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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 2/7/2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad et al., (US 2016/0036814), (hereinafter, Conrad).
Regarding claim 8, Conrad discloses a mobile device, comprising: one or more memories configured to, individually or in combination, store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the mobile device to:
detect a signal broadcasted by a remote field device, wherein the signal includes a unique identifier of the remote field device (= lock may detect the presence of a nearby user and begin an interaction process; the lock may broadcast its model and serial number or other unique lock ID and wait for a response from the mobile device, see [0057]);
transmit, to the remote field device and based on the unique identifier, a connection request including credentials related to performing a manufacturer control function on the remote field device (= any of the data communicated between the mobile device and lock is encrypted using the access key, see [0060]; and user device receives and confirms the lock’s ID; if a profile is found for the lock, the user device may then transmits an unlock request, see [0061]; in some embodiments, upon connection, the mobile device receives an initial sequence number from the lock and the lock verifies that subsequently received messages contain the initial number, see [0062]); and
based on a response to the connection request from the remote field device, establish a connection with the remote field device to allow initiating, by the mobile device, the manufacturer control function on the remote field device (= if the response and decrypted profile are each verified, then the lock may comply with the request; in this example, the lock can unlock its shackle as requested, see [0063]).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 8, Conrad discloses the mobile device wherein the manufacturer control function comprises transmitting, to the remote field device and over the connection, an updated firmware package (= in some embodiment, instead of transmitting a “key change request,” the mobile device may transmits a “firmware update request”, see [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 8, Conrad discloses the mobile device wherein the connection request is transmitted using one of a Bluetooth or near field communication (NFC) technology (see, [0060]).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 8, Conrad discloses the mobile device wherein an application that transmits the connection request stores, in the one or more memories, the credentials related to performing the manufacturer control function on the remote field device, and stores, in the one or more memories, owner credentials for accessing additional functions of a second remote field device (see, [0068 and 0072]).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 11, Conrad disclose the mobile device wherein the establishing the connection includes establishing, with the remote field device, an encrypted secure channel on a subnetwork that is different from a second encrypted secure channel on a second subnetwork that the mobile device establishes with the second remote field mobile device for accessing the additional functions of the second remote field device(see, [0068-69 and 0072]).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 11, Conrad discloses the mobile device wherein the credentials correspond to a manufacturer of the remote field device and of the application, and wherein the owner credentials correspond to an entity that subscribes to a service provided by the manufacturer to operate the second remote field device (see, [0068-69 and 0072]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Holt et al., (US 12,520,149), (hereinafter, Holt).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Conrad discloses a remote field device (= device 400 may comprise an electronic locking device, see [0068, 0040 and 0042]), comprising:
one or more memories configured to, individually or in combination, store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination
(= device 400 includes at least one processor 402 coupled to memory 404, see [0069]), configured to execute the instructions to cause the remote field device to:
receive, from a mobile device, a connection request including credentials related to performing a manufacturer control function the remote field device (= data communication between the mobile device and the lock is encrypted using the access key, see [0060]; and user device may then transmit a request to the lock, see [0061]);
verify the credentials with stored manufacturer credentials that are stored in the one or more memories for performing the manufacturer control function (= lock generates a challenge and transmits the challenge to the user device, see [0062]; as the lock stores the secret key and access key, it may use these keys to authenticate the data received from the mobile device; the lock uses the access key to verify that the response to the challenge is correct and verify the MAC, see [0063]); and
based on verifying the credentials, establish a connection with the mobile device to allow initiating, by the mobile device, the manufacturer control function on the remote field device (= if the response and decrypted profile are each verified, then the lock may comply with the request of the mobile device and initiate a corresponding action; the lock can unlock its shackle as requested, see [0063]).
Conrad explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“wherein the stored manufacturer credentials are different from stored owner credentials stored in the one or more memories for accessing other functions of the remote field device”.
However, Holt, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the claimed limitations of:
“wherein the stored manufacturer credentials are different from stored owner credentials stored in the one or more memories for accessing other functions of the remote field device” (= credential 106 may be embodied as virtual credential stored on the mobile device 114, see col. 4, lines 41-43; and gateway device 110 compares the credential information/data to a gateway credential list of the gateway device 110, see col. 16, lines 31-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Holt with Conrad for the benefit of achieving a communication system that ensures that access control devices maintain complete and accurate access control data.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, as mentioned in claims 1 and 14, Conrad further disclose the remote field device/method, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the remote field device to broadcast a unique identifier of the remote field device, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the remote field device to receive the connection request in response to the broadcasting of the unique identifier (see, [0060]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, as mentioned in claims 1 and 14, Conrad further discloses the remote field device/method, wherein the manufacturer control function comprises: receiving, from the mobile device and over the connection, an updated firmware package; and executing the updated firmware package to update firmware of the remote field device (see, [0006]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, as mentioned in claims 1 and 14, Conrad further discloses the remote field device/method wherein the connection request is received using one of a Bluetooth or near field communication (NFC) technology (see, [0060]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, as mentioned in claims 1 and 14, Conrad further discloses the remote field device/method wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the remote field device to verify the credentials based on determining that the credentials received from the mobile device are not verified with the stored owner credentials (see, [0061]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, as mentioned in claims 1 and 14, Conrad explicitly fails to disclose the remote field device/method wherein the credentials and the stored manufacturer credentials correspond to a manufacturer of the remote field device and of an application executing on the mobile device, and wherein the stored owner credentials correspond to an entity that subscribes to a service provided by the manufacturer to operate the remote field device.
However, Holt, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the remote field device/method wherein the credentials and the stored manufacturer credentials correspond to a manufacturer of the remote field device and of an application executing on the mobile device (= gateway device 110 compares the credential information/data to a gateway credential list of the gateway device 110, see col. 16, lines 31-49), and wherein the stored owner credentials correspond to an entity that subscribes to a service provided by the manufacturer to operate the remote field device. (= credential 106 may be embodied as virtual credential stored on the mobile device 114, see col. 4, lines 41-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Holt with Conrad for the benefit of achieving a communication system that ensures that access control devices maintain complete and accurate access control data.
5. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conrad and Holt in view of Coode et al., (US 2018/0248704), (hereinafter, Coode).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, as mentioned in claims 1 and 14, the combination of Conrad and Holt explicitly fails to disclose the remote field device/method wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the remote field device to establish the connection with the mobile device as an encrypted secure channel on a subnetwork that is different from a second encrypted secure channel on a second subnetwork that the remote field device establishes with another mobile device that is authorized for accessing the other functions of the remote field device.
However, Coode, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the remote field device/method, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the remote field device to establish the connection with the mobile device as an encrypted secure channel on a subnetwork that is different from a second encrypted secure channel on a second subnetwork that the remote field device establishes with another mobile device that is authorized for accessing the other functions of the remote field device (= when mobile device enters the vicinity of a lock controller…, see [0006]; and assigning unique cryptographic keys to different electronic locks, so that encrypted and authenticated channels can be established with mobile devices of users having access permission to gain access to physical resources protected by the electronic locks, see [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Coode with Conrad and Holt for the benefit of achieving a locking mechanic system that uses an encrypting protocol for communication between communication devices thereby maintaining security in the system.
CONCLUSION
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. DeYoung et al., (US 2017/0103239) teaches identification of industrial equipment using micro-location services.
b. Scheja et al., (US 2017/0069149) teaches method and apparatus for increasing reliability in monitoring system.
c. DeYoung et al., (US 2017/0277920) teaches identification of industrial equipment using micro-location services.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.