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 instant application having application No. 19/012,752 for VOELKER et al. for “VEHICLE THERMAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES” filed January 07, 2025, which a preliminary amendment submitted on February 17, 2026 has been examined.
Drawings
Drawings Figures 1-5E submitted on January 07, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 10-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by the Prior Art of ELSE et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,887,421 B1) hereafter “Else” in view of the Prior Art of ALMOMANI et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2018/0068541 A1) hereafter “Almomani”.
As to claim 1, Else discloses a lock system (system, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 4, lines 31-67) comprising: a plurality of locks (lock devices 12 and 14 [i.e. a plurality of locks], shown in Figures 1-2); a primary lock (lock device 12 [i.e. a primary lock], shown in Figures 1-2) being one of the plurality of locks (shown in Figure 1), wherein the primary lock comprises a primary lock controller (Primary lock device 12 may include a primary lock controller unit 16 [i.e. wherein the primary lock comprises a primary lock controller], shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, lines 46-48); at least one sensor in communication with the primary lock controller (when primary lock device 12 receives a user input (e.g., via a fingerprint sensor on the primary lock device 12), the primary lock device 12 looks up the stored lock configuration, and determines whether to lock or unlock the primary lock device 12 in response to the user input [i.e. at least one sensor in communication with the primary lock controller], described in Column 6, line 64 - Column 7, line 2), the at least one sensor being capable of detecting at least one stimulus and capable of transmitting stimulus data to the primary lock (primary lock device 12 may be configured to store the lock configuration in memory and implement the lock configuration, such that, when primary lock device 12 receives a user input (e.g., via a fingerprint sensor on the primary lock device 12), the primary lock device 12 looks up the stored lock configuration, and determines whether to lock or unlock the primary lock device 12 in response to the user input [i.e. at least one sensor in communication with the primary lock controller, the at least one sensor being capable of detecting at least one stimulus and capable of transmitting stimulus data to the primary lock], described in Column 6, line 6 - Column 7, line 15); the primary lock controller being capable of activating at least one primary response and generating at least one signal upon receiving information from the data (primary lock device 12 may receive, from premises security system hub device 22, a lock configuration or instruction to engage a lock mechanism [i.e. the primary lock controller being capable of activating at least one primary response and generating at least one signal upon receiving information from the data], described in Column in Column 6, lines 13-16); and at least one secondary lock being another one of the plurality of locks (secondary lock devices 14 [i.e. at least one secondary lock being another one of the plurality of locks], shown in Figures 1-2), the at least one secondary lock comprising a corresponding at least one secondary lock controller (secondary lock device 14 may include a secondary lock controller unit 17 [i.e. at least one secondary lock comprising a corresponding at least one secondary lock controller], shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 4, lines 46-51); the primary lock controller and the secondary lock controller being in direct communication with each other (Premises security system 11 may further include a network 18, which may be, e.g., an ad-hoc and/or mesh network, and which may be for enabling wireless communication among the primary lock device 12 and the secondary lock devices 14 [i.e. the primary lock controller and the secondary lock controller being in direct communication with each other], shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 4, lines 52-56), the at least one secondary lock controller being capable of receiving a signal transmitted from the primary lock controller, the at least one secondary lock controller being capable of activating at least one secondary lock configuration response upon receiving the signal from the primary lock controller (primary lock device 12 may receive, from premises security system hub device 22, a lock configuration or instruction to engage a lock mechanism for all secondary lock devices 14 in Zone A of the premises security system 11. Primary lock device 12 may determine which secondary lock devices 14 it has a direct wireless connection to, e.g., secondary lock device 14a. Primary lock device 12 may then forward the lock configuration or instruction to secondary lock device 14a, and/or may process the lock configuration or instruction, generate a new or modified lock configuration or instruction, and transmit the new or modified lock configuration or instruction to the secondary lock device 14a [i.e. at least one secondary lock controller being capable of receiving a signal transmitted from the primary lock controller, the at least one secondary lock controller being capable of activating at least one secondary lock configuration response upon receiving the signal from the primary lock controller], shown in Figures 4-5 and described in Column 6, lines 13-24).
Else does not expressly disclose emergency response, emergency signal, data indicating an emergency, and receiving an emergency signal.
In similar filed of endeavor, having Almomani disclosing a lock system (system, shown in Figures 1-8 and described in Paragraphs 0021-0026) comprising: “provide a way to help occupants locate and reach an exit in the event of an emergency situation. The electronic lock will help occupants locate and operate the nearest exit door to help them reach safety by providing visual and/or auditory guides. The indications could be through sirens/beeps/voice direction and/or visually through colored lights/animations. The solution can be applied to both exterior doors as well as interior doors. Interior doors could be programmed so that any door leading to an exit door would provide one type of indication (indicating to proceed through the door toward an exit) and a door that does not lead to an exit (i.e. a closet door) could provide a different type of indication (used strictly for orientation to locate another door leading to an exit). Additionally, if the electronic lock is so equipped, it could provide alerts based on any potential hazards that may exist on the other side of the door (elevated temperatures, poor air quality, etc.).”, described in Paragraph 0010). and “The electronic lock may receive information from either a hub/gateway 26, connected outlets/adaptors within the home, or from connected devices themselves. If any established undesirable condition exists when the electronic lock 20 is activated via the thumb turn 21, the electronic lock can communicate the existence of said condition through an audible and/or visual alert. The alert can be in the form of a visual indication (light/screen/etc.), audible indication (sound/speech/etc.), or tactile indication (vibration). The alert could be specific (i.e. speech indicating that there is a fire in the kitchen) or more generic (i.e. a red light indicating that one of any number of conditions has been met that should trigger an alert) depending on the capabilities of the specific lock/system. If the electronic lock 20 has the capability to track home occupancy, the electronic lock 20 logic could be programmed so that conditions are established based on both hub 26 device status and home occupancy (i.e. an alert is triggered only when the stove is on and the last person is leaving the house).”, described in Paragraph 0041, meet the claimed [i.e. a door lock system including an emergency response that transmit emergency signal, wherein the data indicating an emergency, and receiving an emergency signal]).
Thus, given the lock system of Else and having the teaching of Almomani disclosing a door lock system including an emergency response that transmit emergency signal, wherein the data indicating an emergency, and receiving an emergency signal that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Else by incorporating the teaching of Almomani such that the lock system of Else to provide a lock system comprising: a plurality of locks; a primary lock being one of the plurality of locks, wherein the primary lock comprises a primary lock controller; at least one sensor in communication with the primary lock controller, the at least one sensor being capable of detecting at least one stimulus and capable of transmitting stimulus data to the primary lock; the primary lock controller being capable of activating at least one primary emergency response and generating at least one emergency signal upon receiving information from the data indicating an emergency; and at least one secondary lock being another one of the plurality of locks, the at least one secondary lock comprising a corresponding at least one secondary lock controller; the primary lock controller and the secondary lock controller being in direct communication with each other, the at least one secondary lock controller being capable of receiving an emergency signal transmitted from the primary lock controller, the at least one secondary lock controller being capable of activating at least one secondary emergency response upon receiving the emergency signal from the primary lock controller, for the obvious advantages suggested by Almomani (described in Paragraphs 0010-0011).
As to claim 2, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Almomani discloses wherein the at least one primary emergency response corresponds to the at least one stimulus received by the sensor (the electronic lock 20, an alert may be transmitted and/or an alarm activated. Another alert or alarm may be activated should an unauthorized user bypass the door lock and gain entry to the dwelling. This may be sensed through motion sensors within the smart home 1 or with other known sensors on windows or doors, described in Paragraph 0023, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the at least one primary emergency response corresponds to the at least one stimulus received by the sensor]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Almomani discloses wherein the at least one primary emergency response is equivalent to the at least one secondary response (the electronic lock 20, an alert may be transmitted and/or an alarm activated. Another alert or alarm may be activated should an unauthorized user bypass the door lock and gain entry to the dwelling. This may be sensed through motion sensors within the smart home 1 or with other known sensors on windows or doors, described in Paragraph 0023, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the at least one primary emergency response is equivalent to the at least one secondary response]).
As to claim 4, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Almomani discloses wherein the at least one primary emergency response (Interior doors could be programmed so that any door leading to an exit door would provide one type of indication (indicating to proceed through the door toward an exit), described in Paragraph 0010) differs from the at least one secondary response (a door that does not lead to an exit (i.e. a closet door) could provide a different type of indication (used strictly for orientation to locate another door leading to an exit)., described in Paragraph 0010, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the at least one primary emergency response]).
As to claim 5, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 4, further Almomani discloses wherein the emergency signal causes the at least one primary emergency response to differ from the at least one secondary emergency response (a child 62 may be given access to a bedroom door 70, but not to a bathroom door 68. The child 62 may monitor and track this access though a mobile device 40, such as a smart phone or the like with limited control. As discussed above, access may be controlled through known devices such as RFID tags, smart phone authentication, video scans, and the like. Each door, 64, 66, 68, and 70, may scan and track access through such devices., described in Paragraph 0034, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the emergency signal causes the at least one primary emergency response to differ from the at least one secondary emergency response]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 4, further Almomani discloses wherein the primary lock is a distance from the secondary lock; the distance causing the at least one primary emergency response to differ from the at least one secondary response (The indications could be through sirens/beeps/voice direction and/or visually through colored lights/animations. The solution can be applied to both exterior doors as well as interior doors. Interior doors could be programmed so that any door leading to an exit door would provide one type of indication (indicating to proceed through the door toward an exit) and a door that does not lead to an exit (i.e. a closet door) could provide a different type of indication (used strictly for orientation to locate another door leading to an exit), described in Paragraph 0010).
As to claim 7, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Else discloses wherein the primary emergency response alters a primary lock function of the primary lock, and the secondary emergency response alters a secondary lock function of the secondary lock (primary lock device 12 may receive, from premises security system hub device 22, a lock configuration or instruction to engage a lock mechanism for all secondary lock devices 14 in Zone A of the premises security system 11. Primary lock device 12 may determine which secondary lock devices 14 it has a direct wireless connection to, e.g., secondary lock device 14a. Primary lock device 12 may then forward the lock configuration or instruction to secondary lock device 14a, and/or may process the lock configuration or instruction, generate a new or modified lock configuration or instruction, and transmit the new or modified lock configuration or instruction to the secondary lock device 14a, shown in Figures 4-5 and described in Column 6, lines 13-24, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the primary emergency response alters a primary lock function of the primary lock, and the secondary emergency response alters a secondary lock function of the secondary lock]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Else discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of locks are in further communication with an external system, wherein the at least one primary emergency response further comprises transmitting at least one emergency signal to the external system (Premises security system 11 may further include a network 19, which may be, e.g., a wireless local area network (WLAN), which may include one or more routers, hubs, etc., and which may enable one or more entities of system 10 to communicate with one another and/or with a remote server 20 (e.g., via a public internet connection). In some embodiment, networks 18 and 19 may be a single network. System 10 also includes remote server 20. Remote server 20 may include, e.g., a cloud-based server, which may provide one or more functionalities described herein, e.g., with respect to the monitoring, configuring, etc., the entities of premises security system 11., discloses in Column 4, lines 56-67, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein at least one of the plurality of locks are in further communication with an external system, wherein the at least one primary emergency response further comprises transmitting at least one emergency signal to the external system]).
As to claim 11, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Else discloses wherein the plurality of locks form a mesh network (security system 11 may further include a network 18, which may be, e.g., an ad-hoc and/or mesh network, and which may be for enabling wireless communication among the primary lock device 12 and the secondary lock devices 14, described in Column 5, lines 52-56, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the plurality of locks form a mesh network]).
As to claim 12, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 11, further Else discloses wherein the mesh network comprises at least one additional secondary lock being another one of the plurality of locks, the at least one additional secondary lock having an additional secondary lock controller, the at least one secondary lock controller and the at least one additional secondary lock controller being in direct communication with each other, the at least one additional secondary lock controller being capable of receiving a secondary emergency signal transmitted from the secondary lock controller, the at least one additional secondary lock controller being capable of activating at least one additional secondary emergency response upon receiving the secondary emergency signal from the at least one secondary lock (Premises security system 11 may further include a network 18, which may be, e.g., an ad-hoc and/or mesh network, and which may be for enabling wireless communication among the primary lock device 12 and the secondary lock devices 14. Premises security system 11 may further include a network 19, which may be, e.g., a wireless local area network (WLAN), which may include one or more routers, hubs, etc., and which may enable one or more entities of system 10 to communicate with one another and/or with a remote server 20 (e.g., via a public internet connection). In some embodiment, networks 18 and 19 may be a single network. System 10 also includes remote server 20. Remote server 20 may include, e.g., a cloud-based server, which may provide one or more functionalities described herein, e.g., with respect to the monitoring, configuring, etc., the entities of premises security system 11., described in Column 4, line 52 - Column 5, line 9, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the mesh network comprises at least one additional secondary lock being another one of the plurality of locks, the at least one additional secondary lock having an additional secondary lock controller, the at least one secondary lock controller and the at least one additional secondary lock controller being in direct communication with each other, the at least one additional secondary lock controller being capable of receiving a secondary emergency signal transmitted from the secondary lock controller, the at least one additional secondary lock controller being capable of activating at least one additional secondary emergency response upon receiving the secondary emergency signal from the at least one secondary lock]).
As to claim 13, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Almomani discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of locks is an ending lock engaged in an emergency response, the ending lock having an ending lock controller, the ending lock controller receiving an ending input indicating an end of the emergency so that the ending lock transitions from the emergency response into an ending response (Should the electronic lock 20 sense the hazard, it can activate escape and/or emergency mode. This mode may include unlocking all doors 14 within the smart home and guiding occupants to the exit by emitting audio, light or other signals., described in Paragraph 0040, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein at least one of the plurality of locks is an ending lock engaged in an emergency response, the ending lock having an ending lock controller, the ending lock controller receiving an ending input indicating an end of the emergency so that the ending lock transitions from the emergency response into an ending response]).
As to claim 14, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 13, further Else discloses wherein the ending lock controller provides an output indicating the end of the emergency to at least one lock controller of a lock of the plurality of locks in direct connection to the ending lock (when primary lock device 12 receives a user input (e.g., via a fingerprint sensor on the primary lock device 12), the primary lock device 12 looks up the stored lock configuration, and determines whether to lock or unlock the primary lock device 12 in response to the user input, and may further determine which, if any, secondary lock devices 14 to unlock or lock in response to the user input. Thus, in some embodiments, the lock configuration received (e.g., from the premises security system hub device 22, interface device 21, and/or from another entity in system 10, and/or configured by a user, and/or preconfigured such as during manufacture) may cause the primary lock device 12 (and/or one or more secondary lock devices 14) to lock or unlock in response to receiving the configuration, and/or the lock configuration may cause the primary lock device 12 (and/or one or more secondary lock devices 14) to respond to user input (e.g., a fingerprint sensor input) according to the lock configuration, described in Column 6, line 64 - Column 7, line 15, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the ending lock controller provides an output indicating the end of the emergency to at least one lock controller of a lock of the plurality of locks in direct connection to the ending lock]).
As to claim 15, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 13, further Else discloses wherein the ending input is provided by a user, said user being validated by the lock system (Primary lock device 12 is configured to authenticate (Block S104) the user input, as described herein. In some embodiments, authenticating the user input may include comparing the received user input with a reference user input, e.g., which may be stored in memory 34, indicated in the lock configuration, etc. In some embodiments, authenticating may include transmitting the received user input to another entity in system 10, e.g., premises security system hub device 22, user interface device 21, remote server 20, etc., which performs at least a portion of the authentication procedure, and returns an indication of a result of the authentication (e.g., whether it was successful or not), described in Column 11, line 47-58, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the ending input is provided by a user, said user being validated by the lock system]).
As to claim 16, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Almomani discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, wherein the first sensor is capable of detecting a first stimulus (The electronic lock 20 may also be integrated with on-board sensors to perform these functions or may communicate via wired/wireless connections with other sensors, described in Paragraph 0031, met the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, wherein the first sensor is capable of detecting a first stimulus]) and the second sensor is capable of detecting a second stimulus, wherein the lock system generates an emergency response based on a fusion of the data from the at least one stimulus and the second stimulus (A user 18 may also monitor how many occupants are within the dwelling and also monitor the identity of each occupant. This may be accomplished by communicating with the electronic lock 20 and receiving information regarding door 14 access that has been granted as well as receiving information from other sensors within the home, described in Paragraph 0033, met the claimed limitations [i.e. the second sensor is capable of detecting a second stimulus, wherein the lock system generates an emergency response based on a fusion of the data from the at least one stimulus and the second stimulus]).
As to claim 17, Else discloses a responding lock within a lock system (system, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 4, lines 31-67), the lock system including a plurality of locks (lock devices 12 and 14 [i.e. a plurality of locks], shown in Figures 1-2), one of the plurality of locks being a primary lock (lock device 12 [i.e. a primary lock], shown in Figures 1-2) and another of the plurality of locks (shown in Figure 1) being a secondary lock (secondary lock devices 14 [i.e. a secondary lock], shown in Figures 1-2), the primary lock being capable of activating at least one primary emergency response (primary lock device 12 may receive, from premises security system hub device 22, a lock configuration or instruction to engage a lock mechanism, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. the primary lock being capable of activating at least one primary emergency response], described in Column in Column 6, lines 13-16) based upon input from at least one sensor capable of detecting at least one stimulus indicating an emergency a lock configuration (primary lock device 12 may be configured to store the lock configuration in memory and implement the lock configuration, such that, when primary lock device 12 receives a user input (e.g., via a fingerprint sensor on the primary lock device 12), the primary lock device 12 looks up the stored lock configuration, and determines whether to lock or unlock the primary lock device 12 in response to the user input, described in Column 6, line 6 - Column 7, line 15, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. based upon input from at least one sensor capable of detecting at least one stimulus indicating a lock configuration]), the responding lock configured to be in communication with the primary lock (when primary lock device 12 receives a user input (e.g., via a fingerprint sensor on the primary lock device 12), the primary lock device 12 looks up the stored lock configuration, and determines whether to lock or unlock the primary lock device 12 in response to the user input, described in Column 6, line 64 - Column 7, line 2, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. the responding lock configured to be in communication with the primary lock]) and configured to receive an emergency signal transmitted from the primary lock, the secondary lock being capable of activating at least one secondary emergency response upon receiving the emergency signal from the primary lock (primary lock device 12 may receive, from premises security system hub device 22, a lock configuration or instruction to engage a lock mechanism for all secondary lock devices 14 in Zone A of the premises security system 11. Primary lock device 12 may determine which secondary lock devices 14 it has a direct wireless connection to, e.g., secondary lock device 14a. Primary lock device 12 may then forward the lock configuration or instruction to secondary lock device 14a, and/or may process the lock configuration or instruction, generate a new or modified lock configuration or instruction, and transmit the new or modified lock configuration or instruction to the secondary lock device 14a, shown in Figures 4-5 and described in Column 6, lines 13-24, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. configured to receive a signal transmitted from the primary lock, the secondary lock being capable of activating at least one secondary response upon receiving the signal from the primary lock]).
Else does not expressly disclose emergency response, emergency signal, data indicating an emergency, and receiving an emergency signal.
In similar filed of endeavor, having Almomani disclosing a lock system (system, shown in Figures 1-8 and described in Paragraphs 0021-0026) comprising: “provide a way to help occupants locate and reach an exit in the event of an emergency situation. The electronic lock will help occupants locate and operate the nearest exit door to help them reach safety by providing visual and/or auditory guides. The indications could be through sirens/beeps/voice direction and/or visually through colored lights/animations. The solution can be applied to both exterior doors as well as interior doors. Interior doors could be programmed so that any door leading to an exit door would provide one type of indication (indicating to proceed through the door toward an exit) and a door that does not lead to an exit (i.e. a closet door) could provide a different type of indication (used strictly for orientation to locate another door leading to an exit). Additionally, if the electronic lock is so equipped, it could provide alerts based on any potential hazards that may exist on the other side of the door (elevated temperatures, poor air quality, etc.).”, described in Paragraph 0010). and “The electronic lock may receive information from either a hub/gateway 26, connected outlets/adaptors within the home, or from connected devices themselves. If any established undesirable condition exists when the electronic lock 20 is activated via the thumb turn 21, the electronic lock can communicate the existence of said condition through an audible and/or visual alert. The alert can be in the form of a visual indication (light/screen/etc.), audible indication (sound/speech/etc.), or tactile indication (vibration). The alert could be specific (i.e. speech indicating that there is a fire in the kitchen) or more generic (i.e. a red light indicating that one of any number of conditions has been met that should trigger an alert) depending on the capabilities of the specific lock/system. If the electronic lock 20 has the capability to track home occupancy, the electronic lock 20 logic could be programmed so that conditions are established based on both hub 26 device status and home occupancy (i.e. an alert is triggered only when the stove is on and the last person is leaving the house).”, described in Paragraph 0041, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. a door lock system including an emergency response that transmit emergency signal, wherein the data indicating an emergency, and receiving an emergency signal]).
Thus, given the lock system of Else and having the teaching of Almomani disclosing a door lock system including an emergency response that transmit emergency signal, wherein the data indicating an emergency, and receiving an emergency signal that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Else by incorporating the teaching of Almomani such that the lock system of Else to provide a responding lock within a lock system, the lock system including a plurality of locks, one of the plurality of locks being a primary lock and another of the plurality of locks being a secondary lock, the primary lock being capable of activating at least one primary emergency response based upon input from at least one sensor capable of detecting at least one stimulus indicating an emergency, the responding lock configured to be in communication with the primary lock and configured to receive an emergency signal transmitted from the primary lock, the secondary lock being capable of activating at least one secondary emergency response upon receiving the emergency signal from the primary lock, for the obvious advantages suggested by Almomani (described in Paragraphs 0010-0011).
As to claim 18, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 17, further Else discloses wherein the responding lock is configured to activate at least one emergency response based upon a sensor input from at least one additional sensor capable of detecting at least one stimulus (the premises security system hub device 22 (e.g., hub controller unit 23) may be configured to perform a machine learning procedure to determine the lock configuration. For example, in a first phase (training phase), the premises security system hub device 22 monitors which primary lock device(s) 12 and which secondary lock device(s) 14 are unlocked (e.g., manually unlocked) by a user A when user A enters the premises. For example, user A may typically unlock a primary lock device 12 and shortly thereafter, unlocks (e.g., manually unlocks) a secondary lock device 14, e.g., a deadbolt attached to the same structure 13 as primary lock device 12, described in Column 15, lines 48-59, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the responding lock is configured to activate at least one emergency response based upon a sensor input from at least one additional sensor capable of detecting at least one stimulus]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 18, further Almomani discloses wherein the responding lock is configured to be in communication with the secondary lock, the responding lock configured to transmit a secondary emergency signal to the secondary lock and a primary emergency signal to the primary lock, so that the emergency signal activates at least one primary emergency response by the primary lock and at least one secondary emergency response by the secondary lock (the electronic lock 20, an alert may be transmitted and/or an alarm activated. Another alert or alarm may be activated should an unauthorized user bypass the door lock and gain entry to the dwelling. This may be sensed through motion sensors within the smart home 1 or with other known sensors on windows or doors, described in Paragraph 0023, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the responding lock is configured to be in communication with the secondary lock, the responding lock configured to transmit a secondary emergency signal to the secondary lock and a primary emergency signal to the primary lock, so that the emergency signal activates at least one primary emergency response by the primary lock and at least one secondary emergency response by the secondary lock]).
As to claim 20, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 19, further Else discloses wherein the responding lock in an emergency response, is configured to receive an ending input indicating an end of the emergency so that the responding lock transitions from the emergency response into an ending response (causing transmission of the lock indication to at least one secondary lock device 14 for configuring the at least one secondary lock device 14 comprises causing transmission of the lock indication to a first secondary lock device 14, where the lock indication configures the first secondary lock device 14 to forward the lock indication to at least one additional secondary lock device 14. According to one or more embodiments, the user input is received from one of a user interface device 21 and the premises security system hub device 22 via a first radio access technology (RAT), and the forwarding of the lock indication to the at least one additional secondary lock device 14 is via a second RAT different from the first RAT. According to one or more embodiments, the lock configuration is received from the premises security system hub device 22 via a first radio access technology (RAT), and the forwarding of the lock indication to the at least one additional secondary lock device 14 is via a second RAT different from the first RAT, described in Column 13, lines 7-25, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the responding lock in an emergency response, is configured to receive an ending input indicating an end of the emergency so that the responding lock transitions from the emergency response into an ending response]).
As to claim 21, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 20, further Else discloses wherein the responding lock is configured, based on the ending input, to generate an ending signal and transmit the ending signal to the primary lock and the secondary lock so that the primary and secondary locks enter the ending response (causing transmission of the lock indication to at least one secondary lock device 14 for configuring the at least one secondary lock device 14 comprises causing transmission of the lock indication to a first secondary lock device 14, where the lock indication configures the first secondary lock device 14 to forward the lock indication to at least one additional secondary lock device 14. According to one or more embodiments, the user input is received from one of a user interface device 21 and the premises security system hub device 22 via a first radio access technology (RAT), and the forwarding of the lock indication to the at least one additional secondary lock device 14 is via a second RAT different from the first RAT. According to one or more embodiments, the lock configuration is received from the premises security system hub device 22 via a first radio access technology (RAT), and the forwarding of the lock indication to the at least one additional secondary lock device 14 is via a second RAT different from the first RAT, described in described in Column 13, lines 7-25, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the responding lock is configured, based on the ending input, to generate an ending signal and transmit the ending signal to the primary lock and the secondary lock so that the primary and secondary locks enter the ending response]).
As to claim 22, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 17, further Else discloses wherein the at least one primary emergency response, and the at least one secondary emergency response are coordinated to lock a plurality of doors within a building to sequester a first area having an emergency within the building from a second area within the building (the lock configuration comprises a first lock group comprising at least one secondary lock device 14, and a second lock group comprising at least one secondary lock device 14 (e.g., one or more different secondary lock devices 14 which are not in the first lock group), and the lock indication is configured to engage the respective lock mechanism hardware 38 of each secondary lock device 14 of the first lock group, and disengage the respective lock mechanism hardware 38 of each secondary lock device 14 of the second lock group. According to one or more embodiments, the first lock group is associated with a first area in the premises (e.g., a bedroom, a basement, an office, a storage closet, a server room, etc.), and the second lock group is associated with a second area in the premises different from the first area. According to one or more embodiments, the first lock group is associated with a first user permission level and the second lock group is associated with a second user permission level different from the first user permission level, described in Column 15, lines 48-59, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the at least one primary emergency response, and the at least one secondary emergency response are coordinated to lock a plurality of doors within a building to sequester a first area having an emergency within the building from a second area within the building]).
As to claim 23, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, further Else discloses wherein the primary lock controller is configured to use artificial intelligence to determine the emergency based on the data (the premises security system hub device 22 (e.g., hub controller unit 23) may be configured to perform a machine learning procedure to determine the lock configuration, described in Column 15, lines 48-59, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the primary lock controller is configured to use artificial intelligence to determine the emergency based on the data]).
As to claim 24, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 17, further Else discloses wherein the primary lock is configured to use artificial intelligence to process the at least one stimulus indicating the emergency(the premises security system hub device 22 (e.g., hub controller unit 23) may be configured to perform a machine learning procedure to determine the lock configuration, described in Column 15, lines 48-59, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the primary lock controller is configured to use artificial intelligence to determine the emergency based on the data]).
As to claim 25, Else discloses a lock system (system, shown in Figure 1 and described in Column 4, lines 31-67) comprising: a plurality of electronic locks (lock devices 12 and 14 [i.e. a plurality of locks], shown in Figures 1-2) comprising: a primary lock (lock device 12 [i.e. a primary lock], shown in Figures 1-2) comprising a sensor (fingerprint sensor on the primary lock device 12 [i.e. a sensor], described in Column 6, line 64 - Column 7, line 2) and a controller (a primary lock controller unit 16 [i.e. a controller], shown in Figure 2 and described in Column 3, lines 46-48) in communication with the sensor (shown in Figure 2), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a stimulus, and wherein the controller is configured to determine an event with artificial intelligence based on the detected stimulus; and a secondary lock in communication with the primary lock (the premises security system hub device 22 (e.g., hub controller unit 23) may be configured to perform a machine learning procedure to determine the lock configuration. For example, in a first phase (training phase), the premises security system hub device 22 monitors which primary lock device(s) 12 and which secondary lock device(s) 14 are unlocked (e.g., manually unlocked) by a user A when user A enters the premises. For example, user A may typically unlock a primary lock device 12 and shortly thereafter, unlocks (e.g., manually unlocks) a secondary lock device 14, e.g., a deadbolt attached to the same structure 13 as primary lock device 12, described in Column 15, lines 48-59, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the sensor is configured to detect an stimulus, and wherein the controller is configured to determine an event with artificial intelligence [machine learning procedure] based on the detected stimulus; and a secondary lock in communication with the primary lock]), wherein the primary lock is configured to transmit a signal to the secondary lock indicating that the event has been determined (The premises security system hub device 22 records (e.g., in memory 60) the instance of the secondary lock device(s) 14 being unlocked shortly after the primary lock device 12 (e.g., implying that these two or more locks are associated or paired). The time difference may be a preconfigured threshold, e.g., any secondary lock device 14 which is unlocked within 10 minutes of the primary lock device 12 results in a record of the two being paired, whereas if the time difference is greater than the threshold, then the two locks are not considered paired, and there is no recording made, described in Column 15, line 63 - Column 16, line 6, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the primary lock is configured to transmit a signal to the secondary lock indicating that the event has been determined]).
Else does not expressly disclose the stimulus being an environmental stimulus.
In similar filed of endeavor, having Almomani disclosing a lock system (system, shown in Figures 1-8 and described in Paragraphs 0021-0026) comprising: a sensor/s that detect/sense an environmental stimulus (Sensors associated within door locks can be used as tracking devices to monitor if activation of the sensor is off a typically occurring routine. This particularly will benefit monitoring minors/seniors and a notification or alert may be generated if the door is being used outside of this routine, described in Paragraph 0037).
Thus, given the lock system of Else and having the teaching of Almomani disclosing a door lock system including a sensor for sensing environmental stimulus that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Else by incorporating the teaching of Almomani such that the lock system of Else to provide a lock system comprising: a plurality of electronic locks comprising: a primary lock comprising a sensor and a controller in communication with the sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to detect an environmental stimulus, and wherein the controller is configured to determine an event with artificial intelligence based on the detected environmental stimulus; and a secondary lock in communication with the primary lock, wherein the primary lock is configured to transmit a signal to the secondary lock indicating that the event has been determined, for the obvious advantages suggested by Almomani (described in Paragraphs 0010-0011).
As to claim 26, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 25, further Almomani discloses wherein the primary lock is configured to initiate a primary emergency response based on the determined event (the electronic lock 20, an alert may be transmitted and/or an alarm activated. Another alert or alarm may be activated should an unauthorized user bypass the door lock and gain entry to the dwelling. This may be sensed through motion sensors within the smart home 1 or with other known sensors on windows or doors, described in Paragraph 0023, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the primary lock is configured to initiate a primary emergency response based on the determined event]).
As to claim 27, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 26, further Almomani discloses wherein the secondary lock is configured to initiate a secondary emergency response based on the signal received from the primary lock (the electronic lock 20, an alert may be transmitted and/or an alarm activated. Another alert or alarm may be activated should an unauthorized user bypass the door lock and gain entry to the dwelling. This may be sensed through motion sensors within the smart home 1 or with other known sensors on windows or doors, described in Paragraph 0023, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the secondary lock is configured to initiate a secondary emergency response based on the signal received from the primary lock]).
As to claim 28, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 25, further Else discloses wherein the secondary lock comprises a plurality of secondary locks, and wherein the primary lock is configured to transmit the signal to the plurality of secondary locks, the signal indicating that the event has been determined (when primary lock device 12 receives a user input (e.g., via a fingerprint sensor on the primary lock device 12), the primary lock device 12 looks up the stored lock configuration, and determines whether to lock or unlock the primary lock device 12 in response to the user input, and may further determine which, if any, secondary lock devices 14 to unlock or lock in response to the user input. Thus, in some embodiments, the lock configuration received (e.g., from the premises security system hub device 22, interface device 21, and/or from another entity in system 10, and/or configured by a user, and/or preconfigured such as during manufacture) may cause the primary lock device 12 (and/or one or more secondary lock devices 14) to lock or unlock in response to receiving the configuration, and/or the lock configuration may cause the primary lock device 12 (and/or one or more secondary lock devices 14) to respond to user input (e.g., a fingerprint sensor input) according to the lock configuration, described in Column 6, line 64 - Column 7, line 15, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the secondary lock comprises a plurality of secondary locks, and wherein the primary lock is configured to transmit the signal to the plurality of secondary locks, the signal indicating that the event has been determined]).
As to claim 29, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 25, further Almomani discloses wherein the sensor is configured to detect a plurality of environmental stimuli, and wherein the controller is configured to determine the event with artificial intelligence based on the plurality of environmental stimuli (the electronic lock 20, an alert may be transmitted and/or an alarm activated. Another alert or alarm may be activated should an unauthorized user bypass the door lock and gain entry to the dwelling. This may be sensed through motion sensors within the smart home 1 or with other known sensors on windows or doors, described in Paragraph 0023, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the sensor is configured to detect a plurality of environmental stimuli, and wherein the controller is configured to determine the event with artificial intelligence based on the plurality of environmental stimuli]).
As to claim 30, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 29, further Almomani discloses wherein the controller is configured to combine data from the plurality of environmental stimuli and use the combined data to determine the event (the electronic lock 20 monitors if there are any health/safety hazards. Health and safety hazards may include fire, smoke, carbon monoxide, breaking glass, or other injury-inducing events that are capable of being sensed with electronic sensors. Injury may be detected by monitoring for certain sounds such as breaking glass, loud yelling, crying, or other activities. Should the electronic lock 20 sense the hazard, it can activate escape and/or emergency mode. This mode may include unlocking all doors 14 within the smart home and guiding occupants to the exit by emitting audio, light or other signals, described in Paragraph 0023, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. wherein the controller is configured to combine data from the plurality of environmental stimuli and use the combined data to determine the event]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by the Prior Art of ELSE et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,887,421 B1) hereafter “Else” in view of the Prior Art of ALMOMANI et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2018/0068541 A1) hereafter “Almomani” and further in view of the Prior Art of ARMPRIESTER et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2020/0372768 A1) hereafter “Armpriester”.
As to claim 8, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, but the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one primary emergency response initiates an evacuation procedure.
Armpriester discloses a system comprising: an emergency response that initiates an evacuation procedure (systems can include notifications for lockdown, shelter-in-place, and/or evacuation of select buildings, floors or zones depending on the threat or critical incident … notification system can provide the means to evacuate specific areas/zones of the building depending on type of threat, described in Paragraphs 0004, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. at least one emergency response initiates an evacuation procedure]).
Thus, given the system of Else as modified by Almomani and having the teaching of Armpriester disclosing an emergency response that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Else as modified by Almomani in order to have wherein the at least one primary emergency response initiates an evacuation procedure, for the obvious advantages providing safety stated by Armpriester (Paragraph 0004).
As to claim 9, the combination of Else and Almomani as set forth above in claim 1, but the combination does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one primary emergency response initiates a lockdown procedure.
Armpriester discloses a system comprising: an emergency response that initiates a lockdown procedure (lockdown condition will cause the plurality of emergency response devices to perform a response protocol that is appropriate for the lockdown condition initiated. When a lockdown condition is initiated, the primary interface device 1 will notify the authorized users of the critical incident, described in Paragraphs 0004, meet the claimed limitations [i.e. at least one primary emergency response initiates a lockdown procedure]).
Thus, given the system of Else as modified by Almomani and having the teaching of Armpriester disclosing an emergency response that is also well-known and conventional in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Else as modified by Almomani in order to have wherein the at least one primary emergency response initiates a lockdown procedure, for the obvious advantages providing safety stated by Armpriester (Paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following cited arts are further to show the state of related art.
U.S. Patent No. 11,625,998 B2 to DERICKSON, discloses a peer-to-peer system for providing egress guidance. Each of a plurality of egress advisement devices can receive an indication of an emergency in a building and user presence information, transmit to a cloud data store a request for one or more egress plans, receive from the cloud data store a subset of the egress plans that are identified by matching a location identifier for each of the subset of the plans with the location information of the egress advisement device, locally select one of the subset of the plans that is customized for a location of the egress advisement device, a current location of users in the building in proximity to the egress advisement device, and a location of the emergency, and output the selected plan to guide one or more of the users in proximity to the egress advisement device to exit the building.
U.S. Publication No. 2021/0366214 A1 of GRANT et al, discloses a lock module for use with an electronic lock configured to selectively lock a lockable structure includes a communication subsystem configured to be communicatively coupled to a gateway and configured to be communicatively coupled to an electronic lock, wherein the communication subsystem is further configured to send an unlock signal to the electronic lock.
U.S. Publication No. 2024/0249574 A1 of GARDINER et al, discloses systems and methods for enabling a door lock coupled to a door in a building to operate in a lower-power state and achieve reduction of power usage, while still being able to timely receive high-priority messages through operation of an intermediary device. The door lock can establish an association with the intermediary device in a higher-power state and maintain the association with the intermediary device when the door lock switches to operating in the lower-power state. Maintaining the previously-established association with the intermediary device during the lower-power state enables timely receipt of high-priority messages by the door lock.
U.S. Patent No. 11,776,337 B1 to ELSE et al, discloses a primary lock device is provided which is configured to wirelessly communicate with a premises security system hub device and at least one secondary lock device in a premises security system. The primary lock device receives a lock configuration, receives a user input, authenticates the user input, and engages or disengages a locking mechanism based at least in part on the lock configuration and a result of authenticating the user input. The primary lock device determines a lock indication based at least in part on the lock configuration and a result of authenticating the user input, and transmits the lock indication to at least one secondary lock device for engaging or disengaging at least one respective lock mechanism of the at least one secondary lock device.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISAY YACOB whose telephone number is (571)272-8562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30-07:00 ET.
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, BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/SISAY YACOB/ April 29, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights