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
This action is in response to the amendment filed 6/4/26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22,32 and 38 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.
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.
Claim(s) 21,23-31,33-37,39,40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (9894066) and Dobyns (8838022).
Regarding claims 21 and 30, Conrad teaches scanning, by a computing device, for signals broadcast from wireless electronic locks within proximity to the computing device, the wireless electronic locks being compatible with a mobile application executing on the computing device;
identifying a set of wireless electronic locks to be updated based on the signals broadcast from the wireless electronic locks within proximity, wherein the set of wireless electronic locks includes at least a first wireless electronic lock and a second wireless electronic lock;
See Conrad Col. 38 line 47 to col. 39 line 13.
Prior to the updating firmware process, a lock owner may log in to the locking device software and see a notification message indicating a firmware update is available for a given locking device. The firmware notification may be sent to the owner, and co-owners. In some embodiments, the firmware update will scan all owners for normal (steady state) mobile application messaging, advertising and/or firmware update messaging. The notification message may include a description of the firmware update and what the update fixes or enables. The notification message may also indicate that the user must initiate the update from their mobile user device with their connected locking device in a certain range of proximity. In some embodiments, the user may receive a message to confirm they have the latest app version downloaded on their user device. In some embodiments, the server will provide the minimum app versions required to support the update in the update message. If the user does not have the minimum application version required, the user may receive another message indicating the user should download the latest version of the application. The user may choose to update now or to update later. The message may not expire if the user does not initiate the firmware update. If a previous notification of a firmware version update has not been cleared, the latest firmware version availability may override the previous notification. The user device may determine a previous notification was not cleared by checking the date stamp and/or the firmware version. The user device may show multiple connected device firmware updates if more than one device is connected (one firmware update per owned connected device). The message may be available when the user selects a device in the application. If no update is available, the message may indicate the device is up to date.
In an analogous art, Dobyns teaches: updating firmware of the first wireless electronic lock;
receiving, from the first wireless electronic lock, a message indicating that the firmware of the first wireless electronic lock has been updated;
updating firmware of the second wireless electronic lock; and
receiving, from the second wireless electronic lock, a message indicating that the firmware of the second wireless electronic lock has been updated.
See Dobyns col. 12 lines 5-19:
The wireless device(s) 126 can be configured to communicate with the pairing transceiver. For example, each wireless device can be configured to send an acknowledgement that it has received information from the pairing transceiver. Acknowledgements can also be communicated when the wireless devices have performed the desired actions in the pairing procedure, such as updating encryption keys, frequency, channel, and modulation information, and successfully performing software or firmware upgrades, and the like. If an acknowledgement is not received at the pairing transceiver, the information may be re-sent to the wireless device(s) that did not acknowledge. This can reduce the probability of a miscommunication that may keep a wireless device from receiving desired updates in the pairing procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the firmware updating technique of Dobyns in the system of Contrad in order to provide seamless updating of the devices.
Regarding claims 30, 31, 35 and 37, these claims are the method claims of claim 21’s apparatus and is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 23 and 36, Conrad teaches: a notification indicating that the firmware of the first wireless electronic lock has been updated; and presenting, at the computing device, a notification indicating that the firmware of the second wireless electronic lock has been updated.
Col. 37 line 45 to line 59
In some embodiments, the first server will request the firmware from a second server. The first server may request the firmware from the second server using the device identifier. In some embodiments, the update request may be in the form of an API request. The second server may receive the request for the firmware update from the first server (1716). If the first server finds that the device identifier has the more up to date firmware version then the first server may send a message to the user device identifier indicating no firmware update is needed. The user device may then display the message to the user. The first server may then update the firmware update state for the device identifier and/or user device identifier. The second server may go to the product library and retrieve the intel-hex firmware update package.
Regarding claim 24, the references do not explicitly use BLE protocol, but the examiner takes official notice that BLE protocol is proficiently well know in the art. Therefore it would be a simple substitution to use BLE for the generic protocol used in the above references.
Regarding claim 25, The above references teach range based on signal strengths as outlined in claim 25. See above citation.
Regarding claims 26 and 34 and 40, it is noted that the term simultaneous as used here is relative and very broad and could cover events happening within the same day. As such the limitations in this claim are taught by the discussion above involving Conrad and Dobyns.
Regarding claims 27, 29 and 33,39, Dobyns teaches updating the units’ firmware individually.
Regarding claim 28, it is shown by Conrad that the devices perform additional functions associated with locks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3059. The examiner can normally be reached m,t,tr 6-4; w,f 6-noon.
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.
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.
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
