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 2/3/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 20 are amended. Claims 1, 3-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is amended to include new limitation “communicating the key from the on-premises controller through a network to a receiver associated with a display case controller based on the location of the user device” not presented before. The examiner could not find support for this new limitation in the Specification filed and the applicant did not point out where support for this new limitation can be found.
The Specification as filed states in Paragraph 105 that “In step 1516, the key is communicated to the on-premises controller to form a stored key. These steps may be reversed when the key is generated at the on-premises generator and stored in the user device”, but this step is not dependent on the location of the user device. Therefore, claim 1 presents new matter not supported by the Specification originally filed.
Claims 3-19 depend on claim 1; therefore, they suffer the same deficiencies.
Claim 20 is amended to include new limitation “a display case controller receiving the user device key and a stored key at a receiver based on the location of the user device” not presented before. The examiner could not find support for this new limitation in the Specification filed and the applicant did not point out where support for this new limitation can be found.
The Specification as filed states in Paragraph 68 that “the key generator 464 may also provide a key to a display case controller 466. The display case controller 466 receives the corresponding key so that when the user device 32 is brought within a predetermined range of the display case, the display case controller 46 uses the key to unlock the display case. The display case controller 466 may control the locking and unlocking of the display case from the on-premises controller 36 rather than locally at each display case.” But the Specification filed doesn’t state the display case controller receiving a stored key at a receiver based on the location of the user device. Therefore, claim 20 presents new matter not supported by the Specification originally filed.
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) 1-3, 5-11, 13, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoner (US 11881091 B1), and further in view of Golsch (US 20180099643 A1), Maiwand (US 20170352215 A1) and Ruth (US 20200387863 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 20, Schoner discloses a method and system comprising:
storing a key at a user device to form a user device key (via data stored in mobile 104 to generate encrypted Bluetooth beacon signal to unlock locking mechanism 128, col. 9, lines 19-25; col. 4, line 57-col. 5, line 31);
determining a location of a user device within a premises at an on-premises controller based on ranging signals from ranging sensors (positioning sensor which associates a location of the shopper next to the enclosure 108 of the store 102, col. 5, lines 32-42);
communicating the user device key to the display case controller (via wireless connection to receive Bluetooth communication from shopper near display 112, col. 5, lines 22-53);
authenticating a key at a display case controller; and unlatching, by the display case controller, a display case latch of a display case when the key is authenticated (authenticating encrypted Bluetooth beacon signal to unlock display 112, col. 9, lines 19-25; and col. 5, lines 5-31).
Schoner fails to specifically disclose authentication of key comprises comparing a key to a stored key.
Golsch teaches authentication of a user can be done by comparing a key to a stored key (The response code can then be compared to the challenge code and the key or keys that were shared with the portable device 311 during pairing, Para. 205).
From the teachings of Golsch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schoner to include authentication of key comprises comparing a key to a stored key in order to authenticate a key received for security purposes.
Schoner and Golsch fail to specifically disclose generating the key at a key generator of an on-premises controller; associating the key with a user profile at the on-premises controller.
Maiwand teaches a system to generate a key at a key generator of an on-premises controller (Para. 52-53); associating the key with a user profile at the on-premises controller (Para. 95-95, 97).
From the teachings of Maiwand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schoner and Golsch to include generating the key at a key generator of an on-premises controller; associating the key with a user profile at the on-premises controller in order to allow authentication of a user key to allow access at the display case, thereby improve convenience and security.
The combination of Schoner, Golsch and Maiwand fails to disclose communicating the key from the on-premises controller through a network to a receiver associated with a display case controller based on the location of the user device and storing the key to form a stored key.
Ruth teaches a system to allow unlocking of a device locally or remotely, and with local authentication by matching authentication information received with stored authentication information (Para. 62, 65).
From the teachings of Ruth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schoner, Golsch and Maiwand to include communicating the key from the on-premises controller through a network to a receiver associated with a display case controller based on the location of the user device and storing the key to form a stored key in order to allow authentication of a user key locally to improve reliability of authentication.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth, Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Maiwand teaches storing the key in a user device to form a user device key, communicating the user device key to an on-premises controller to form stored key (key generator 1534 to generate key to be stored on a fob and vehicle, Para. 91, 94-95).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches assigning authentication level to the user profile and wherein unlatching the display case comprises unlatching the display case when the stored key matches the user device key, and the authentication level is above a predetermined authentication level (via shopper authenticated at a predetermined level to permit unlocking, col. 9, lines 6-25).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches determining a first display case inventory at the display case controller before a display case door is opened, and, after the display case door is closed, determining a second display case inventory at the display case controller (via determining inventory 116 before and after store visit by user, col. 6, lines 5-23).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches wherein determining the first display case inventory and determining the second display case inventory comprises energizing an RF transceiver within the display case, energizing tags on products within the display case and receiving RF identifiers from the products within the display case (via RFID identification of items, col. 6, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches determining an inventory difference between the first display case inventory and the second display case inventory and associating the inventory difference with the user profile (via collating of user items 116 with display 112, col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 8).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches storing the inventory difference with the user profile at the on-premises controller (via collating of user items 116 with display 112, col. 6, line 57-col. 7, line 8).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches billing an account associated with the user device for the inventory difference (col. 18, lines 2-4; col. 9, line 19-col. 10, line 13).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches determining a first display case inventory before a display case door is opened, and, after the door is closed, determining a second display case inventory (via determining inventory 116 before and after user visit, col. 6, lines 5-23; col. 9, lines 19-29).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches determining the display case door is opened after unlatching said display case controller (col. 9, lines 19-29).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches locking the door after the case is opened (col. 9, line 64 to col. 10, line 5).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches scanning products at a point of sale device to form a checkout inventory (col. 9, lines 39-54), comparing the checkout inventory to an inventory difference and generating an alert signal when the checkout inventory is different than the inventory difference at the display case (col. 10, lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches wherein comparing is performed at an on-premises controller (processor at the structure, col. 11, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Maiwand teaches generating the key comprises generating the key at the key generator located at an off-premises controller (via server 1520 also includes a fob key generator 1534 that is configured to generate cryptographic secret key for transmission to the device 1502 or a vehicle. 1520, Para. 91).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand teaches the claimed invention, wherein Schoner teaches requesting access to a secured product from an application on the user device (col. 9, lines 19-23).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand, and further in view of Ross (US 20110055090 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the prior arts cited teach unlatching the display case comprises unlatching the display case when the stored key matches the user device key (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fail to disclose assigning an age level to the user profile and unlatching the display case requires the age level be above a predetermined age level.
Ross teaches that a merchant can set age restrictions at a shop to prevent shoppers below a minimum age from shopping at the shop (the system may also determine, for example, by examining the corresponding user profile, whether the user can satisfy other requirements set forth by the content owner, such as, for example, minimum age requirement, Para. 78).
From the teachings of Ross, 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 prior arts cited to include assigning an age level to the user profile and unlatching the display case requires the age level be above a predetermined age level in order to prevent minors access to certain items, thereby prevent illegal purchases.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand, and further in view of Guionneau (US 20160357954 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the prior arts cited failed to disclose revoking the key after the door is opened.
Guionneau teaches a key used for authentication can be configured as a single use key (Para. 106-108).
From the teachings of Guionneau, 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 prior arts cited to include revoking the key after the door is opened in order to improve security.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand, and further in view of Hamada (US 20160117877 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the prior arts cited fail to disclose wherein prior to unlatching determining a presence of untrusted devices proximate the display case and delaying unlatching.
Hamada teaches determining a presence of untrusted devices proximate a secured device and delaying unlocking (via detecting presence of relay attack from a device and prevent unlocking, Para. 3-6, 49-53).
From the teachings of Hamada, 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 prior arts cited to include wherein prior to unlatching determining a presence of untrusted devices proximate the display case and delaying unlatching in order to improve security.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoner, Golsch, Ruth and Maiwand, and further in view of Davis (US 20170323299 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the prior arts cited fail to disclose generating a confirmation query on a user device screen before unlatching.
Davis teaches generating a confirmation query on a user device before performing a user requested action (Para. 61).
From the teachings of Davis, 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 prior arts cited to include generating a confirmation query on a user device screen before unlatching in order to prevent unintended unlatching, thereby improve security.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference (Ruth US 20200387863 A1) not presented before.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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