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 .
The application of Muthu et al. for a “electronic lockset having multiple wireless radios” filed on February 19, 2026 has been examined.
This application claims priority to U.S. provisional application number 63/519,736, which is filed on August 15, 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, including claims 1-12 and 19-20, in the reply filed on February 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
A preliminary amendment to the claims 13-18 has been entered and made of record. Claims 13-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a connection with the low-power wireless” in lines 3-4 should be “a connection with the low-power wireless network”. An appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being participated by Bryla (Pub. No. 2019/0228604).
Referring to Claim 1, Bryla discloses an electronic lockset (110) comprising:
an exterior subassembly (not shown) (page 1 paragraph 0012; see Figure 1);
an interior subassembly including:
a control circuit (111) and a motor (113a) actuatable by the control circuit (111) (i.e. The lock unit 110 includes a lock controller 111, coupled to a lock actuator 113a, a first wireless communicator 112, and a second wireless communicator 114. The lock unit 110 includes a lock 113b that is movable between an unlocked position and a locked position to selectively secure the door) (page 3 paragraph 0023; see Figure 1);
a high-bandwidth wireless radio (114) configured to connect to a high-bandwidth wireless network (124) (i.e. the lock unit 110 may further include a second wireless communicator 114 arranged to wirelessly communicate with a second gateway wireless communicator 124 located on the gateway 120 via a second wireless communication link 104b that is associated with a different wireless communication network, for example, a Wi-Fi, RF, or cellular network) (page 3 paragraph 0026; see Figure 1); and
a low-power wireless radio (112) configured to connect to a low-power wireless network (122) (i.e. the lock unit 110 may include a first wireless communicator 112 arranged to wirelessly communicate with a first gateway wireless communicator 122 located on the gateway 120 via a first wireless communication link 104a associated with a LoRa-based communication network, for example, LoRaWAN. As discussed above, LoRa is a long range, low power wireless platform that enables low data rate communications over long distances) (page 3 paragraph 0026; see Figure 1); and
a latch (113b) operatively connected to the interior subassembly, the latch being engageable by the motor (113a) to move the electronic lockset (110) between a locked state and an unlocked state (i.e. the lock 113b may include a deadbolt, a lock coupled to a latch, or any other suitable locking structure to selectively secure the door in a locked configuration and selectively restrict opening of the door, and in certain embodiments, the lock 113b may be received in a corresponding receptacle when in the locked position) (page 3 paragraphs 0023-0025; see Figure 1),
wherein the control circuit (111) monitors connection of at least one of the high-bandwidth wireless network (124) and the low-power wireless network (122) and places one of the high-bandwidth wireless radio (114) and the low-power wireless radio (112) in a power saving mode while maintaining remote access capability (i.e. the lock controller 111 may activate power to the second wireless communicator 114 in response to a wakeup signal received via the first wireless communicator 112. The gateway controller 121 may operate the second gateway wireless communicator 124 to send high bandwidth data transfer requests to the second wireless communicator 114 such that the lock unit 110 performs a second set of functions/operations) (page 4 paragraphs 0029-0030; page 5 paragraphs 0037-0039; see Figure 3).
Referring to Claim 2, Bryla discloses the electronic lockset of claim 1, wherein in a default mode, the electronic lockset (110) is connected to the low-power wireless network (122) and the high-bandwidth wireless radio (114) is in the power saving mode (i.e. A first signal may be received at a first wireless communicator of a lock unit from a gateway at block 302. For example, the first signal may include a low bandwidth data transfer request/signal, such as, a lock or unlock signal for the lock unit. A first operation may be performed based on the first signal at block 304) (page 5 paragraph 0037; see Figure 3).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryla (Pub. No. 2019/0228604) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Deixler et al. (US# 12,143,319).
Referring to claim 9, Bryla discloses the electronic lockset of claim 1, however, Bryla did not explicitly disclose wherein the low-power wireless network is a wireless mesh network implemented using a Thread protocol.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control communication system, Deixler et al. teach wherein the low-power wireless network is a wireless mesh network implemented using a Thread protocol (i.e. the transceiver 3 may use one or more communication technologies to communicate with the light devices, e.g. Zigbee, Thread and/or Bluetooth, and/or one or more wired or wireless communication technologies to communicate with a wireless LAN/Internet access point) (column 9 lines 20 to 27;column 43 lines 44 to 66; see Figure 1) in order to communicate with other wireless electronic control devices.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for using the Thread protocol for lighting control message instead of other wireless communication protocols taught by Deixler et al. in the gateway uses the long range low power wireless platform of the lock systems of Bryla because using the Thread protocol for lighting control message would provide an alternative way for wireless communication to other wireless electronic control devices.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryla (Pub. No. 2019/0228604) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Myers et al. (US# 10,529,156).
Referring to claim 10, Bryla discloses the electronic lockset of claim 1, wherein the high-bandwidth wireless network (124) is a Wi-Fi network (i.e. the lock unit 110 may further include a second wireless communicator 114 arranged to wirelessly communicate with a second gateway wireless communicator 124 located on the gateway 120 via a second wireless communication link 104b that is associated with a different wireless communication network, for example, a Wi-Fi, RF, or cellular network) (page 3 paragraph 0026; see Figures 1 and 3).
However, Bryla did not explicitly disclose wherein the low-power wireless network is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) network.
In the same field of endeavor of an access communication system, Myers et al. teach that a low-power wireless network (130) is a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) network (column 4 lines 31 to 34; column 9 lines 21 to 28; see Figure 1) in order to obtain the best transmission strategy for communicating with the deadbolt lock.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for operating the gateway using the Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication protocol in the gateway to communicate with the deadbolt lock taught by Myers et al. in the gateway uses the long range low power wireless platform of the lock systems of Bryla because operating the gateway using the Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication protocol in the gateway to communicate with the deadbolt lock would provide the lock system or the gateway use less power to extend the life of the battery.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryla (Pub. No. 2019/0228604) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Honjo et al. (US# 11,085,226).
Referring to claim 12, Bryla discloses the electronic lockset of claim 1, however, Bryla did not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic lockset includes a third wireless radio, wherein the third wireless radio is configured provide connectivity when a connection with the high-bandwidth wireless network fails and a connection with the low-power wireless connection fails.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Honjo et al. teach that wherein the electronic lockset includes a third wireless radio (3G as backup mechanism), wherein the third wireless radio is configured provide connectivity when a connection with the high-bandwidth wireless network fails and a connection with the low-power wireless connection fails (i.e. the required data communications can be carried out using any of a variety of custom or standard wireless protocols (Wi-Fi, ZigBee, 6LoWPAN, 3G/4G/5G, etc.) and/or any of a variety of custom or standard wired protocols (CAT6 Ethernet, HomePlug, etc.). In some cases, backup mechanisms of wireless communication (e.g., 3G/4G/5G) may be provided in the event the primary mechanisms of communication (e.g., Wi-Fi) becomes disabled, such as due to power outage) (column 8 line 46 to column 9 line 3; see Figure 1) in order to provide secure operation of the smart home system.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for operating the smart home with backup mechanisms of wireless communication in case the primary mechanisms of communication become disabled taught by Honjo et al. in the gateway uses the long range low power wireless platform of the lock systems of Bryla because operating the smart home with backup mechanisms of wireless communication in case the primary mechanisms of communication become disabled would provide the lock system reliable system for communication with other apparatus.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryla (Pub. No. 2019/0228604) in view of Gorkovenko et al. (US# 12,567,295).
Referring to claim 19, Bryla discloses an electronic lockset, to the extent as claimed with respect to claim 1 above, and the electronic lockset further including:
wherein the high-bandwidth wireless radio (114) is disabled while the electronic lockset (110) is in the low battery mode (i.e. a first signal may be received at a first wireless communicator of a lock unit from a gateway at block 302. For example, the first signal may include a low bandwidth data transfer request/signal, such as, a lock or unlock signal for the lock unit. A first operation may be performed based on the first signal at block 304. A wakeup signal may also be received at the first wireless communicator from the gateway at block 306. A second wireless communicator may be activated based on the wakeup signal at block 308) (page 5 paragraph 0037-0038; see Figure 3).
However, Bryla did not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic lockset is configured to transition to a low battery mode in response to determining that a battery level is below a predetermined threshold.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, Gorkovenko et al. teach that wherein the electronic lockset is configured to transition to a low battery mode in response to determining that a battery level is below a predetermined threshold (i.e. when the electronic lock 100 battery power is below a threshold, the electronic lock 100 may turn off or otherwise deactivate the facial authentication hardware on the electronic lock) (column 21 line 59 to column 22 line 8) in order to operate the electronic lock in the secondary authentication mechanism.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having the electronic lock turn off or deactivate the primary authentication mechanism if the battery power is below the threshold taught by Gorkovenko et al. in the gateway uses the long range low power wireless platform of the lock systems of Bryla because having the electronic lock turn off or deactivate the primary authentication mechanism if the battery power is below the threshold would provide the electronic lock system to extend the life of the batteries to last longer and conserve the battery in case the lock unit needs power to operate.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryla (Pub. No. 2019/0228604) in view of Gorkovenko et al. (US# 12,567,295) as applied to claim 19 and further in view of GrandPre et al. (US# 10,026,249).
Referring to claim 20, Bryla in view of Gorkovenko et al. disclose the electronic lockset of claim 19, however, Bryla in view of Gorkovenko et al. did not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic lockset is further configured to: while in the low battery mode, transmit updated information to a local computing device using the low-power wireless radio, wherein the computing device is configured to transmit the updated information to a server for transmission of the updated information to a remote computing device.
In the same field of endeavor of an access control system, GrandPre et al. teach that wherein the electronic lockset (102) is further configured to: while in the low battery mode, transmit updated information to a local computing device (114) using the low-power wireless radio, wherein the computing device (114) is configured to transmit the updated information to a server (not shown) for transmission of the updated information to a remote computing device (108) (i.e. communications relating to updating an access control database (if any) in the access control device 102, inquires relating to the status(es) of the access control device(s) 102, and/or commanding a relatively immediate change in the status(es) of the access control device(s) 102. Additionally, the access control management host 108 can, in real time and via use of the networked gateway 114, push configuration and firmware updates for the system 100 and/or one or more components of the system 100, including one or more access control devices 102. The networked gateway 114 can establish a wireless connection with one or more of the access control devices 102 using a relatively low latency, low-power wireless technology or protocol) (column 8 lines 39 to 53; column 9 lines 3 to 31; see Figure 1) in order to operate the access control device and the security system in an efficient power management.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for having access control device initiates communication in low latency and low-power wireless technology with the access control management host via the gateway for update information taught by Gorkovenko et al. in the gateway uses the long range low power wireless platform of the lock systems of Bryla in view of Gorkovenko et al. because having access control device initiates communication in low latency and low-power wireless technology with the access control management host via the gateway for update information would improve power management in the electronic lockset.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 11 are 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.
Referring to claim 3, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein upon the control circuit detecting a loss of connection with the low-power wireless radio, the control circuit activates the high-bandwidth wireless radio to connect to the high-bandwidth wireless network and transmits an alert notification indicating a loss of connection with the low-power wireless network to a computing device associated with an authorized user of the electronic lockset.
Referring to claim 5, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the control circuit is configured to:
periodically wake up the high-bandwidth wireless radio;
establish a connection with the high-bandwidth wireless network via the high-bandwidth wireless radio; and
send a message to a predefined network address to confirm remote access with the
electronic lockset is available via the high-bandwidth wireless network.
Referring to claim 11, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein remote access of the electronic lockset is provided by at least one of a first cloud application associated with a manufacturer of the electronic lockset and a second cloud application associated with a third party,
wherein only the second cloud application is able to access the electronic lockset when the electronic lockset is connected via the low-power wireless network and the high-bandwidth wireless radio is in the power saving mode, and
wherein the first cloud application is able to send a notification to wake up the high-
bandwidth wireless radio to remotely access the electronic lockset in response to a user selecting a feature to remotely update a passcode for the electronic lockset, wherein the feature requires the first cloud application.
Claims 4 and 6-8 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claims 3 and 5; therefore, these claims are also allowed by virtue of their dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
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).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````