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 2/02/2026. Amendments received on 2/02/2026 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 3, term “an audit trail” should be --the audit trail--.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahilly et al. (US Pub 2020/0410801) in view of Gokcebay (US 10,697,203) and further in view of Mukundala (US Pub 2019/0180215).
As of claim 1, Rahilly discloses a wireless latch assembly (via access control assembly 100) configured for communicating with a server 1214 and an administrator (via client; see paragraph [0137] and [0435]) comprising:
a latch configured for latching a secure space (via latching module 120/smart latch 1130; see figs. 4 and 9A);
a display, local to the latch, configured to display information (via display 118/ 1164; see paragraph [0085], [0093] and [0110]);
a sensor port positioned for coupling a sensor to the wireless latch assembly and configured for receiving a signal corresponding to a condition associated with the secure space (via smart latch comprising sensors 1150 hence comprising a sensor port for coupling a sensor; see paragraph [0107]);
a wireless transceiver configured for performing wireless communication with one or more wireless components external to the wireless latch assembly (via Identity Acess Management (IAM) interface 1168 and communication interface 1140; see fig. 9A; also see paragraphs [0106] and [0112]);
a processor coupled to the display and to the wireless transceiver (via processor 1134), the processor being configured to:
display, via the display, information relating to operation of the wireless latch assembly and the condition associated with the secure space (via displaying lock/unlock status and description of contents and temperature; see fig. 11; also see paragraph [0141],
detect, via the wireless transceiver, a user credential of a user requesting access to the secure space (via IAM interface 1168 detecting a user credential; see paragraph [0112]),
compare the user credential of the user to a plurality of credentials to determine when the user credential is valid, and enable operation of the latch to permit access to the secure space when it is determined that the user credential is valid (via verifying the user credential and allowing access if credentials are valid. It is known in the art that a lock device stores plurality of credentials in a memory and the credential presented by a user is compared to the credentials stored in the memory to determine if the presented credential is valid; see paragraph [0149]), and
wherein the wireless latch assembly is capable of performing the detecting, the comparing and the enabling steps without wireless communication with external components (Rahilly discloses that the processor is configured to: receive a user credential, validate the user credential and trigger the actuator to open the latch, thereby allowing the door to be opened; see paragraphs [0149], [0502], since the processor performs these functions without wireless communication with external components (like server) it meets the claimed limitations).
However, Rahilly does not explicitly disclose receive, via the wireless transceiver, a plurality of credentials relating to access to the secure space.
Gokcebay discloses a lock device which wirelessly receives credentials from a manager (see fig. 43; also see col. 13, lines 28-35 and col. 14, lines 8-15). Gokcebay further discloses that the user presents his or her credentials via Mobile ID or RFID tag and the credential reader in the lock will read those credentials and pass that information on to the microprocessor 46 and if those credentials match the credentials stored in the memory of the lock and the credential are being used within allowed time the lock is unlocked (see col. 12, lines 25-34, col. 14, 20-28), hence the lock is pre-programmed with the credentials that allow the lock to be self-sufficient in authenticating users without wireless communication with external components.
From the teaching of Gokcebay it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Rahilly to include the function of receiving plurality of credentials as taught by Gokcebay in order to update the credentials stored in a lock.
With regards to the limitation of audit trail, Rahilly discloses that when the wireless transceiver detects the user credential, the user credential is stored in an audit trail (via access log; see paragraph [0105] and [0143]). Gokcebay discloses that the locks 560 can also be programmed to transmit information to the controller 562 regarding time and date of opening and closing of the lock, identification of the user in each instance, remaining battery power, and the like (see col. 13, lines 34-38) and the controller 562 an communicate with the server 564 to provide lock data to a user’s (administrator/manager) computer 566 (see col. 12, lines 25-29). However, combination of Rahilly and Gokcebay does not explicitly disclose that the audit trail is uploaded to the server at predetermined times or in response to a request by the administrator computer.
Mukundala discloses that the lock audit could be transmitted periodically or in response to a lock audit request (see fig. 4; also see paragraphs [0033] and [0042]) (Macrcinowski (US Pub 2020/0118371) further discloses the step of transmitting access log information (audit trail) periodically or in response to a request (see paragraph [0075]. Note: Marcinkowski is not used to reject the claim but merely to support the Examiner’s assertion that transmission of audit trail periodically or in response to a request is a well-known technique in the art).
From the teaching of Mukundala it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to periodically upload audit trail so a supervisor does not have to visit each individual lock in the field.
As of claim 2, Gokcebay discloses that the wireless transceiver is configured to receive the plurality of credentials as a push from an administrator (via manager using computer 566 to transmit credentials to lock 560 (see fig. 43; also see col. 13, lines 28-35 and col. 14, lines 8-15).
As of claim 3, Rahilly discloses that the wireless transceiver is configured to detect the user credential via an RFID card or a smart device possessed by the user (via smartcard or mobile device of the user; see paragraph [0079], [0106] and [0112]).
As of claim 4, Rahilly does not explicitly disclose when the wireless transceiver detects the user credential via the RFID card or the smart device, the user credential is refreshed on the RFID card or the smart device. The Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the art once a unlock code (credential) is used to access a lock, the unlock code is updated in the credential device in order to enhance security (see JANG US Pub 2022/0028199 paragraph [0008]). Since applicant did not traverse the examiners’ assertion of official notice the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art.
As of claim 5, Rahilly discloses that when the wireless transceiver detects the user credential via the RFID card or the smart device, the user credential is stored in an audit trail (via access log; see paragraph [0105] and [0143]).
As of claim 6, Gokcebay discloses the lock receives updated credentials however it does not explicitly disclose that the wireless transceiver is configured to receive a black list of credentials as a push from an administrator indicating that the credentials on the black list are no longer valid to permit access to the secure space. The Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the art that a lock receives and stores a blacklist for immediate blacklisting of compromised or lost keys or codes and preventing unauthorized access and enhancing security (see Peng et al. US Pub 2023/0140203, paragraphs [0320]- [0321]). Since applicant did not traverse the examiners’ assertion of official notice the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art.
As of claim 7, Gokcebay discloses that the manager uses the computer to update the credentials of the lock as disclosed in claim 1 above, even though Gokcebay does not explicitly state that the new credentials exclude the user credential when the user is no longer permitted access to the secure space, but that would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since the manager can remove any credential that is no longer valid in the updated credentials (see fig. 43; also see col. 13, lines 28-35 and col. 14, lines 8-15).
As of claim 8, Gokcebay discloses that the wireless transceiver is configured to communicate with a hub (via remote controller 562) that services a plurality of wireless latch assemblies (via plurality of locks 560), the wireless transceiver being configured to receive the plurality of credentials from the hub or instructions from the hub to enable a user to unlatch the latch for access to the secure space (via remote controller 562 setting the credentials for each lock 560; (see fig. 43; also see col. 13, lines 28-35 and col. 14, lines 8-15).
As of claim 9, Rahilly discloses that the secure space is a secure room, a secure cabinet, a secure cart, or a compartment thereof (secure cabinet; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0102]), and the condition is a temperature or a humidity within the secure space (via temperature monitoring; see paragraph [0102]).
As of claim 10, Rahilly discloses that the wireless latch assembly is capable of operating independently (via wireless latch capable of operating independently and performing the detecting, comparing and enabling steps without communication with external components for verification, as explained in claim 1 above).
Gokcebay further discloses that the lock 10 operates independently and perform the detecting, the comparing and enabling steps without wireless communication with external components; see col. 12, lines 25-34).
As of claim 11, Rahilly discloses that the identity access module interface includes one or more devices (fingerprint, facial recognition, smart card reader) to enable a user to provide credentials for user authentication. Even though it does not explicitly disclose the function of performing dual authentication, the Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the art to perform two-factor authentication in order to enhance security of the lock (see Beck US Pub 2020/0219345). Since applicant did not traverse the examiners’ assertion of official notice the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art.
As of claims 12 and 13, Rahilly discloses all the limitations of the claimed inventio as mentioned in claim 1 above, Gokcebay further discloses a server (via server 564); a communication hub configured for communication with the server (via remote controller 562); an administrator computer configured for communication with the communication hub (via computer 566). Gokcebay further discloses a manager uses computer 566 to set the credentials and to transmit them to the server 564 which, in turn, communicates the updated credentials to the controller 562 acting as a hub (see fig. 43). Gokcebay further discloses that the controller 562 then sets the credentials into the predetermined lock 560. Since the credentials are for a predetermined/specific lock, it is implicit that the update of credentials also comprises a lock identification (see fig. 43; also see col. 14, lines 8-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukundala (US Pub 2021/0058474) discloses the function of periodically transmitting audit trail to a server (see paragraph [0047]).
Kaczmarz (US Pub 2020/0279143) discloses that the electronic lock periodically uploads audit trail data to a server (see paragraph [0180]).
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 at 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