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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pukari (US 2015/0332527), and further in view of Stephens (WO 2018/005458).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, Pukari discloses a method and system comprising:
sending, using a proximity communication antenna, an initial communication to a digital lock (The electronic circuitry of the lock is powered by the short-range transmission 110 of the communication device and a transaction is initiated, Para. 21);
receiving, via the proximity communication antenna, an authentication request from the digital lock in response to sending the initial communication (In an authentication procedure the communication device reads an authentication challenge from the electronic circuitry of the lock, Para. 21);
in response to the initial communication to the digital lock, including: in response to receiving the authentication request, providing, from a battery of the mobile device, wireless power to the digital lock via a wireless power protocol (The electronic circuitry of the lock is powered by the short-range transmission 110 of the communication device, Para. 21); and
in response to providing the wireless power, sending an authorization to the digital lock to cause the digital lock to open (The communication device 106 computes a response and transmits the response to the electronic circuitry of the lock. Next, the lock performs the authentication. In the authentication, the lock authenticates the response. In an embodiment, the response is authenticated against the challenge. If the authentication succeeds the lock is set to an openable state, Para. 21).
Pukari fails to disclose the wireless power protocol is separate from the proximity communication antenna.
Stephens teaches a mobile device (120) can be configured to transfer wireless power using Qi protocol to power an electronic lock (202, Para. 4, 23), and the mobile device can communicate wirelessly with the electronic lock using a separate proximity communication antenna (via Zigbee; Para. 20, 25).
From the teachings of Stephens, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pukari to include the wireless power protocol is separate from the proximity communication antenna as taught by Sephens to use one protocol to provide power and a separate protocol for proximity communication, thereby improve efficiency of power transfer.
Regarding claim 2, 10, 19, Pukari discloses wherein the proximity communication antenna is a near field communication (NFC) antenna (Para. 18, 20).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 12-13, 20, Pukari fails to disclose wireless power protocol is a reverse Qi protocol, and wherein sending the authorization includes sending the authorization using a reverse Qi protocol.
Stephens teaches wireless power can be transferred using Qi protocol, and the Qi protocol can also be used to transmit and receive data (Para. 4, 25; Fig. 3B).
From the teachings of Stephens, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pukari to include wireless power protocol is a reverse Qi protocol in order to power the lock, and wherein sending the authorization includes sending the authorization using a reverse Qi protocol in order to allow communications between the mobile device and the lock.
Regarding claim 5, 11, Pukari discloses wherein sending the authorization includes sending the authorization using a near field communication (NFC) antenna of the mobile device (Para. 32).
Regarding claim 6, 14, Pukari discloses wherein providing the wireless power includes providing the wireless power to charge a capacitor of the digital lock (Para. 39).
Regarding claim 7, 15, 18, Pukari discloses wherein the digital lock does not include a battery (Para. 14).
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pukari in view of Stephens, and further in view of Chis (US 20180173907 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 16, Pukari and Stephens fail to disclose before sending the authorization to the digital lock, determining, using a processor of the mobile device, whether a user of the mobile device is authorized to open the digital lock based on credentials stored at the mobile device.
Chis teaches mutual authentication between NFC devices before establishing communication between the NFC devices (access to the communication channel 116 (and more specifically the device interface 220 of the reader 105) may be restricted to credentials 112 having a valid mobile access application 152 stored thereon, Para. 28).
From the teachings of Chis, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pukari and Stephens to include before sending the authorization to the digital lock, determining, using a processor of the mobile device, whether a user of the mobile device is authorized to open the digital lock based on credentials stored at the mobile device in order to ensure the lock is authorized to communicate with the mobile device, thereby improve security.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the last paragraph of page 5 that power delivery in Pukari is not triggered by receipt of an authentication request. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In Pukari, power delivery is performed in each step to keep the lock device powered, including in response to receiving the authentication request, provide wireless power to the digital lock (Para. 21).
Applicant next argues in the 2nd paragraph of page 6 that Pukari and Stephens appears to be based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The teachings of Stephens demonstrate that it is already known in the prior arts to use one protocol to perform low power proximity communication and a separate protocol to provide power. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art related to the claimed invention: US 20100073129 A1, US 10872484 B1, US 20180005470 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights