Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 6-7, filed 8/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly applied art to meet the amended limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, 15-16 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAVIS et al. (US 20210256783 A1) in view of QUEENAN (US 20040246097 A1).
Re claim 1. DAVIS discloses (abstract) a security system (FIG.1) comprising:
a plurality of electronic keys 120 [0018]; (FIG.5-6)
a pool of plurality of electronic locks 110 [0015] (FIG.5-6) each configured to secure a single fixture from unauthorized access [0022-0023], each of the electronic locks configured to communicate with any one of the electronic keys for determining whether the electronic key is authorized to unlock the electronic lock for accessing the fixture [0015]; and
an access control system configured to assign one or more of the plurality of electronic locks from the pool to a user 150 of one of the plurality of electronic keys for allowing the user to remove the one or more of the plurality of electronic locks from the pool to be subsequently used for securing the single fixture and for authorizing the one of the plurality of electronic keys to unlock the one or more of the plurality of electronic locks securing the single fixture. [0071-0076]
[0076] It will be apparent to skilled persons that scheduled access can be implemented with respect to various devices. An access schedule can be assigned to electronic key 120, electronic lock 110, and/or user 150, or combinations thereof. In other words, where electronic key 120 is permitted to access a resource from 10:00 am to 10:30 am, any user carrying that particular key may only be granted access in the specified 30-minute window. Whereas a schedule assigned to a particular user 150 may not impact access by other users, even where electronic key 120 is shared among a plurality of users. In this respect, ERP 310 may reference user identifier 152 when processing a response to an engagement event, or when adjusting scheduled access permissions (e.g. in response to capturing user identifier 152 via user input sensor 140).
However, DAVIS fails to explicitly disclose:
as the one or more of the plurality of electronic locks are checked out of the pool by the user.
QUEENAN teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a system (FIG.1-4) used to rent out locks (FIG.3 – step 204-206) by a user for temporary use [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try checking out the removable padlocks as used by DAVIS, to various users so as to secure containers of hazardous materials in order to obtain a system for properly registering locks to different users with appropriately registered keys.
Re claim 15. DAVIS discloses (as for claim 1 given the functions are performed by product of claim 1) a method comprising: providing a plurality of electronic keys; providing a pool of a plurality of electronic locks each configured to secure a single fixture from unauthorized access, each of the electronic locks configured to communicate with any one of the electronic keys for determining whether the electronic key is authorized to unlock the electronic lock for accessing the fixture; and assigning one or more of the plurality of electronic locks from the pool to a user of one of the plurality of electronic keys, as the one or more of the plurality of electronic locks are checked out of the pool by the user, for allowing the user to remove the one or more of the plurality of electronic locks from the pool to be used for subsequently securing the single fixture and for authorizing the one of the plurality of electronic keys to unlock the one or more of the plurality of electronic locks securing the fixture.
Re claims 2 and 16. [0063, 0076, 0081] wherein the access control system is configured to assign each of the electronic locks to specific users based on communication between any one of the electronic keys and any one of the electronic locks.
Re claim 6. [0033] wherein each of the plurality of electronic locks is a padlock.
Re claim 7. [0022] wherein the single fixture is a server rack.
Re claim 8. [0022] wherein the single fixture is a bank of server racks.
Re claim 9. [0022, 0033] wherein the single fixture comprises a power breaker box.
Re claim 10. [0018, 0069] wherein each of the plurality of electronic keys is configured to only access one of the plurality of electronic locks (i.e. access is restricted by user and by specific access time slots, such that some user keys could access only one lock, while other user keys could access more than one lock).
Re claim 11. [0018, 0069] wherein each of the plurality of electronic keys is configured to access any one of the plurality of electronic locks. (i.e. access is restricted by user and by specific access time slots, such that some user keys could access only one lock, while other user keys could access more than one lock).
Re claim 24-25. [0017] wherein the access control system is configured to revoke authorization to the one of the plurality of electronic keys upon the user returning the one of the plurality of electronic locks to the pool. (user can be revoked at any time as needed, including after one time usage)
[0017] The access control system further includes an access validation engine for processing information related to access control events. In conventional access control systems, for example hardwired systems comprising powered RFID readers, access to a resource is generally granted based solely on presentation of a valid access credential. If a system administrator in such conventional systems wishes to restrict access to a user, the administrator must manually modify or revoke the user's access credential. In some aspects of the present disclosure, access to resources may be granted or denied based on certain supplemental information or conditions, in addition to the user presenting a valid access credential. The access validation engine may, for example, process access control information that is supplemental to or independent of authentication information. Certain aspects of this disclosure provide a more responsive access control system. For instance, in some implementations, supplemental information can be processed dynamically, with the access validation engine adjusting access to resources periodically, or in real-time (e.g. contemporaneously with an access control event).
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAVIS et al. (US 20210256783 A1) in view of QUEENAN (US 20040246097 A1) further in view of LU et al. (US 20190206167 A1).
Re claim 3 and 17. DAVIS discloses [0076] wherein the access control system is configured to assign each of the electronic locks to specific users (i.e. access schedule assigns electronic key 120, electronic lock 110, and user 150, or combinations, for specific users based on identifier 152 to facilitate of assigning specific key to specific user).
However, DAVIS and QUEENAN fails to explicitly disclose:
based on storing a user identification for each user in each of the electronic locks.
LU teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, an electronic lock and key system, wherein the function of based on storing a user identification for each user in each of the electronic locks [0021] (i.e. user could input user information including “User Name” and “Password” for example, and save such user information in the storage unit 120 of electric lock 100), such that electric lock 100 properly identifies portable device 200, serving as a key).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock system of DAVIS with storing user identification as taught by LU in order to provide a local storage of user identification within a lock itself.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAVIS et al. (US 20210256783 A1) in view of QUEENAN (US 20040246097 A1) further in view of DENISON (US 20190051082 A1).
Re claims 4 and 18. However, DAVIS and QUEENAN fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of electronic keys and each of the plurality of electronic locks comprises a factory preset security code, and wherein any one of the electronic keys is authorized to unlock any one of the electronic locks for accessing the fixture when the factory preset security code of the electronic key matches the factory present security code of the electronic lock;
further comprising facilitating communication between any one of the electronic keys and any one of the electronic locks for unlocking any one of the electronic locks for accessing the fixture when a factory preset security code of the electronic key matches a factory present security code of the electronic lock.
DENISON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, wherein each of the plurality of electronic keys and each of the plurality of electronic locks [0199] comprises a factory preset security code (i.e. universal code programmed at the factory) [0198], and wherein any one of the electronic keys is authorized to unlock any one of the electronic locks for accessing the fixture (i.e. service person uses a key containing universal key code to unlock vending machine and open the door to gain access) when the factory preset security code of the electronic key matches the factory present security code of the electronic lock [0199]. DENISON further teaches further comprising facilitating communication (i.e. universal code is communicated to lock for operation) between any one of the electronic keys and any one of the electronic locks [0199] for unlocking any one of the electronic locks for accessing the fixture when a factory preset security code [0198] of the electronic key matches a factory present security code of the electronic lock [0199].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock system of DAVIS with the factory preset security code for providing a default factory key code for use with electronic locks as taught by DENISON in order to unlock electronic locks when locks malfunction [0199].
Claim(s) 5, 13, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAVIS et al. (US 20210256783 A1) in view of QUEENAN (US 20040246097 A1) further in view of KUDO et al. (JP 2002089099 A).
Re claim 5 and 19. However, DAVIS and QUEENAN fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the access control system is configured to provide a visual indication to the user when any one of the plurality of electronic locks is available to be assigned for use in response to a request by a user.
KUDO teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention, an electronic lock managing system, including lock and provision device [0001] and a searching means for searching for an unused lock to [0011] provide an indication when one of a plurality of electronic locks is available to be assigned for use in response to a request by a user (i.e. when a user inquiries about an idle electric lock helping user find out information about unused lock and saving time and effort for user) [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock system of DAVIS with the available lock indication as taught by KUDO in order to provide a means for user to be notified of unused/available lock devices to save user time and effort searching for available locks by other means.
Re claim 13 and 21. However, DAVIS and QUEENAN fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the access control system is configured to identify an unused one of the plurality of locks from the pool to assign to the user of the one of the plurality of electronic keys.
KUDO teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention, an electronic lock managing system, including lock and provision device [0001] and a searching means for searching for an unused lock [0011] to identify an unused one of the plurality of locks from the pool (i.e. when a user inquiries about an idle electric lock helping user find out information about unused lock and saving time and effort for user) [0012] to assign to a user of one of the plurality of electronic keys [0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock system of DAVIS with the available lock indication as taught by KUDO in order to provide a means for user to be notified of unused/available lock devices to save user time and effort searching for available locks by other means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 8/13/2026
