DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/797,286 filed on 08/07/2024.
As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/11/2025, claims 1-15 are canceled; claims 16-35 have been added. Claims 16-35 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) and 35 U.S.C. 120 to Provisional Application No. 62/288,728, filed on 01/29/2016, to Parent Application No.: 18/135,574, filed on 04/17/2023, to Parent Application No.: 16/894,766, filed on 06/06/2020, and to Parent Application No.: 15/419,848, filed on 01/30/2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 09/16/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 16-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,680,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 16-35 are similar in scope to claim(s) 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,680,811. If the claims in Application No. 18/797,286 are allowed, it could improperly extend the “right to exclude” for the same invention in two different Patents.
Claims 16-35 are directed to a system and methods; said system and methods are associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,680,811.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the U.S. Patent No. 10,680,811 and is covered by U.S. Patent No. 10,680,811 since Patent U.S. Patent No. 10,680,811 and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Application No. 18/797,286 (Instant App.)
US Patent No. 10,680,811
Claim 16: A computer-implemented method of facilitating access to a geographic location, comprising:
receiving, by a security engine hosted by one or more servers, geographic location information, the geographic location information including a plurality of threshold requirements;
receiving, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, entrant information associated with an entrant device;
comparing, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, the entrant information to the plurality of threshold requirements;
determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers based on the comparison, that the entrant may access the geographic location;
sending, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers to the entrant device, a notice including at least one time and date that the entrant may access the geographic location, the at least one time and date derived from the geographic location information;
receiving, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, a location of the entrant device;
determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location;
determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that a current time and date matches the at least one time and date while the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location; and
performing, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, an access action, the access action comprising one of:
(i) sending a security key to the entrant device, or (ii) sending a signal to one of the locking mechanism or the entrant device through a network interface to actuate the locking mechanism.
Claim 1: A computer implemented method comprising: receiving geographic location information, the geographic location information including a plurality of security thresholds; receiving entrant information;
comparing the entrant information to the security thresholds; determining, based on the comparison, that an entrant associated with the entrant information may access a geographic location; sending a notice to the entrant associated with the entrant information, the notice including at least one time and date that the entrant may access the geographic location, wherein the at least one time and date is determined from the geographic location information; receiving a location of an entrant device associated with the entrant; determining that the location is proximate to the geographic location;
determining that the current time and date matches at least one of the at least one time and date while the location is proximate to the geographic location; performing at least one of: sending a security key to the entrant device associated with the entrant or actuating a locking mechanism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites the limitation “the initialization message”. The claim does not have a previous recitation of “an initialization message” and as a result, lacks proper antecedent basis. For example, a lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or “the lever”, where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and as a result, it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference to (MPEP 2173.05(e) [R-07.2015]). Appropriate correction is required to ensure proper claim interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US 2013/0335193; Hereinafter “Hanson”) in view of Saylor (US 8,943,187).
Regarding claim 16, Hanson teaches a computer-implemented method of facilitating access to a geographic location, comprising:
receiving, by a security engine hosted by one or more servers, geographic location information, the geographic location information including a plurality of threshold requirements (Hanson: Para. [0045], Para. [0049], For example, the centralized electronic lock management service computer may be configured to maintain lists or databases indicating which wireless-communication device/users are allowed to access which electronic lock devices, including controlling when they can access an electronic lock device based on different constraints that may be established by a system administrator. For example, a constraint may include allowing a user to only control a particular electronic lock device between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Mountain Time on weekdays. In another example, a constraint may allow a user to only control an electronic lock device up to and including a particular date but not after that date. [0050], [0094]);
receiving, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, entrant information associated with an entrant device (Hanson: Para. [0045], the electronic lock management application may send the identity of the electronic lock device and the identity of the wireless-communication device to the centralized electronic lock management service computer via the computer network. The centralized electronic lock management service computer may determine whether the wireless-communication device is permitted to unlock the electronic lock device based on preset permissions or constraints established by the centralized electronic lock management service computer.);
comparing, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, the entrant information to the plurality of threshold requirements (Hanson: Para. [0045], If the centralized electronic lock management service computer determines that the wireless-communication device meets the preset constraints or permissions, then the centralized electronic lock management service computer sends a security code associated with the electronic lock device to the electronic lock management application of the wireless-communication device via the computer network.);
determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers based on the comparison, that the entrant may access the geographic location (Hanson: Para. [0045], If the centralized electronic lock management service computer determines that the wireless-communication device meets the preset constraints or permissions, then the centralized electronic lock management service computer sends a security code associated with the electronic lock device to the electronic lock management application of the wireless-communication device via the computer network. The electronic lock management application may send the security code to the electronic lock device via Bluetooth.RTM. communication. The security code may be included in a request to unlock a lock mechanism of the electronic lock device.);
sending, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers to the entrant device (Hanson: Para. [0045], then the centralized electronic lock management service computer sends a security code associated with the electronic lock device to the electronic lock management application of the wireless-communication device via the computer network.),
Hanson does not explicitly teach a notice including at least one time and date that the entrant may access the geographic location, the at least one time and date derived from the geographic location information; receiving, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, a location of the entrant device; determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location; determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that a current time and date matches the at least one time and date while the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location; and performing, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, an access action, the access action comprising one of: (i) sending a security key to the entrant device, or (ii) sending a signal to one of the locking mechanism or the entrant device through a network interface to actuate the locking mechanism.
In an analogous art, Saylor teaches a notice including at least one time and date that the entrant may access the geographic location, the at least one time and date derived from the geographic location information (Saylor: Col. 3, Lines 44-63, The system transmits, to the electronic address for the recipient, data that indicates that the electronic key is transferred to the recipient. The system transmits, to the electronic address for the recipient, data that enables the recipient to use the electronic key in accordance with the one or more conditions on use of the electronic key.);
receiving, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, a location of the entrant device (Saylor: Col. 26, Lines 34-59, In some implementations, use of the electronic key is permitted only when the recipient 421 is in proximity of the lock 450 (e.g., when the recipient 421 is within a threshold distance of the lock 450). To enforce the proximity requirement, the computing system 308 can require the lock code 474 to be obtained from the lock 450, at the physical location or site of the lock 450, at the time the use of the electronic key is attempted. Col. 26, Lines 60-67, The electronic device 420 receives the lock code 474 from the lock 450 through proximity-dependent communication.);
determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location (Saylor: Col. 26, Lines 60-67, The electronic device 420 receives the lock code 474 from the lock 450 through proximity-dependent communication. The electronic device 420 sends the lock code 474 to the computing system 308 with the use data 452. [use data described in Col. 10, Lines 52-60] The computing device 430 determines that the lock code 474 is valid, and thus that the electronic device 420 is in proximity to the lock 450.);
determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that a current time and date matches the at least one time and date while the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location (Saylor: Col. 26, Lines 60-67, The computing device 430 determines that the lock code 474 is valid, and thus that the electronic device 420 is in proximity to the lock 450. Col. 10, Lines 52-60, The description information can enable the key management server to determine whether one or more conditions on use of the electronic key are satisfied. Examples of description information include, for example, a time of the attempted use, information about persons accompanying the recipient 152, and information about the current state of the lock 158 or the resource 156.); and
performing, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, an access action, the access action comprising one of: (i) sending a security key to the entrant device, or (ii) sending a signal to one of the locking mechanism or the entrant device through a network interface to actuate the locking mechanism (Saylor: Col. 26, Lines 60-67, Col. 27, Lines 1-10, Based on determining that the electronic device 420 is in proximity to the lock 450, the computing device 430 sends the access code 432 to the electronic device 420. The electronic device 420 transmits the access code 432 to the lock 450, and the lock 450 opens.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Saylor with the system and method of Hanson to include a notice including at least one time and date that the entrant may access the geographic location, the at least one time and date derived from the geographic location information; receiving, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, a location of the entrant device; determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location; determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, that a current time and date matches the at least one time and date while the entrant device is proximate to the geographic location; and performing, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers, an access action, the access action comprising one of: (i) sending a security key to the entrant device, or (ii) sending a signal to one of the locking mechanism or the entrant device through a network interface to actuate the locking mechanism because this functionality provides proximity based access control to a lock (Saylor: Col. 6, Lines 11-37).
Regarding claim 17, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein determining that the location of the entrant is determined by a NFC device reading a tag, wherein the tag is associated with the entrant; and further wherein the determining that the location is proximity to the geographic location is determined by identifying the NFC device as a device that is located proximate to the geographic location (Saylor: Col. 26, Lines 34-59, In some implementations, use of the electronic key is permitted only when the recipient 421 is in proximity of the lock 450 (e.g., when the recipient 421 is within a threshold distance of the lock 450). To enforce the proximity requirement, the computing system 308 can require the lock code 474 to be obtained from the lock 450, at the physical location or site of the lock 450, at the time the use of the electronic key is attempted. The lock code 474 may be obtainable only through short-range communication with the lock 450 that requires proximity to the lock 450 (e.g., communication via radio-frequency electromagnetic waves, infrared, ultrasonic waves, visible light, etc.). As a result, the electronic device 420 obtains the lock code 474 only when at least a minimum proximity to the lock 450 has been achieved (e.g., sufficient proximity to effect the short-range communication). Col. 26, Lines 60-67, The electronic device 420 receives the lock code 474 from the lock 450 through proximity-dependent communication. The electronic device 420 sends the lock code 474 to the computing system 308 with the use data 452. The computing device 430 determines that the lock code 474 is valid, and thus that the electronic device 420 is in proximity to the lock 450. Col. 9, Lines 31-54, The lock 158 may include one or more mechanisms for communicating with persons and other devices. The input mechanisms may include, one or more of, for example, a camera, a microphone, a keypad, a touchpad, a touchscreen, a proximity sensor, an infrared receiver, an ultrasound receiver (e.g., a microphone), a fingerprint scanner, an iris scanner, a retina scanner, an RFID reader, a bar code reader, and a QR code reader. Col. 24, Lines 34-55, [device identifier associated with NFC enable mobile device or NFC enable lock may be utilized to identify the NFC device and Short range communication such as NFC or RFID may be utilized as an input mechanism]).
Regarding claim 18, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the entrant device location is determined using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) communication between the entrant device and a security device positioned at the geographic location (Saylor: Col. 26, Lines 34-59, The lock code 474 may be obtainable only through short-range communication with the lock 450 that requires proximity to the lock 450 (e.g., communication via radio-frequency electromagnetic waves, infrared, ultrasonic waves, visible light, etc.). Col. 26, Lines 60-67, The electronic device 420 receives the lock code 474 from the lock 450 through proximity-dependent communication. The electronic device 420 sends the lock code 474 to the computing system 308 with the use data 452. The computing device 430 determines that the lock code 474 is valid, and thus that the electronic device 420 is in proximity to the lock 450. Col. 9, Lines 31-54, The lock 158 may include one or more mechanisms for communicating with persons and other devices. The input mechanisms may include, one or more of, for example, a camera, a microphone, a keypad, a touchpad, a touchscreen, a proximity sensor, an infrared receiver, an ultrasound receiver (e.g., a microphone), a fingerprint scanner, an iris scanner, a retina scanner, an RFID reader, a bar code reader, and a QR code reader. Col. 24, Lines 34-55, [an RFID reader may be utilized as an input mechanism] ).
Regarding claim 21, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein performing the access action comprises transmitting the security key through a network interface selected from the group consisting of a wired network connection, a cellular data network, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, infrared, RFID, or NFC communication (Saylor: Col. 26, Lines 60-67, Col. 27, Lines 1-10, Based on determining that the electronic device 420 is in proximity to the lock 450, the computing device 430 sends the access code 432 to the electronic device 420. The electronic device 420 transmits the access code 432 to the lock 450, and the lock 450 opens.).
Regarding claim 22, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the security engine maintains a code bank of access codes and advances the code bank in synchronization with a security device located at the geographic location (Saylor: Col. 19, Lines 5-10, In FIG. 3, the computing system 308 may represent the key management system 160 of FIGS. 1A-1E that receives user input, issues electronic keys, evaluates attempted uses of electronic keys, approves uses that satisfy appropriate conditions, and/or sends access codes that open locks.).
Regarding claim 23, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein determining that the entrant may access the geographic location further comprises verifying a plurality of security checks, the security checks including at least one of: verifying license or insurance credentials of the entrant, analyzing information obtained from a background check, or confirming information obtained from another database or website associated with the entrant (Saylor: Col. 6, Lines 31-37, For example, the user interface element 115b specifies a condition that the electronic key for the vehicle is operable only when the recipient possesses a valid driver's license. Other examples of qualifications that may be required include meeting an age requirement (e.g., recipient must be at least a minimum age), holding a particular position in a company, and having no criminal record.).
Regarding claim 24, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein sending the notice to the entrant device comprises transmitting a schedule including multiple authorized time windows derived from the geographic location information (Hanson: Para. [0085], In some cases, the time period may be a single window of time during which the variable binding code may be valid, and at the end of the time period the variable binding code may no longer be valid and/or deleted. In some cases, the time period may be reoccurring, such as a repeated window of time. For example, the reoccurring time period may be set to every day from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The variable binding code may be valid from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Then the variable binding code may not be valid from 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM, and the secure wireless connection may be abolished. In this example, a Bluetooth.RTM.-communication device may re-establish the secure wireless connection with the electronic lock device each day. Para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 25, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein receiving entrant information comprises receiving data from an external computing system in network communication with the server hosting the security engine, the external computing system providing at least one of: license verification, background check results, a credit score, or scheduling information (Saylor: Col. 18, Lines 50-67, For each individual user identity for which the computing system 308 has a token, the computing system 308 may extract information about the user identity and the other user identities who are members of the user identity's social network. This information may include identifying information for the user identity and each member of the user identity's social network as well as profile data for the user identity and each member of the user identity's social network (e.g., hometown, current residence, age (or date of birth), gender, relationship status, etc.). In addition, or as an alternative, the computing system 308 may access any other data from the social networking platform, associated with the user identity and each member of the user identity's social network, for which access permission is granted [the user social identity information including hometown, current residence, age (or date of birth), gender, relationship status, etc meets background information limitation]).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US 2013/0335193; Hereinafter “Hanson”) in view of Saylor (US 8,943,187) in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0342314; Hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 19, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16.
Hanson, in combination with Saylor, does not explicitly teach wherein sending the security key to the entrant device comprises transmitting an encrypted response that is decrypted by the entrant device using an encryption key associated with the entrant device.
In an analogous art, Chen teaches wherein sending the security key to the entrant device comprises transmitting an encrypted response that is decrypted by the entrant device using an encryption key associated with the entrant device (Chen: Para. [0062], To prevent any data modification, wireless communication between the mobile device M and the smart lock structure 1 can apply either symmetric-key cryptography or asymmetric-key cryptography to encrypt their transmitting data as a second/next step in encryption. Para. [0063], During the saving step 808 of the configuration mode, the Smart Key software generates a pair of private keys for encryption and decryption saved in both of the mobile device M and the smart lock structure 1 using a streaming cipher method. No other mobile device M or user shares a same cryptographic key used in one smart lock structure 1 or the Interrogating Device 105 thereof. In case that a block cipher method is also applied under symmetric cryptography, multiple pairs of keys for respective authentication data blocks are saved in both of the mobile device M and the smart lock structure 1. Para. [0066], [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Chen with the system and method of Hanson and Saylor to include wherein sending the security key to the entrant device comprises transmitting an encrypted response that is decrypted by the entrant device using an encryption key associated with the entrant device because this functionality prevents data modification between the wireless communication of the mobile device and the smart lock structure (Chen: Para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Hanson, in combination with Saylor and Chen, teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the encrypted response further specifies a time duration of validity, and the security key expires after the specified duration (Hanson: Para. [0085], In some cases, the time period may be a single window of time during which the variable binding code may be valid, and at the end of the time period the variable binding code may no longer be valid and/or deleted. In some cases, the time period may be reoccurring, such as a repeated window of time. For example, the reoccurring time period may be set to every day from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The variable binding code may be valid from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Then the variable binding code may not be valid from 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM, and the secure wireless connection may be abolished.).
Claim(s) 30-31 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US 2013/0335193; Hereinafter “Hanson”) in view of Saylor (US 8,943,187) in view of Wishne et al. (US 2017/0161978; Hereinafter “Wishne”).
Regarding claim 30, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, teaches the method of claim 16. Hanson, in combination with Saylor, does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the security key to the entrant device comprises sending an entrant key message including an encrypted security key that is decryptable using a code contained in a code message.
In an analogous art, Wishne teaches wherein transmitting the security key to the entrant device comprises sending an entrant key message including an encrypted security key that is decryptable using a code contained in a code message (Wishne: Para. [0059], At 914, the door lock 400 may transmit an interrogation signal to the passive smart device 300. At 916, the passive smart device 300 may respond to an appropriate interrogation signal with the unencrypted key. At 918, the door lock 400 may decrypt the encrypted key in response to receiving the unencrypted key. At 920, the door lock 400 may determine whether the decrypted key matches the unencrypted key received from the passive smart device 200. If the keys match, 922 the system may direct the electronic lock to transition from a locked state to an unlocked state, thereby allowing the hotel guest to open the door. If the keys don't match, as shown in 924, the door lock 400 may continue to periodically transmit interrogation signals.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Wishne with the system and method of Hanson and Saylor to include wherein transmitting the security key to the entrant device comprises sending an entrant key message including an encrypted security key that is decryptable using a code contained in a code message because this functionality provides an improved system to enhance the convenience and security of accessing a restricted area (Wishne: Para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 31, Hanson, in combination with Saylor and Wishne, teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising receiving, at the entrant device, a code message from a security device in proximity to the entrant device, the code message including the code used to decrypt the encrypted security key (Wishne: Para. [0063], Upon a triggering event (e.g., the passive smart device 300 entering a predetermined area), the system may receive detection data 1008 corresponding to a detection of the passive smart device 300. In response, the system may obtain 1010 an identifier from the passive smart device 300 Para. [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 34, Hanson, in combination with Saylor and Wishne, teaches the method of claim 30, wherein the security device sends the code message in response to determining that the entrant identification associated with the initialization message is authorized to receive the code (Wishne: Para. [0053], At 702, the active smart device 200 may receive a pairing request from the mobile computing device 100. At 704, the active smart device 200 may attempt to pair with the mobile computing device 100. At 706, the active smart device 200 may determine whether the pairing was successful. If it was successful, it may proceed to obtain the encrypted key at 708. If the pairing was unsuccessful, the active smart device 200 may wait for another discovery request. Para. [0060], Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 35, Hanson, in combination with Saylor and Wishne, teaches the method of claim 34, wherein the security device comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: a passive RFID tag, an active RFID tag, a Near Field Communication (NFC) device, a Bluetooth-enabled device, a Wi-Fi-enabled device, and a computerized locking mechanism (Wishne: Para. [0023]).
Claim(s) 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US 2013/0335193; Hereinafter “Hanson”) in view of Saylor (US 8,943,187) in view of Wishne et al. (US 2017/0161978; Hereinafter “Wishne”) in view of Caceres et al. (US 2014/0256251; Hereinafter “Caceres”).
Regarding claim 32, Hanson, in combination with Saylor and Wishne, teaches the method of claim 31. Hanson, in combination with Saylor and Wishne, does not explicitly teach further comprising sending, from the entrant device to the security device, an initialization message that triggers the security device to send the code message.
In an analogous art, Caceres teaches further comprising sending, from the entrant device to the security device, an initialization message that triggers the security device to send the code message (Caceres: Para. [0093], At step S1, a user brings the NFC enabled mobile device within proximity of an NFC enabled device 13. Para. [0102]-[0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Caceres with the system and method of Hanson, Saylor, and Wishne to include further comprising sending, from the entrant device to the security device, an initialization message that triggers the security device to send the code message because this functionality provides enhanced functionality for authentication in NFC environments (Caceres: Para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 33, Hanson, in combination with Saylor, Wishne, and Caceres, teaches the method of claim 32, wherein the initialization message includes an energy wave that energizes the security device when the security device is an RFID tag (Caceres: Para. [0014], In reader/writer mode, an NFC enabled mobile device reads data from and/or writes data to an NFC enabled device, such as an RFID card, tag or the like.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 29, Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, as previously recited, Hanson et al. (US 2013/0335193; Hereinafter “Hanson”) in view of Saylor (US 8,943,187) in view of Wishne et al. (US 2017/0161978; Hereinafter “Wishne”). However, none of Hanson, Saylor, and Wishne teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in dependent claims, 26-29. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggest the steps of “sending, from one of the entrant device or the server hosting the security engine, a request to an external computing system for a credit score associated with the entrant; and receiving, at the server hosting the security engine, a response comprising the credit score, wherein the determining that the entrant may access the geographic location is further based on the credit score” as recited in claim 26, “receiving, at the one or more servers hosting the security engine, a social security number associated with the entrant; sending, by the security engine hosted by the one or more servers, the social security number to a third-party system; and in response to sending the social security number to the third-party system, receiving, at the one or more servers hosting the security engine, a credit score associated with the entrant; and wherein the comparing, by the security engine hosted by the one or more servers, the entrant information to the plurality of threshold requirements comprises comparing the credit score to a credit threshold” as recited in claim 27; “receiving, at the one or more servers hosting the security engine, a credit score associated with the entrant from a third-party system; and wherein the comparing, by the security engine hosted by the one or more servers, the entrant information to the plurality of threshold requirements comprises comparing the credit score to a credit threshold” as recited in claim 28, “wherein the determining, by the security engine hosted by one or more servers based on the comparison, that the entrant may access the geographic location comprises: performing one or more security checks against one or more threshold requirements stored in a geographic location profile; assigning at least one binary score to a corresponding security check, the binary score indicating pass or fail; assigning at least one numerical score to a corresponding security check, the numerical score representing a degree of compliance with a threshold requirement; and determining access based on a combination of the binary score(s) and the numerical score(s), including at least one of: (i) requiring all binary scores to pass, and (11) requiring a composite numerical score to exceed a threshold requirement” as recited in claim 29. As a result, the claims are allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Giddins whose telephone number is (571)272-7993. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NELSON S. GIDDINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408