DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated July 1, 2026. Claims 1-7, 10-14 and 16-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The claims of Application No. 19/025,089 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,230,118. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application No. 19/025,089 are obvious variants of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,230,118.
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 10-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the central server… the user mobile device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites “the central server… the user mobile device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites “the central server… the user mobile device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desinor (US 2018/0190056 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Desinor discloses a method of operating a keybox (see at least Figure 1, item 200 | [0040] note wireless lockbox 200), the method comprising:
using one or more sensors located in the keybox, determining a keycontainer in the keybox is in an initial position (see at least Figure 4, item 445 | [0042] note the key door sensor 445 detects when the tray/drawer 205 is closed (initial position) | [0059]);
generating one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer is in the initial position in the keybox in response to determining the keycontainer is in the initial position (see at least [0084] note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends notifications and updates during the buyer’s 2305 visit, wherein the notifications can include the lockbox is closed (initial position));
receiving credentials from a user device at the keybox for accessing the keybox (see at least [0065] note the buyer 2305 uses their mobile device 2335 to transmit an (encrypted) unlock code to the lockbox 200/2315 that only it can decrypt | [0077]);
authenticating the user device using the credentials (see at least [0065] | [0077] | [0084] note if approved, the user is presented with an open/close interface where they can press open);
enabling access to the keycontainer in response to authenticating the user device (see at least [0065] | [0077] | [0084] note the tray/drawer 205 is deployed or released);
using the one or more sensors, determining that the keycontainer has been released (see at least [0084] note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends a notification including the lockbox is opened (released position)); and
generating one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer has been released in response to determining the keybox has been released (see at least [0084]);
wherein the step of determining that the keycontainer has been released is performed by identifying a change in an output of the one or more sensors from when the keycontainer is in the initial position after the access to the keycontainer is enabled (see at least [0059] note the key door sensor can determine if the key tray is closed (initial position) or open (released position) | [0084] note the user can receive notifications that the lockbox is opened or closed).
Regarding claim 16, Desinor discloses wherein the one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer is in the initial position are generated using short-range wireless communication using one or more of radiofrequency identification, near-field communication, Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy, or ultra-wideband communications (see at least [0084] of Desinor, note the mobile device 2335 and lockbox 200/2315 pair with each other via Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 17, Desinor discloses receiving the one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer has been released at the user device, and, in response, generating an alert on the user device to a user thereof (see at least [0084] of Desinor, note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends a notification including the lockbox is opened (released position) to the user’s mobile device 2335).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desinor (US 2018/0190056 A1) in view of Fisher (US 2005/0207087 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Desinor discloses a keybox (see at least Figure 1, item 200 | [0040] note wireless lockbox 200) comprising:
a keycontainer configured to hold a key (see at least Figure 1, item 205 | [0040] note tray/drawer 205);
one or more sensors configured to sense and output signals of position information of the keycontainer inside the keybox (see at least Figure 4, item 445 | [0042] note the key door sensor 445 detects when the tray/drawer 205 is closed | [0059] note the key door sensor 445 can comprise any type of sensor for detecting when the key tray is closed or open | [0078] note the key door sensor 445 can detect blockage of the tray as it is being retracted or closed, that is, whether it is misplaced in the keybox);
a processor operatively connected with the one or more sensors, the processor configured to control access to the keycontainer in the keybox (see at least Figure 4, items 405 and 445 | [0040] note the microprocessor 445 can turn the screw 220 counterclockwise to deploy or open the tray/drawer 205, and clockwise to retract or close the tray/drawer 205 | [0042] note microprocessor 405);
non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by the processor (see at least Figure 4, item 470 | [0042] note the storage 470 provides storage space and/or memory for operating instructions used by the microprocessor 455);
wherein the instructions cause the processor to determine, using the signals output from the one or more sensors, whether the keycontainer is misplaced in the keybox, is in an initial position in the keybox or has been released from the keybox (see at least [0059] note the key door sensor 445 can comprise any type of sensor for detecting when the key tray is closed (initial position) or open (released position) | [0078] note the key door sensor 445 can detect blockage of the tray as it is being retracted or closed, that is, whether it is misplaced in the keybox | [0084] note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends notifications and updates during the buyer’s 2305 visit, wherein the notifications can include the arrival of the visitor/buyer, lockbox opening (released position), lockbox closing (initial position), key removal, key replacement, key being stolen alarm, battery level and more), and:
in response to the keycontainer being in the initial position, issue a first wireless communication message indicating the keycontainer is in the initial position (see at least [0059] note the key door sensor 445 can comprise any type of sensor for detecting when the key tray is closed (initial position) | [0084] note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends a notification including the lockbox is closed (initial position));
in response to the keycontainer being released, issue a second wireless communication message indicating the keycontainer is released (see at least [0059] note the key door sensor 445 can comprise any type of sensor for detecting when the key tray is open (released position) | [0084] note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends a notification including the lockbox is opened (released position)); and
in response to the determination of a status, issue a third wireless communication message indicating an alert (see at least [0080] note alerts can be sent by Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, cellular, or another means, for example, wireless lockbox 2130 may comprise a cellular interface by which alerts and notifications can be sent to remote device | [0078] note the key door sensor 445 can detect blockage of the tray as it is being retracted or closed, that is, whether it is misplaced in the keybox | [0084] note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends notifications and updates during the buyer’s 2305 visit, wherein the notifications can include the arrival of the visitor/buyer, lockbox opening (released position), lockbox closing (initial position), key removal, key replacement, key being stolen alarm, battery level and more).
However, Desinor does not specifically disclose in response to the keycontainer being misplaced in the keybox, issue a third wireless communication message indicating the keycontainer is misplaced in the keybox.
It is known to alert a user of a keybox status. For example, Fisher teaches a keybox that in response to a linear actuator being jammed, corresponding to Desinor’s rotating screw being jammed causing the keycontainer being misplaced in the keybox (see at least [0040] of Desinor, note the tray is deployed via the rotating screw | [0078] of Desinor), issue a third communication message indicating the linear actuator being jammed (see at least [0060] of Fisher, note the key compartment accessed via the linear actuator | [0063-0065] of Fisher, note when an unlock code is received the motor is rotated and linear actuator is moved | [0131-0132] of Fisher, note both an audible and a visual error indication is generated (since the linear actuator 150 is apparently "jammed" or otherwise malfunctioning)). Note that Desinor can transmit alerts, such as Fisher’s jammed status (see [0080] of Desinor | [0131] of Fisher).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Fisher into Desinor. This provides the ability to monitor Desinor’s keycontainer and alert a user (and server) if it is jammed (e.g., via monitoring Desinor’s screw position). This may also help alert the user of potential damage to the keybox (see [0097] of Fisher).
Regarding claim 2, Desinor in view of Fisher teach a system comprising the keybox as in claim 1 and a user mobile device, the user mobile device configured for communicating with the keybox to receive the first message, the second message, and the third message, and selectively generate alerts to a user of the user mobile device in response to the first message, the second message, or the third message (see [0084] of Desinor, note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends notifications and updates during the buyer’s 2305 visit to at least their mobile device 2335, wherein the notifications can include the arrival of the visitor/buyer, lockbox opening (released position), lockbox closing (initial position), key removal, key replacement, key being stolen alarm, battery level and more | [0080] of Desinor, note the wireless lockbox 2130 may comprise a cellular interface by which alerts and notifications can be sent to a remote device | [0131] of Fisher).
Regarding claim 3, Desinor in view of Fisher teach wherein the instructions executable by the processor include instructions for: receiving credentials for the user of the user mobile device; authenticating the credentials; and if the credentials are authenticated, opening the keybox to allow access to the keycontainer (see at least [0065] of Desinor, note the buyer 2305 uses their mobile device 2335 to transmit an (encrypted) unlock code to the lockbox 200/2315 that only it can decrypt | [0077] of Desinor).
Regarding claim 4, Desinor in view of Fisher teach wherein the instructions for authenticating the credentials include an authentication program configured to authenticate the user mobile device via multi-factor authentication, proximity authentication, passwords, exchange of keys, pairing, registration, or forming a private link (see at least [0065] of Desinor, note the public key encryption | [0084] of Desinor, note the mobile device 2335 and lockbox 200/2315 pair with each other via Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 5, Desinor in view of Fisher teach wherein the instructions for authenticating the credentials include an authentication program configured to authenticate the user via multi-factor authentication, passwords or registration (see at least [0084] of Desinor, note the user or potential buyer is registered | [0071] of Desinor, note creation of an unlock code after registration | [0065] of Desinor).
Regarding claim 6, Desinor in view of Fisher teach wherein the user mobile device and the keybox are configured to communicate by short-range wireless communication using one or more of radiofrequency identification, near-field communication, Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy, or ultra-wideband communications (see at least [0084] of Desinor, note the mobile device 2335 and lockbox 200/2315 pair with each other via Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 7, Desinor in view of Fisher teach wherein the user mobile device is further configured to communicate a status of the keybox to a central server using cellular communications (see at least [0084] of Desinor, note the mobile device 2335 and lockbox 200/2315 pair with each other via Bluetooth, and while paired to mobile device 2335, the lockbox 200/2315 can transmit data over the cellular connection of mobile device 2335 to servers 2355 that can store visit data (i.e., visitor arrival, lockbox opening, lockbox closing, key removal, key replacement, key being stolen alarm, battery level and more)).
Regarding claim 12, Desinor in view of Fisher teach further comprising the central server, wherein the keybox is located at a property having an owner or a showing agent, and the central server is configured to issue a communication to notify the owner or the showing agent in response to the user mobile device indicating the misplaced status of the keybox (see at least [0048] note an owner/seller may require that buyers tour a property with a real estate agent | [0084] of Desinor, note the notifications are sent to the real estate agent’s phone 2335 and remote device 2360 of the owner | [0080] of Desinor, note the remote device of the owner | [0131] of Fisher, note notifying the user of a jammed condition).
Regarding claim 18, Desinor discloses a method of operating a keybox (see at least Figure 1, item 200 | [0040] note wireless lockbox 200), the method comprising:
using one or more sensors located in the keybox, determining a keycontainer in the keybox is in an initial position (see at least Figure 4, item 445 | [0042] note the key door sensor 445 detects when the tray/drawer 205 is closed (initial position) | [0059] note open and closed);
generating one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer is in the initial position in the keybox in response to determining the keycontainer is in the initial position (see at least [0059] note closed | [0084] note the wireless lockbox 200/2315 sends notifications and updates during the buyer’s 2305 visit, wherein the notifications can include the lockbox is closed (initial position));
receiving credentials from a user device at the keybox for accessing the keybox (see at least [0065] note the buyer 2305 uses their mobile device 2335 to transmit an (encrypted) unlock code to the lockbox 200/2315 that only it can decrypt | [0077]);
authenticating the user device using the credentials (see at least [0065] | [0077] | [0084] note if approved, the user is presented with an open/close interface where they can press open);
enabling access to the keycontainer in response to authenticating the user device by releasing the key container in the keybox (see at least [0065] | [0077] | [0084] note the tray/drawer 205 is deployed or released);
receiving the keycontainer in the keybox (see at least [0077] note retract the tray);
using the one or more sensors, determining that the keycontainer is misplaced in the keybox (see at least [0077] note directed to retract the tray | [0078] note when the tray is being retracted, it can become misplaced in the keybox due to a blockage sensed by the key door sensor 445); and
generating one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer has been released in response to determining the keycontainer has been released from the keybox (see at least [0084]).
However, Desinor does not specifically disclose generating one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer is misplaced in response to determining the keycontainer is misplaced in the keybox.
It is known to alert a user of various states of a keybox. For example, Fisher teaches a system that generates one or more communication signals indicating a linear actuator being jammed, corresponding to Desinor’s rotating screw being jammed causing the keycontainer to become misplaced in the keybox (see at least [0040] of Desinor, note the tray is deployed via the rotating screw | [0078] of Desinor), in response to determining the linear actuator is jammed (see at least [0060] of Fisher, note the key compartment accessed via the linear actuator | [0063-0065] of Fisher, note when an unlock code is received the motor is rotated and linear actuator is moved | [0131-0132] of Fisher, note both an audible and a visual error indication is generated (since the linear actuator 150 is apparently "jammed" or otherwise malfunctioning)). Note that Desinor can transmit alerts, such as Fisher’s jammed status (see [0080] of Desinor | [0131] of Fisher).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Fisher into Desinor. This provides the ability to monitor Desinor’s keycontainer and alert a user (and server) if it is jammed (e.g., via monitoring Desinor’s screw position). This may also help alert the user of potential damage to the keybox (see [0097] of Fisher).
Regarding claim 19, Desinor in view of Fisher teach wherein the step of determining that the keycontainer is misplaced is performed by identifying a change in an output of the one or more sensors from when the keycontainer is in the initial position after the access to the keycontainer is enabled (see at least [0078-0079] of Desinor, note the system can detect misplacement, a jam or blockage as the keycontainer is being closed from the released position back to the initial position).
Regarding claim 20, Desinor in view of Fisher teach further comprising receiving the one or more communication signals indicating the keycontainer is misplaced at the user device, and, in response, issuing a further communication from the user device to a central server indicating a keybox malfunction (see at least [0131] of Fisher, note an alarm is generated for the user | [0084] of Desinor, note sent notifications can include: visitor arrival, lockbox opening, lockbox closing, key removal, key replacement, key being stolen alarm, battery level and more (e.g., a jammed keycontainer, as taught by Fisher), wherein some or all of these types of notifications be sent to the mobile device 2335 and to any server 2355 via paired beacons 2320).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desinor (US 2018/0190056 A1) in view of Fisher (US 2005/0207087 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Estill (US 2021/0182786 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Desinor in view of Fisher teach the user device indicating the misplaced status of the keybox (see at least [0084] of Desinor | [0131] of Fisher).
However, Desinor in view of Fisher do not specifically teach further comprising the central server, wherein the central server is further configured to issue a service call.
It is known to provide alerts for different reasons. For example, Estill teaches a system that further comprises the central server, wherein the central server is further configured to issue a service call in response to a malfunction status of the lockbox (see at least [0161] note the control circuitry reports condition/status to a central authority | [0162] note malfunctioning associated with the door | [0167] note the central system transmits one or more messages indicating the need to repair/service the lockbox).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Estill into Desinor in view of Fisher. This provides the ability to service Desinor in view of Fisher’s keybox that has reported errors, such as with malfunctioning doors and locks, thus enabling smooth operation and access to the interior of each keybox.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desinor (US 2018/0190056 A1) in view of Fisher (US 2005/0207087 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fisher 067' (US 2020/0312067 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Desinor in view of Fisher do not specifically teach wherein the one or more sensors comprise a position sensor, a location sensor, a proximity sensor, an optical sensor, a resistance sensor, a magnetic sensor, or a spring mechanism.
It is known to detect open/closed states in different ways. For example, Fisher 067' teaches a system wherein the one or more sensors comprise a position sensor, a location sensor, a proximity sensor, an optical sensor, a resistance sensor, a magnetic sensor, or a spring mechanism (see at least Figure 32, item 510, note optical disk position | [0023] | [0032] | [0224-0225] | [0236]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Fisher 067' into Desinor in view of Fisher. This provides a known alternative sensor that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Desinor in view of Fisher’s sensors while providing predictable results (i.e., one that can determine the extent of a moveable actuator, see [0032] of Fisher 067' and [0040] of Desinor).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 11, Desinor discloses further comprising the central server, wherein the central server stores scheduled showing events for the keybox (see Figure 6C-6F of Desinor | [0043] of Desinor).
However, Desinor (US 2018/0190056 A1), Fisher (US 2005/0207087 A1), Estill (US 2021/0182786 A1) and Fisher (US 2020/0312067 A1) do not disclose and/or fairly suggest wherein the central server is configured to adjust the showing events in response to the user mobile device indicating the misplaced status of the keybox.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“Applicant notes that the purpose of the key door sensor in Desinor is to detect that the drawer is closed ‘so as to stop of the motor.’ An alternative sensor is also disclosed later in Desinor at [0078], in which case the sensor monitors power at an actuator for opening and closing the door to identify a stuck device. In neither instance is the keycontainer position monitored for misplacement in the keybox.”
In response, paragraph [0059] of Desinor states that “the key door sensor 445 can comprise any type of sensor for detecting when the key tray is closed or open.” Paragraphs [0078-0079] of Desinor states that “the key door sensor 445 of, for example, FIG. 4, can be operable to detect blockage of the tray as it is being retracted or closed. … At 2030, a sensor detects that an object is impeding the tray from retracting or closing.” In both cases, the keycontainer position is monitored for misplacement in the keybox. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further states “Denisor does not contemplate misplacement of the keycontainer in the keybox. Instead, Denisor teaches that the tray is to be automatically opened and closed, ‘such that a human does not need to pull the tray out to open or push it in to close it (without human interaction beyond a command to e.g. the microprocessor).’ (Denisor at [0040]). This sentiment is again repeated at [0077] in Denisor. With automated opening and closing, particularly without human interaction, there would be no need to sense for misplacement of the tray in Denisor. Thus the anticipation rejection is overcome relative to claim 1.”
In response, paragraphs [0078-0079] clearly state that Desinor’s “key door sensor 445 of, for example, FIG. 4, can be operable to detect blockage of the tray as it is being retracted or closed. This may occur, for example, if a person's finger or clothing is trapped in the tray or wireless lockbox as the tray is being retracted. … When such a stall is detected, the key door sensor 445 can then, by itself, or via the microprocessor 405, stop the motor, actuator, or other element that is closing the tray. There can also be a command to open/deploy the tray. This can help protect users. … At 2010, a close command is received at a wireless lockbox over a wireless data interface from a mobile device. At 2020, a microprocessor directs a try of the wireless lockbox to retract or close. At 2030, a sensor detects that an object is impeding the tray from retracting or closing. At 2040, the microprocessor stops the tray from retracting. The microprocessor may accomplish this by stopping a motor from turning a rotating screw, stopping a linear actuator, stopping a pneumatic actuator, or by other appropriate means depending on the type of deployment mechanism.” In view of the paragraphs above, Desinor clearly monitors for displacement to help protect users from getting injured. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Fisher, paragraph [0131] of Fisher teaches monitoring a linear actuator, such as Desinor’s linear actuator described in paragraph [0079], to determine whether it is jammed. If it is jammed, the keybox can provide an audible and visual notification to a user of the jammed status. Because Desinor transmits alerts to remote devices (see [0080]) and lockbox notifications to the user (see [0084]), this allows Desinor to transmit Fisher’s jammed status to Desinor’s user alerting them of an unprotected house key. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant states “Nothing in Denisor appears to suggest getting a value from the door sensor or the power sensor when the keycontainer is in the initial position as recited in claim 14 to allow this additional recited element to be performed.”
In response, Desinor teaches “the key door sensor 445 can comprise any type of sensor for detecting when the key tray is closed or open.” (see [0059]). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant states “Further, while the cited passage at [0084] suggests that Denisor teaches detecting several actions, the initial position is not one that is sensed and communicated:
While user 2305 is at home 2310, the Bluetooth connection between device 2335 and wireless lockbox 2315 can be maintained. This can allow wireless lockbox 2315 to send notifications and updates during user 2305's visit. Notifications can include: visitor arrival, lockbox opening, lockbox closing, key removal, key replacement, key being stolen alarm, battery level and more.
(Denisor at [0084]). None of the suggested statuses include one in which the tray is detected as being closed prior to the visit; indeed, the passage indicates this all occurs after the user is at the home and the Bluetooth connection is being ‘maintained’ following key access. It appears the action of closing, which Denisor teaches doing while power through the actuator is monitored, may be sensed, but actual position of a keycontainer being in the initial position is not detected.”
In response, paragraph [0050] of Desinor teaches “By clicking on a request, a user may also be able to view an interface 1220 or 1230. Interfaces 1220 and 1230 can provide the owner with the ability to either unlock/open/deploy 1222 or lock/close/retract 1232 the wireless lockbox at the property by opening or closing the tray. In some embodiments, a single interface can comprise the commands Lock, Unlock, Close, and Open. In such embodiments the ‘Unlock’ command can make the wireless lockbox available to others for opening, while ‘Open’ actually opens the lockbox. Similarly, in such embodiments, the ‘Lock’ command could make the lockbox completely unavailable to other users, possibly if there's a security emergency. ‘Close’ could close the lockbox by retracting the tray.”
When Desinor’s user presses the “Open” command, the lockbox transitions from the indicated closed position to the open position, and when the user presses the “Close” command, the lockbox transitions from the indicated open position to the closed position by retracting the tray. Desinor clearly teaches detecting several actions, and the initial position and released positions are ones that are sensed and communicated. Moreover, Figures 12B-12C of Desinor teach graphics showing the “Unlock” and “Lock” commands and lockbox states. These Figures can be modified to illustrate interfaces 1220 and 1230 to provide the owner with the ability to either open 1222 or close 1232 the wireless lockbox at the property by opening or closing the tray. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights