurmuehlen and Goetz to establish parameters for access codes as taught by Hall in order to allow a user to set limitations on the use of access codes.
As of claims 2 and 9, Zurmuehlen discloses the step of obtaining a passcode comprises obtaining an identifier of the physical space entered on the keypad (see paragraph [0030], “user who is retrieving articles from a rented securable enclosure may proceed to any touchpad or locker panel (208, 210, 212) touchscreen or keypad incorporated into the electronic locker system 200 and enter their securable enclosure number and associated user-defined PIN to open up their rented securable enclosure).
As of claims 3 and 10, Zurmuehlen discloses the determining the target lock comprises determining the target lock based on the passcode (see paragraph [0030], “user who is retrieving articles from a rented securable enclosure may proceed to any touchpad or locker panel (208, 210, 212) touchscreen or keypad incorporated into the electronic locker system 200 and enter their securable enclosure number and associated user-defined PIN to open up their rented securable enclosure).
As of claims 5 and 12, Zurmuehlen discloses triggering the target lock to be set in a fully locked state after the physical space is closed (see paragraph [0025], “Upon closing the door, the securable enclosure 106 will be locked).
As of claims 7 and 14, Zurmuehlen discloses the physical space is a self-storage space (via locker system; see abstract).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurmuehlen, Goetz et al., Hall and further in view of Shitan (US Pub 2005/0040931).
As of claims 4 and 11, combination of Zurmuehlen, Goetz and Hall discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose receiving an enabling signal from an operator terminal, indicating that the target lock is allowed to be set in the simplified opening state; and wherein the triggering the target lock to be set in a simplified opening state is performed conditional on receiving the enabling signal from the operator terminal.
Shitan discloses an electronic system comprising receiving an enabling signal from an operator terminal (via recording device 400 transmitting an electronic key), indicating that the target lock is allowed to be set in the simplified opening state; and wherein the triggering the target lock to be set in a simplified opening state is performed conditional on receiving the enabling signal from the operator terminal (via confirming both a user’s password and the electronic key transmitted by the recording device required to unlock the locker; see fig. 10; also see paragraphs [0102]-[0105]).
From the teaching of Shitan it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Zurmuehlen, Goetz and Hall to include the function of receiving an enabling signal from an operator terminal as taught by Shitan in order to improve safety since both a password and an electronic key is required to unlock a locker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “Applicant acknowledges that in paragraph [0069], Hall describes "other or additional methods" for receiving access codes, such as using a mobile computing device (e.g., smart phone, etc.) to wirelessly communicate an access code to the input device. However, these are simply optional alternative methods for inputting an access code; such methods are by no means required by Hall. In contrast, Applicant's Claim 1 explicitly recites that the passcode is only valid for a predetermined number of times before "an electronic key [is] required to locally unlock the target lock." Hall simply has no such requirement to use the above-mentioned mobile computing device; it is merely an optional input method”.
Examiner would like to point out that the test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case based on the teaching of Hall it would clearly suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art that after an access code expires, the user has to unlock the lock by transmitting a permanent code via a mobile device.
Based on the explanation given above it is the Examiner’s position that the combination of the references applied discloses the invention as claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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 2686