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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on December 2, 2024. The Preliminary Amendment filed on December 2, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The Replacement Drawings filed on December 2, 2024 are objected to because Figures 1 and 2 lack any text labeling to clearly identify the different components of the figure. The various rectangular (or near-rectangular) boxes representing functional blocks or components, which are blank, should be provided with "descriptive legends", per 37 CFR 1.84(o), with reference numeral(s) placed outside the box/block in an appropriate manner.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-19 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 introduces a smart lock system, comprising (among others):
"a screen interface, wherein the screen interface displays a list of locked areas in a way that allows a user to select the list of locked areas within a “t1” period and then open a lock/door in case the user is authorized to open multiple locks according to entered verification data",
"a login panel, where users are allowed to log in via an alpha-numeric pad with a password allocated to the users within a framework of authorizations of the users", and
"a control panel used for controlling entered passwords and for performing an activation of the smart lock system".
It is clear from claim 1 that the "login panel" and the "control panel" are distinct panels. This is also supported by the specification: see "After the user makes the desired verification entry through the login panel, this data is transferred to the control panel (3)." and "The data entered [into the login panel] by the user is transmitted to the control panel (3)." in lines 14-15 and the last line of page 5, respectively, (emphases added) as well the data connections between the two panels shown in Figure 1.
Claim 1 clearly specifies that login into the system is performed via the "login panel" and not the "control panel". However, claims 2-4 specify that the "control panel … allows the users to log in to the smart lock system" with different authentication credential "instead of logging in via an alpha-numerical pad". This claimed input of different login data via the control panel does not seem to be supported by the original specification, which specifies that "The login panel (2) can also be designed to allow the input of defined biological data into the user's system. … The login panel (2) can also be designed as a card reader. … The login panel (2) may accommodate a QR constructor and/or reader." (page 4, line 33 - page 5, line 6).
Additionally, claim 1 does not specify any relationship between the "screen interface" and any one of the distinct panels. Since, however, the "screen interface" is displayed to the user, who inputs authentication information into the login panel, a reader understands unequivocally that the "screen interface" must be accessible to the user, so that it is inferred that this screen is located on or at least in close proximity to the "login panel". Claims 5-19 contradict this understanding by referring to a "display time for the respective lock/door opening image on the control panel"(emphasis added; claims 5, 6, and 8-14) and by specifying different unlocking triggering times (after successful login-authentication) in dependence of the "physical distance" of an access point "to the control panel" (claims 7 and 15-19).
It is repeated that the "login panel" and the "control panel" are introduced as separate devices and that the application as a whole does not seem to describe any relative location, let alone a proximity between the two panels. From the specification passages on page 5 cited above and from Figure 1, it is inferred that the "control panel" is not an input device but rather a network lock controller, which could be located anywhere in the system (and does not have to be accessible by a user), so that the distance between this controller and any one of the system's access points does not have any significance for the security of the access control. In particular, the technical advantage mentioned in the specification on page 7, lines 5-15 ("In this way, it can be ensured that no one physically closer to the relevant access point than the authorized user cannot access it earlier.") does not seem to be achieved by the subject-matter of current claims 7 and 15-19.
The Applicant is requested to clearly point out where the support for the claimed subject matter may be found in the original filed specification in reply to this Office Action.
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 2-19 are 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.
Independent claim 1 specifies that login into the system is performed via the "login panel" and not the "control panel". However, claims 2-4 contradict claim 1 in that they specify that the "control panel … allows the users to log in to the smart lock system" with different authentication credential" instead of logging in via an alpha-numerical pad", which render the claims indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claims 2-4 specify these alternative implementations of the login panel (and does not refer to the control panel).
Additionally, claim 1 does not specify any relationship between the "screen interface" and any one of the distinct panels. Since, however, the "screen interface" is displayed to the user, who inputs authentication information into the login panel, a reader understands unequivocally that the "screen interface" must be accessible to the user, so that it is inferred that this screen is located on or at least in close proximity to the "login panel". Claims 5-19 contradict this understanding by referring to a "display time for the respective lock/door opening image on the control panel"(emphasis added; claims 5, 6, and 8-14) and by specifying different unlocking triggering times (after successful login-authentication) in dependence of the "physical distance" of an access point "to the control panel" (claims 7 and 15-19), therefore, causing the claims to be unclear and indefinite.
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Terashima et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0213819 A1; hereinafter as “Terashima”).
As per claim 1, Terashima discloses a smart lock system (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2; para. [0039]: management system 1 including management device 100, operator system 20, user terminal 30 and smart locks 11, which can be a plurality of smart locks 11), comprising:
a screen interface (Terashima describes two screen interfaces, via which the smart locks of the system can be controlled by a "user" with a reservation and an "operator"; see e.g., para. [0042]: "The user screen is an operation screen which a user of user terminal 30 uses to operate smart lock 11."; para. [0045]: "Management operation receiver 106 [of management device 100, see Fig. 2] generates and outputs a management screen which is used by the operator operating operator system 20 to manage smart lock 11. An example of the management screen is shown in FIG. 7."), wherein the screen interface displays a list of locked areas in a way that allows a user to select the list of locked areas within a “t1” period and then open a lock/door in case the user is authorized to open multiple locks according to entered verification data (e.g., para. [0043]: "FIG. 6 shows an example of the user screen in a case where a plurality of smart locks 11 are associated with one piece of reservation information. In the case where a plurality of smart locks 11 are associated with one piece of reservation information, the user screen may include operation buttons for opening/closing each of the plurality of smart locks 11, and a collective unlock button and a collective lock button for collectively opening/closing the plurality of smart locks 11. When an operation instruction for smart lock 11 is received from user terminal 30 through the user screen, usability determiner 104 again determines the usability, and in the case of determining that use is allowed, usability determiner 104 instructs appliance controller 105 to control smart lock 11."; para. [0045]: "The operator can access the management screen by using the operator ID. The management screen includes a list of facility names which are associated with the operator ID. When one facility is selected from the list, the state of door lock of the selected facility, a reservation list for the facility, and an operation record of corresponding smart lock 11 are displayed on the management screen. Furthermore, smart lock 11 may be opened or closed by operating of an “open” button or a “close” button on the management screen."; para. [0060]: "The facility name acquired from appliance database 101 is displayed in a building list on the management screens in FIGS. 7 and 8. Management operation receiver 106 causes the generated management screen to be displayed by the terminal of operator system 20 (step S203)."; regarding the time "t1" mentioned in the claim, it is noted that it is implicit that the lists in Terashima will be displayed for some time period, it is, however, added that Terashima explicitly suggests that this is a predetermined time period: see "When there is a lapse of time between display of the user screen and operation on the user screen, usability is possibly changed, and usability determiner 104 determines usability again before operation of smart lock 11 (step S116)." in par. [0056]),
a login panel (see Fig. 9a for the user-control; implicit input device for inputting the "operator ID"), where users are allowed to log in via an alpha-numeric pad with a password allocated to the users within a framework of authorizations of the users (see e.g., para. [0047]: "FIG. 9(a) shows an example of the user registration screen. Input of user information which is used for performing user registration, such as an email address, a user name and a password, is received on the user registration screen, and unique identification of the corresponding user is enabled in management system 1."; the "operator ID" is associated with a plurality of facilities, i.e. locks; para. [0040]: "appliance database 101 stores an operator ID (Identifier), which is an identifier for identifying an operator"),
a control panel ("appliance controller 105") used for controlling entered passwords and for performing an activation of the smart lock system (e.g., par. [0044]: "appliance controller 105 controls smart lock 11"), and
multiple access points (para. [0039]: "plurality of smart locks 11"; para. [0038]: "Smart lock 11 is used by being installed at a door of a facility. Smart lock 11 is an electronic lock, an electrical lock or the like that can be operated by electrical signals, and is capable of unlocking or locking the door. ") acting according to a command of the control panel ("appliance controller 105");
wherein the smart lock system is configured to enable unlocking of the locks and/or locks of the users by using biometric and/or user-defined data and/or by providing activation in different options with any card and/or password configured to enable the activation (see e.g., para. [0043] & [0045]-[0047]).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima in view of Clausen (WIPO Publication No. WO0152199A2).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Terashima does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control panel allows the users to log in to the smart lock system through biological data comprising palm, fingerprint, and/or retinal scans, instead of logging in through an alpha-numeric pad with the password allocated to the users within the framework of authorizations of the users.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Clausen teaches: wherein the control panel allows the users to log in to the smart lock system through biological data comprising palm, fingerprint, and/or retinal scans, instead of logging in through an alpha-numeric pad with the password allocated to the users within the framework of authorizations of the users (see e.g., Description, page 1, para. [1]: "a method for depositing goods in at least one locker with at least one lockable door or flap in a locker system with a computer-controlled electronic locking system for actuating the lock of the door or the flap of the locker by means of an electronic key system, in particular by means of numerical or alphanumeric input means, chip card, magnetic card, barcode, transponder chip, biometric sensors or a mobile phone").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Terashima to incorporate the teachings of Clausen to provide allowing the users to log in to the smart lock system through biological data comprising palm, fingerprint, and/or retinal scans, instead of logging in through an alpha-numeric pad with the password. Doing so allows the users to log in through the login panel using either an alpha-numeric password or well-known alternatives such as biometric data.
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Terashima does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control panel allows the users to log in via the user's card instead of logging in via an alpha-numeric pad with the password allocated to the users within the framework of authorizations of the users.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Clausen teaches: wherein the control panel allows the users to log in via the user's card instead of logging in via an alpha-numeric pad with the password allocated to the users within the framework of authorizations of the users (see e.g., Description, page 1, para. [1]: "a method for depositing goods in at least one locker with at least one lockable door or flap in a locker system with a computer-controlled electronic locking system for actuating the lock of the door or the flap of the locker by means of an electronic key system, in particular by means of numerical or alphanumeric input means, chip card, magnetic card, barcode, transponder chip, biometric sensors or a mobile phone").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Terashima to incorporate the teachings of Clausen to provide allowing the users to log in via the user's card instead of logging in via an alpha-numeric pad with the password. Doing so allows the users to log in through the login panel using either an alpha-numeric password or well-known alternatives such as smart card.
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Terashima does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control panel allows the users to log in with a help of a mobile application containing a QR generator and/or reader instead of logging in via an alpha-numeric pad with the password assigned to the users within the framework of authorizations of the users.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Clausen teaches: wherein the control panel allows the users to log in with a help of a mobile application containing a QR generator and/or reader instead of logging in via an alpha-numeric pad with the password assigned to the users within the framework of authorizations of the users (see e.g., Description, page 1, para. [1]: "a method for depositing goods in at least one locker with at least one lockable door or flap in a locker system with a computer-controlled electronic locking system for actuating the lock of the door or the flap of the locker by means of an electronic key system, in particular by means of numerical or alphanumeric input means, chip card, magnetic card, barcode, transponder chip, biometric sensors or a mobile phone").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Terashima to incorporate the teachings of Clausen to provide allowing the users to log in with a help of a mobile application containing a QR generator and/or reader instead of logging in via an alpha-numeric pad with the password. Doing so allows the users to log in through the login panel using either an alpha-numeric password or well-known alternatives such as mobile phone application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 5 and 8-10, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claim taken as a whole, wherein a display time for a respective lock/door opening image on the control panel screen for a door/lock with a high level of risk is t1>>ty2.
Regarding claims 6 and 11-14, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claim taken as a whole, wherein a display time of a respective lock/door opening image on the control panel screen for a door/lock with a low-risk level is t1=td2.
No smart lock system with multiple locks that comprise at least one lock with a low risk level and at least one lock with a high risk level seems to be known in the available prior art, in which, after authenticated user login, the lock/door opening image with a high risk is displayed for a first display time ty2 and the lock/door opening image with a |ow risk is displayed for a second display time t1 with t1 >> ty2.
Regarding claims 7 and 15-19, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claim taken as a whole, wherein an access point is tu3>>ty3, similar to a physical distance to the control panel, during which the control panel triggers for opening an access point standing next to the control panel in a period of “ty3”, while the triggering is performed after a time period of “tu3” for a more distant access point.
The prior arts do not teach the triggering of the opening of an access point depends on the physical distance between the access point and the current location of the authenticated user such that the control panel is configured to trigger the opening after a time tu3 for a more distant access point and after a time ty3 for an access point in proximity of the user with tu3 >> ty3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Ben Ayed (U.S. Patent No. 8646060) discloses a method for facilitating login using adaptive authentication. The method uses different authentication methods and different data protection methods depending on the user location, availability of network, importance of the data.
Ho et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0319639) discloses access management systems and methods for managing electronic locks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights