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 4/3/2024 in which claims 21-74 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-31, 36-54, 60-65, 69-71 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davis (US 2017/0249794), (hereinafter, Davis).
Regarding claim 21, Davis discloses a system for unlocking a particular locked device associated with providing access to a building (= commercial building with electronic locks, see [0004]; and facilitating remote administration of a portable electronic key in an access control system, see [0007-08]), the system comprising:
a mobile device comprising an application program loaded on the mobile device, the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to (= software code for executing an application on mobile device 120 that causes or enables the mobile device to transmit data to electronic key 10, see [0106-07]):
reference a digital identity stored on the mobile device that defines access rights of a particular user assigned to the mobile device to unlock the particular locked device associated with providing access to the building (= mobile device 120 can store portion of the activation signal information, see [0107]);
verify that the mobile device is possessed by the particular user assigned to the mobile device by authenticating the particular user to the mobile device (= “Active key” command implementation, the user verification procedure can simply verify that a key holder has access to and control of mobile device 120, see [0109]);
verify that the access rights defined by the digital identity and stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device
(= user verification procedure, see [0084-86 and 0091]);
after verifying that the mobile device is possessed by the particular user assigned to the mobile device and the access rights defined by the digital identity grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device, transmit an unlock control signal (= upon completion of the verification procedure, activation signal data can be made available, see [0086 and 0091-93]); and
the particular locked device configured to wirelessly receive the unlock control signal from the mobile device, and in response, unlock the particular locked device
(= electronic key can receive the access code, via mobile device 120, see [0103]).
Regarding claim 22, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system, wherein the particular locked device comprises an actuator that when activated unlocks the particular locked device, wherein the unlock control signal received from the mobile device causes the particular locked device to activate the actuator to unlock the particular locked device (see, [0025-26]).
Regarding claim 23, as mentioned in claim 22, Davis discloses the system, wherein the actuator comprises a relay (see, [0025-26]).
Regarding claim 24, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system, wherein the mobile device is configured to transmit the unlock control signal to the particular locked device via a Bluetooth communication channel (see, [0043]).
Regarding claim 25, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system, wherein authenticating the particular user to the mobile device comprises receiving one or more inputs from the particular user (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 26, as mentioned in claim 25, Davis discloses the system, wherein one or more inputs include a personal identifier number (PIN) entered by the particular user via a user interface of the mobile device (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 27, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system, wherein authenticating the particular user to the mobile device comprises receiving a biometric input from the particular user (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 28, as mentioned in claim 27, Davis discloses the system, wherein the biometric input includes one or more of a fingerprint scan and a facial scan (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 29, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system, wherein the access rights defined by the digital identity and stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device only during a predetermined set time period (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 30, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system, wherein the particular locked device, in response to receiving the unlock control signal from the mobile device, unconditionally unlocks the particular locked device (see, [0097]).
Regarding claim 31, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system, wherein the mobile device receives the digital identity, including the access rights, from a remote server (see, [0106]).
Regarding claim 32, as mentioned in claim 31, Davis discloses the system, wherein the remote server is configured to manage the access rights associated with the particular user assigned to the mobile device (see, [0106]).
Regarding claim 36, Davis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more processors of a mobile device cause the mobile device to:
receive access rights of a particular user assigned to the mobile device to unlock a particular locked device (= mobile device 120 can store portion of the activation signal information, see [0107]);
verify that the mobile device is possessed by the particular user assigned to the mobile device by authenticating the particular user to the mobile device (= “Active key” command implementation, the user verification procedure can simply verify that a key holder has access to and control of mobile device 120, see [0109]);
;
verify that the access rights grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device(= user verification procedure, see [0084-86 and 0091]); and
after verifying that the mobile device is possessed by the particular user assigned to the mobile device and the access rights grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device (= upon completion of the verification procedure, activation signal data can be made available, see [0086 and 0091-93]), wirelessly transmit an unlock control signal to the particular locked device that instructs the particular locked device to unlock (= electronic key can receive the access code, via mobile device 120, see [0103]).
Regarding claim 37, as mentioned in claim 36, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to wirelessly transmit the unlock control signal from the mobile device to the particular locked device via a Bluetooth communication channel (see, [0043]).
Regarding claim 38, as mentioned in claim 36, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to solicit and accept one or more inputs from the particular user to authenticate the particular user to the mobile device (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 39, as mentioned in claim 38, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein one or more inputs include a personal identifier number (PIN) (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 40, as mentioned in claim 38, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to receive a biometric input from the particular user to authenticate the particular user to the mobile device (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 41, as mentioned in claim 40, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the biometric input includes one or more of a fingerprint scan and a facial scan (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 42, as mentioned in claim 36, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the access rights grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device only during a predetermined set time period (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 43, as mentioned in claim 36, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the unlock control signal wirelessly transmitted from the mobile device unconditionally instructs the particular locked device to unlock (see, [0097]).
Regarding claim 44, as mentioned in claim 36, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the mobile device receives the access rights from a remote server (see, [0106]).
Regarding claim 45, as mentioned in claim 44, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the remote server is configured to manage the access rights associated with the particular user assigned to the mobile device (see, [0106]).
Regarding claim 46, Davis discloses a method for unlocking a particular locked device associated with providing access to a building, the method comprising:
storing on a mobile device access rights of a particular user assigned to the mobile device to unlock the particular locked device (= mobile device 120 can store portion of the activation signal information, see [0107]);
verifying that the mobile device is possessed by the particular user assigned to the mobile device by authenticating the particular user to the mobile device (= “Active key” command implementation, the user verification procedure can simply verify that a key holder has access to and control of mobile device 120, see [0109]);
verifying that the access rights stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device (= user verification procedure, see [0084-86 and 0091]);
after verifying that the mobile device is possessed by the particular user assigned to the mobile device and the access rights stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device, generating an unlock code (= upon completion of the verification procedure, activation signal data can be made available, see [0086 and 0091-93]); and
receiving the unlock code by the particular locked device, and in response, unlocking the particular locked device (= electronic key can receive the access code, via mobile device 120, see [0103]).
Regarding claim 47, as mentioned in claim 46, Davis discloses the method wherein the unlock code transmitted from the mobile device to the particular locked device (see, [0097]).
Regarding claim 48, as mentioned in claim 47, Davis discloses the method wherein the unlock code is(see, [0043]).
Regarding claim 49, as mentioned in claim 46, Davis discloses the method wherein authenticating the particular user to the mobile device comprises receiving one or more inputs from the particular user via a user interface of the mobile device (see, [0088]).
Regarding claim 50, as mentioned in claim 46, Davis discloses the method wherein the access rights grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device only during a predetermined set time period (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 51, as mentioned in claim 46, Davis discloses the method wherein the access rights grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device only during a predetermined set time period (see, [0106]).
Regarding claim 52, as mentioned in claim 29, Davis discloses the method wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a particular day (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 53, as mentioned in claim 29, Davis discloses the method wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a predetermined set time period during a day (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 54, as mentioned in claim 29, Davis discloses the method wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a predetermined set time period during a predetermined day (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 60, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system wherein the access rights defined by the digital identity and stored on the mobile device that grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device expire after a predetermined set time period, after which the particular user loses the right to unlock the particular locked device (see, [0101]).
Regarding claim 61, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system wherein the access rights defined by the digital identity and stored on the mobile device that grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device expire after the mobile device is detected as leaving the building (see, [0101]).
Regarding claim 62, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis discloses the system wherein the access rights defined by the digital identity and stored on the mobile device are temporary and only grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device for a period of time, after which the access rights expire (see, [0101]).
Regarding claim 63, as mentioned in claim 42, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer, wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a particular day (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 64, as mentioned in claim 42, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer, wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a predetermined set time period during a day(see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 65, as mentioned in claim 42, Davis discloses the non-transitory computer, wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a predetermined set time period during a predetermined day(see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 69, as mentioned in claim 50, Davis discloses the method, wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a predetermined set time period during a predetermined day(see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 70, as mentioned in claim 50, Davis discloses the method, wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a predetermined set time period during a day (see, [0033-34]).
Regarding claim 71, as mentioned in claim 50, Davis discloses the method, wherein the predetermined set time period corresponds to a predetermined set time period during a predetermined day (see, [0033-34]).
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 33-35, 55-59, 66-68 and 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Salcedo et al., (US 2005/0110634), (hereinafter, Salcedo).
Regarding claim 33, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to: provide a notification in response to transmitting the unlock control signal to the particular locked device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to: provide a notification in response to transmitting the unlock control signal to the particular locked device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 34, as mentioned in claim 21, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to: deny transmission of the unlock control signal to the particular locked device when the mobile device is unable to authenticating the particular user to the mobile device and/or is unable to verify that the access rights defined by the digital identity and stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device; and provide a notification in response to denying transmission of the unlock control signal to the particular locked device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to: deny transmission of the unlock control signal to the particular locked device when the mobile device is unable to authenticating the particular user to the mobile device and/or is unable to verify that the access rights defined by the digital identity and stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device; and provide a notification in response to denying transmission of the unlock control signal to the particular locked device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 35, as mentioned in claim 34, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the notification provided in response to denying transmission of the unlock control signal to the particular locked device includes an explanation and/or reason for the denial.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the notification provided in response to denying transmission of the unlock control signal to the particular locked device includes an explanation and/or reason for the denial (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 55, as mentioned in claim 29, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the particular locked device being unlocked by the mobile device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the particular locked device being unlocked by the mobile device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 56, as mentioned in claim 55, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to transmit the notification to a remote device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to transmit the notification to a remote device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 57, as mentioned in claim 29, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the mobile device transmitting the unlock control signal.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the mobile device transmitting the unlock control signal (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 58, as mentioned in claim 29, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the mobile device denying transmission of the unlock control signal.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the mobile device denying transmission of the unlock control signal (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 59, as mentioned in claim 58, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to transmit the notification to a remote device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system wherein the application program when executed by the mobile device causes the mobile device to transmit the notification to a remote device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 66, as mentioned in claim 42, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to wirelessly transmitting the unlock control signal to the particular locked device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to wirelessly transmitting the unlock control signal to the particular locked device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 67, as mentioned in claim 66, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to transmit the notification to a remote device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to transmit the notification to a remote device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 68, as mentioned in claim 42, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the mobile device denying transmission of the unlock control signal.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the instructions when executed by one or more processors of the mobile device cause the mobile device to provide a notification responsive to the mobile device denying transmission of the unlock control signal (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 72, as mentioned in claim 46, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the method comprising transmitting the unlock code to the particular locked device; and providing a notification responsive to transmitting the unlock code to the particular locked device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method comprising transmitting the unlock code to the particular locked device; and providing a notification responsive to transmitting the unlock code to the particular locked device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 73, as mentioned in claim 72, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein the notification is provided to a remote device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein the notification is provided to a remote device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
Regarding claim 74, as mentioned in claim 46, Davis explicitly fails to disclose the method comprising providing a notification to a remote device responsive to one or more of: not being able to authenticate the particular user to the mobile device; and not being able to verify that the access rights stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device.
However, Salcedo, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method comprising providing a notification to a remote device responsive to one or more of: not being able to authenticate the particular user to the mobile device; and not being able to verify that the access rights stored on the mobile device grant the particular user the right to unlock the particular locked device (see, [0028]).
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 Salcedo with Davis for the benefit of achieving a communication system that enables a user to efficiently receive and evaluate security information from various systems of a security network.
CONCLUSION
5. 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-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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.
Prosecution Insights