Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Davis does not teach or suggest amended Claim 1 and 15. Davis discloses various methods for granting or limiting access to users (see, e.g., paras. 18, 73, and 76 cited by the Examiner), but Davis does not teach or suggest assigning locks to users from a pool of locks to allow a user to remove the lock from the pool to then be secured on a fixture.
This is incorrect, as DAVIS clearly shows (FIG.5-6) using multiple locks for different fixtures and different users using their own keys. See [0018, 0022, 0025, 0071, 0073, 0076, 0114].
[0018] In various embodiments, the access validation engine may process information to determine or verify whether or not the current user of an electronic key should be granted access to a resource. In some instances, the access validation engine determines if access should be granted independently of the electronic key possessing (e.g. stored in memory) a valid access credential. It will be appreciated by skilled persons that rules or logic defining access to a resource can be associated with devices, for instance an electronic key programmed with a valid access credential may access resources regardless of the particular user of the key. Access rules may also be associated with specific users, and devices, such as an electronic key, may be assigned to users and configured to adjust permissions based on the particular user. In some implementations, users may share keys. In other implementations, each user may be issued his or her own key. In further examples, the validation processes performed by the access validation engine are independent of and may even override or supersede access permissions defined by the system administrator. In other words, access to a resource may be granted based on both the electronic key having a valid access credential (for presentation to the lock) and the access validation engine determining that the key's user is authorized to access the resource. As such, access can be denied to a user that obtained a key through improper channels, such as by stealing the key from its assigned user. Access validation engine can process and validate access events for different purposes.
[0071] Electronic key 120 can access or store in memory 134, a user identifier 152, for example, to facilitate a personalized key configuration paradigm. User identifier 152 can be associated with access control devices, such as electronic key 120, to correlate access control events with specific users. For example, the user identifier can be recorded and stored in audit trail 138 to identify which of a plurality of users in access control system 100 was responsible for requesting or initiating an event. In this manner, access event records (i.e. audit trail 138) may include user identifier 152 to correlate access events with a user (rather than merely associating events with a device identifier). Likewise, user identifier 152 can be associated with a specific set of access permissions to customize access for each user. To illustrate, ERP 310 may access user identifier 152 in connection with processing engagement events. In embodiments of access control system 100 including a plurality of electronic locks 110, a user 150 can be granted access to certain locks and not to others (i.e. access authorized for a subset of resources in the system). Electronic key 120 and/or electronic lock 110 can be configured in accordance with various authentication schemes to restrict access in such a manner. For instance, electronic key 120 can reference user identifier 152 to determine whether or not a user is authorized to access the specific lock associated with the engagement event. If a user is not authorized to access a particular electronic lock, ERP 310 may decline to generate a response to an engagement event, deliver invalid credentials, or otherwise perform operations that do not cause electronic lock 110 to initiate an unlocking event. Skilled persons will appreciate that limiting access to a subset of a plurality of electronic locks 110 can be implemented in various other schemes. In accordance with a scheduled access scheme, a user 150 may be assigned valid time windows only for a subset of electronic locks. It will be apparent to skilled persons that different methodologies may restrict a user's access to certain locks (and by extension, resources) in accordance with scheduled access permissions.
[0072] The user identifier may be any information suitable for identifying a particular user of access control system 100, including a user ID number, name, or other value. User identifier 152 can be provided to electronic key 120 through the communication methods described herein. To illustrate, if an administrator knows which particular key each user is carrying, the administrator can manually assign keys to users, for instance via access control terminal 210, and the appropriate user identifier 152 can be transmitted to each key 120 (e.g. by way of access control server 220 and network 250). Electronic key 120 can adjust access permissions (e.g. stored in memory 134) in response to the user identifier 152, or alternatively, access control server 220 can transmit customized access permissions to key 120 based on the user identifier 152. In other implementations, key 120 may maintain a plurality of different access permissions (e.g. associated with multiple users) in memory 134 and ERP 310 can reference the specific permissions associated with user identifier 152. Other methodologies for personalizing user access permissions are possible.
As the evidence shows, DAVIS intends to claim a pool of electronic locks used with plurality of keys, as are claimed in claim 1 as amended. Further, lock 110 is designed and operated as a padlock which is conventionally known as being able to be physically removed (FIG.2) from a device, such as a single fixture (gate), so as to remove locking function from device.
Claims should further detail the actual structure of the key and lock and their operation within the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, 15-16 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DAVIS et al. (US 20210256783 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).
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 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 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) 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 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 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 DENISON (US 20190051082 A1).
Re claims 4 and 18. However, DAVIS 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 KUDO et al. (JP 2002089099 A).
Re claim 5 and 19. However, DAVIS 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 3/6/2026