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 .
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.
Claim 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “an outside” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20190034859 A1), and further in view of Chang (US 20080069326 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, Kim discloses a door opening method, comprising:
a step of transmitting a door opening signal for making a request for opening of a door, which is configured to restrict entry into a predetermined space, to the door by using a network address unique to a mobile terminal associated with a user (via once the proximity of the delivery device 122 to the delivery location is confirmed, a control element to request access to the delivery location may be presented. When the agent is ready to make the delivery, she may activate the control element to transmit a message 325 to the remote access server 150 requesting the delivery location be unlocked., Para. 44, 53, 58, 59);
a step of determining whether or not to allow the user to enter the predetermined space based on a management table and the network address of the mobile terminal in response to reception of the door opening signal (the remote access server 150 may compare a registry of MAC addresses for authorized delivery devices with the received MAC address. If the received MAC address is included, then the positive detection may be confirmed, Para. 58, 59); and
a step of controlling the door so that the user is able to enter the predetermined space in response to a determination that the user is allowed to enter the predetermined space, wherein the management table includes a plurality of pieces of network address information indicating a plurality of network addresses unique to a plurality of mobile terminals each of which is associated with one of a plurality of users (via grant access, Para. 48, 59, 66).
Kim discloses a door but fails to disclose a gate.
Chang teaches a gate can be opened by an authenticated visitor to a property via a mobile device of the visitor (Para. 29).
From the teachings of Chang, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include a gate operable by an authenticated visitor as taught by Chang to allow secure entry by authorized visitors.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the management table includes a ticket management table (access control permissions, Para. 64), the ticket management table includes the plurality of pieces of network address information, and the step of determining whether or not to allow the user to enter the predetermined space includes a step of determining whether or not the network address of the mobile terminal matches one of the network addresses of the plurality of mobile terminals included in the ticket management table based on the ticket management table and the network address of the mobile terminal; and a step of determining that the user is allowed to enter the predetermined space in a case where the network address of the mobile terminal matches one of the network addresses of the plurality of mobile terminals included in the ticket management table (via compare a registry of MAC addresses for authorized delivery devices with the received MAC address, Para. 59).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein the management table is stored in a management server communicably connected to the gate through a communication network, and the step of determining whether or not to allow the user to enter the predetermined space is executed by the management server, and includes a step of receiving information regarding the network address of the mobile terminal from the gate through the communication network (Para. 59).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses a gate opening system, comprising: a mobile terminal associated with a user and having a unique network address (MAC address of delivery device 122, Para. 58, Fig. 1); and a gate communicably connected to the mobile terminal and configured to restrict entry into a predetermined space, wherein the gate opening system is configured to execute the gate opening method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses a management server communicably connected to the gate through a communication network (remote access server 150, Para. 150).
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chang, and further in view of Gathman (US 20030069762 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts cited fail to disclose wherein the management table further includes a plurality of pieces of ticket information regarding a plurality of tickets, and the gate opening method further comprises a step of outputting ticket information associated with the user in response to the determination that the user is allowed to enter the predetermined space.
Gathman teaches a system including a management table storing a plurality of pieces of ticket information regarding a plurality of tickets (Electronic ticket control system 400 then compares the virtual ticket to the virtual ticket data records 440 stored in memory 430 or database 415 (process step 510), Para. 63), and a gate opening method further comprises a step of outputting ticket information associated with the user in response to the determination that the user is allowed to enter the predetermined space (If the virtual ticket is authenticated, electronic ticket control system 400 transmits an authorization message to the entry point terminal and the user is admitted, Para. 63, 54).
From the teachings of Gathman, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include wherein the management table further includes a plurality of pieces of ticket information regarding a plurality of tickets in order to further authenticate a user based on the ticket of the user, and the gate opening method further comprises a step of outputting ticket information associated with the user in response to the determination that the user is allowed to enter the predetermined space in order to provide a notification that the user is authorized to enter.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts cited fail to disclose wherein the management table is stored in the gate, and the step of determining whether or not to allow the user to enter the predetermined space is executed by the gate.
Gathman teaches a management table storing authentication information for comparison at a gate can be stored at the gate or remotely (the functionality associated with any particular controller may be centralized or distributed, whether locally or remotely, Para. 24, 63, 54-55).
From the teachings of Gathman, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include wherein the management table is stored in the gate, and the step of determining whether or not to allow the user to enter the predetermined space is executed by the gate as the computer devices required to operate a gate can be arranged locally at the gate or remotely as taught by Gathman.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights