DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s Amendment which is filed on October 29, 2025.
An amendment to amend the claims 1-3, 8-10 and 14 has been entered and made of record of Lessard et al. for a “method of operating an electronic lock locking a community asset, and electronic lock system” filed August 30, 2023.
Claims 1-17 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-17, filed on October 29, 2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US# 8,787,902) in view of Kwon et al. (US# 10,810,811) and Kuenzi et al. (US# 12,205,429).
Referring to Claim 1, Kim discloses a method of operating an electronic lock (20) locking a community asset and controlled by a community controller (30) via a network (i.e. a mobile radio communication network) (not shown) (column 1 line 51 to column 2 line 59; see Figures 1 to 11), the community controller (30) being communicatively coupled to a first mobile device (10) (i.e. an object mobile phone) and to a second mobile device (i.e. a master phone) (column 10 lines 25 to 51; see Figure 6), the method comprising:
the community controller (30) communicating a mobile key unlocking the electronic lock (20) to the first mobile device (10) (i.e. If the target mobile phone approves receiving of the mobile-key, the server transmits the generated mobile-key (S34). While the phone application is run, the target mobile phone can receive the mobile-key (S35), and the received mobile-key is stored in the SE (S36) (column 10 lines 41 to 51; see Figure 6);
the community controller (30) receiving, from the second mobile device (i.e. the master phone), a request to cancel the mobile key communicated to the first mobile device (10) (i.e. the master phone transmits to the server a request for deleting the mobile-key and a phone number of an object mobile phone of which a mobile-key will be deleted (S41 and S42)) (column 11 lines 6 to 12; column 16 line 58 to column 17 line 2; see Figure 7),
the first mobile device (10) being associated to first user profile information (i.e. the user connects to the server through the mobile phone and inputs a user ID, a connection password, and user's personal information in order to register as a member in the mobile-key service (S11). Herein, the mobile phone may automatically inform its own phone number and operating system to the server.; column 9 lines 15 to 20) and the second mobile device (the master phone) being associated to second user profile information different from the first user profile information (i.e. Since the mobile-key service of the present invention can be used only when the phone application and/or the SE application are run, the mobile-key service can be provided only to the users registered as members. And all of the users may connect to the server through the OTP solution. The user installs the phone application and the SE application in the mobile phone, connects to the server through the phone application, and then inputs a membership ID, a password and a user name in the server. The profile of the master phone is different than the profile of the object mobile phone.) (column 15 lines 31 to 64).
However, Kim did not explicitly disclose the community controller assessing the request and canceling the mobile key communicated to the first mobile device based on said assessing and wherein said cancelling removes the mobile key from a database listing all active mobile keys for the electronic lock.
In the same field of endeavor of access control communication system, Kwon et al. disclose the community controller(520) assessing the request and canceling the mobile key (temporal key) communicated to the first mobile device (530) based on said assessing (i.e. in response to the deletion request being received from the first electronic device 510, or an authority of the temporal key expiring, in operation 553, the server 520 of an embodiment of the disclosure may transmit a request for deletion of the temporal key to the smart key App 51 of the second electronic device 530 (based on said assessing if the authority of the temporal key expiring). The deletion request may be encrypted and transmitted, wherein the deletion request is able to be decrypted only by the security element 53) (column 15 lines 1 to 8; see Figure 5B).
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 method of having the server to response to the deletion request from the first electronic device and/or when an authority of the temporal key expiring, the server transmit the request for deletion of the temporal key to the second electronic device taught by Kwon et al. in the mobile key service for the user authentication to unlock door lock of Kim et al. because having the server to response to the deletion request from the first electronic device and/or when an authority of the temporal key expiring, the server transmit the request for deletion of the temporal key to the second electronic device would provide a secure and convenient to the host to control authorization of the mobile guest device.
In the same field of endeavor of access control system, Kuenzi et al. disclose wherein said cancelling removes the mobile key from a database listing all active mobile keys for the electronic lock (i.e. the biometric identifiers may be updated (e.g., deleted and/or removed from the storage medium in the camera, in the access control device, or in the local processing device (when included)) when the access rights of a person expire (e.g., when the person should no longer have access to the particular environment). For example, when a guest checks out of a hotel their biometric identifier may be deleted/removed from the storage medium or may be switched from ‘grant access’ to ‘deny access’) (column 5 lines 45 to 66; 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 method of having delete the biometric identifiers from the storage medium in the camera, in the access control device or in the local processing device taught by Kuenzi et al. in the mobile key service for the user authentication to unlock door lock of Kim et al. in view of Kwon et al. because having delete the biometric identifiers from the storage medium in the camera, in the access control device or in the local processing device would provide a secure and convenient to the control authorization of the mobile guest device.
Referring to Claim 2, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, Kim discloses wherein said canceling further includes the community controller (30) instructing the first mobile device (10) to delete the mobile key (i.e. the server transmits to the object mobile phone a command for immediately deleting the mobile-key stored in the SE. (S43). The object mobile phone receives the deleting command through a mobile radio communication network and then instructs the SE application to delete the stored mobile-key and related information. The SE application deletes the information (including the mobile-key) stored in the SE in response to the deleting command of the mobile phone (S44)) (column 11 lines 9 to 18; see Figures 6 and 7B).
Referring to Claim 3, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose wherein said canceling further includes the community controller rendering the mobile key moot (i.e. the server 520 of an embodiment of the disclosure may notify the deletion completion to the first electronic device 510. For example, the server 520 may decrypt an encrypted deletion message using a first private key corresponding to the first public key and identify that it is a deletion completion message, and may encrypt the deletion completion message by a second public key previously appointed with the first electronic device 510 and transmit the encrypted deletion completion message to the first electronic device 510) (column 15 lines 33 to 45; column 17 lines 40 to 44; see Figures 6B and 6).
Referring to Claim 4, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose wherein said assessing includes the community controller determining whether the second mobile device has a mobile key cancelation privilege (i.e. the server 520 of an embodiment of the disclosure may transmit a request for deletion of the temporal key to the smart key App 51 of the second electronic device 530. The deletion request may be encrypted and transmitted, wherein the deletion request is able to be decrypted only by the security element 53. In operation 555, the smart key App 51 of the second electronic device 530 of an embodiment of the disclosure may transmit the encrypted deletion request (e.g., encryption data) to the security element 53. In operation 557, the security element 53 of the second electronic device 530 of an embodiment of the disclosure may decrypt the encryption data) (column 15 lines 1 to 15; see Figure 5B).
Referring to Claim 5, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose further comprising the community controller (30) communicating a mobile key unlocking the electronic lock (20) to the second mobile device (10), said assessing including the community controller (30) determining whether the second mobile device (10) also has the mobile key unlocking the electronic lock (20) (i.e. If the target mobile phone approves receiving of the mobile-key, the server transmits the generated mobile-key (S34). While the phone application is run, the target mobile phone can receive the mobile-key (S35), and the received mobile-key is stored in the SE (S36). The target mobile phone informs the server that the storing of mobile-key is completed, and then the server also informs the master phone that the mobile-key is issued to the target mobile phone. The target (or object) mobile phone storing the mobile-key can be immediately used with respect to the door lock for opening) (column 10 lines 41 to 51; see Figures 1-2 and 6).
Referring to Claim 6, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose wherein the community controller (30) and the second mobile device (10) communicate with one another via the network using a secure communication protocol (i.e. a server which communicated with the mobile phone through a mobile radio communication network, comprising: periodically checking whether the mobile phone can communicate with the server through the mobile radio communication network so that the mobile phone is within a call service area) (column 1 line 56 to 61; column 5 lines 11 to 20; see Figure 1).
Referring to Claim 7, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose wherein the mobile key is provided in the form of at least one of a personal identification number (PIN) and an electronic wallet pass (i.e. The mobile-key used in the present invention may include a door lock ID, such as a serial number or a Mac address, which is assigned by a manufacturer, a phone number of a mobile phone in which the mobile-key is stored, a period of time and/or the number of available to user authentication, and information of indicating a type of mobile-key (e.g., permanent mobile-key which can be used without limitation, one-time mobile-key which can be used only once, emergency mobile-key which can unlock a door from the outside when a forceful locking function of the door lock is preset, extendable mobile-key of which the available period of time and the number of usable times are preset, and the like) (referring to FIG. 2)) (column 6 lines 61 to column 7 line 6; see Figure 2).
Referring to claims 8-14 and 16, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose an electronic lock system and a method of operating an electronic lock locking a community asset and in communication to a network-based communication system, although different in scope from the claims 1-6, the claims 8-14 and 16 contains similar limitations in that the claims 1-6 already addressed above therefore claims are also rejected for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1-6.
Referring to Claim 15, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 14, Kim discloses further comprising, upon accepting the request to cancel the mobile key, the first mobile device receiving from the network-based communication system an instruction to delete the mobile key from the memory of the first mobile device (i.e. The server transmits to the object mobile phone a command for immediately deleting the mobile-key stored in the SE. (S43). The object mobile phone receives the deleting command through a mobile radio communication network and then instructs the SE application to delete the stored mobile-key and related information. The SE application deletes the information (including the mobile-key) stored in the SE in response to the deleting command of the mobile phone (S44)) (column 11 lines 9 to 18; column 16 lines 58 to column 17 line 2; see Figure 7B).
Referring to Claim 17, Kim in view of Kwon et al. and Kuenzi et al. disclose the method of claim 14, Kim discloses further comprising, prior to said transmitting the request to cancel the mobile key, transmitting a request to grant (grunt) the mobile key to the first mobile device to the network-based communication system (i.e. the procedure for issuing a mobile-key in the master phone. First of all, the master phone accesses to the server so as to request the issuing of the mobile-key, and at the same time, inputs a phone number of any target mobile phone to be issued with the mobile-key (S31 and S32)) (column 10 lines 25 to 40; see Figure 6).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
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. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
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