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 .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bliding (Pub. No.: 2012/0213362 A1) in view of Ghosh (Pub. No.: 2010/0079239 A1)
1) In regard to claim 1, Bliding discloses the claimed locking system of one or more buildings (fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of electromechanical locks (fig. 2: 140), each electromechanical lock comprising a communication interface to exchange encrypted data with a key (¶0012 and ¶0055-¶0056), an actuator to set the electromechanical lock to an open state or to a closed state, and a processor to evaluate encrypted data read from the key to decide to set the electromechanical lock to the open state or to remain in the closed state (¶0055);
a plurality of keys (fig. 2: 118), each key comprising a memory (fig. 3: 501) to store encrypted data defining an opening right to one or more of the plurality of electromechanical locks (¶0012), an interface to exchange encrypted data with the one or more of the plurality of electromechanical locks, each key being authorized to operate within the locking system (¶0055-¶0056);
a database (fig. 2: 102) storing, for a user of a specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks, information on access rights of the user to the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks, wherein the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks is assigned to the user (fig. 4 and ¶0086), and cause generation of an opening right of the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks as the encrypted data, and use a reader/writer to write the generated encrypted data containing the opening right to a key after checking that the user has access rights to the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks (¶0055-¶0056).
Bliding does not explicitly disclose a service key comprising a memory storing no encrypted data defining, as a default, an opening right to the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks, and further comprising a transceiver to receive encrypted data from a reader/writer, and a computer program product readable by at least one processor of a personal electronic device of the user and configuring the at least one processor to carry out at least the following: receive, via a user interface of the personal electronic device, a write authorization from the user of the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks.
However, Ghosh discloses it has been known for an access system to have a service key (fig. 1: 150) comprising a memory storing no encrypted data defining, as a default, an opening right to the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks, and further comprising a transceiver to receive encrypted data from a reader/writer (¶0023 discloses the tag 150 is written to with encrypted identification data); and a computer program product readable by at least one processor of a personal electronic device of the user and configuring the at least one processor to carry out at least the following: receive, via a user interface of the personal electronic device, a write authorization from the user of the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks (¶0023 discloses writing to the tag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the access system of Bliding to write to an access key encrypted authorization data, as taught by Ghosh.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Bliding as described above in order to quickly program keys to allow user access to specific areas.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the service key is, by being configured with an encryption key of the locking system, authorized to operate within the locking system and the computer program product is configured to cause the at least one processor to check, before writing the generated encrypted data to the service key, whether or not the reader/writer and the service key are configured with matching encryption keys dedicated to the locking system and enabling encrypted communication between the reader/writer and the service key (Ghosh ¶0030-¶0031).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1, further comprising: the reader/writer comprising a wireless transceiver to receive the encrypted data from the personal electronic device (Ghosh ¶0022 discloses near-field communication).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the reader/writer is comprised in the personal electronic device (Ghosh ¶0023 discloses client device 110).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the computer program product is configured to cause the at least one processor to generate a removal of the opening right for the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks as new encrypted data, and to write, using the reader/writer, the new encrypted data containing the removal of the opening right to the service key (Ghosh ¶0024 discloses modifying authentication).
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 5, wherein the computer program product is configured to cause the at least one processor to receive via the user interface a delete authorization from the user before writing the encrypted data containing the removal of the opening right to the service key (Ghosh ¶0024 discloses modifying authentication, hence, it is clear modifying authentication may be deleting information).
7) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1.
Blinding and Ghosh do not explicitly disclose the service key is an emergency key containing the encrypted data defining no opening right in the memory during a storage period, whereas the emergency key contains the encrypted data defining the opening right of the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks during an emergency use period, and the emergency key is by default in the storage period, and only intermittently in the emergency use period.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a access system to have a key used for emergency situations and to control the lock of a building.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Blinding to utilize an emergency key.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Blinding as described above in order to provide redundancy in the system by allowing a user to access locks in the event of other keys become unavailable.
8) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1.
Blinding and Ghosh do not explicitly disclose further comprising a key safe to store the service key, the key safe comprising an attachment mechanism to fix the key safe to a wall or a floor in the building, to a wall or a floor in a hall or a staircase of the building, to a wall or a floor in a locked space of the building, or to a wall or a floor in a service centre.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for an access system to have a location to store the emergency key for safe keeping.
Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Blinding to have a key safe for a place for the emergency key to be stored.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Blinding as described above in order to allow personnel of the building to know a main location where the emergency key is located and they can go and retrieve the key.
9) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 8), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 8.
Blinding and Ghosh do not explicitly disclose the key safe comprises an electromechanical lock openable by using the personal electronic device and the computer program product, or with a user apparatus of service personnel of the locking system.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for an access system to utilize an electromechanical lock to secure a key safe which is openable with a personal electronic device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the access system of Blinding to utilize a personal electronic device for unlocking an electromechanical lock where the key safe is located.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Blinding as described above in order to utilize a known locking mechanism for securing an area.
10) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein:
at least one of the plurality of electromechanical locks is an entrance electromechanical lock at an entrance of the building, comprising a wireless interface to exchange encrypted data with the computer program product via the personal electronic device, an actuator to set the entrance electromechanical lock to an open state or to a closed state, a processor to evaluate encrypted data read from the personal electronic device to decide whether to set the entrance electromechanical lock to the open state or to remain in the closed state; and wherein the computer program product is configured to cause the at least one processor to receive an authorization from the user to use an entrance opening right in the encrypted data to open the entrance electromechanical lock, and to exchange the encrypted data containing the entrance opening right with the entrance electromechanical lock (Blinding fig. 2: 150 and ¶0048).
11) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 10, wherein the entrance electromechanical lock comprises an interface to receive electrical energy from the mains for an operation of a wired interface of the entrance electromechanical lock, the actuator of the entrance electromechanical lock, and the processor of the entrance electromechanical lock, or an interface to receive electrical energy wirelessly from a wireless transceiver of the personal electronic device for the operation of the wired interface of the entrance electromechanical lock, the actuator of the entrance electromechanical lock, and the processor of the entrance electromechanical lock (Blinding ¶0048 and ¶0052).
12) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the one or more buildings form at least one of a residential building, a commercial building, an office building, a retail building, a hotel, an industrial building, a housing estate, a campus, a factory, a hospital, a building complex (Blinding ¶0004).
13) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Blinding and Ghosh further disclose the locking system of claim 1.
Blinding and Ghosh do not explicitly disclose a number of electromechanical locks in the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks is less than a half of the plurality of electromechanical locks.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for an access system to have a number of electromechanical locks in the specific subset of the plurality of electromechanical locks is less than a half of the plurality of electromechanical locks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Blinding to have a number specific number of locks be less than a number of locks.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Blinding as described above in order to arbitrary select a number of locks are less than a half of the plurality of electromechanical locks.
14) In regard to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685