Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 7/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under double patenting and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior to address amended limitations.
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.
Claim 1-5, 8, 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) further in view of BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1).
The applied reference has a common applicant/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Re claim 1. MINSLEY discloses (abstract) a method (FIG.2-3), comprising:
associating each of a plurality of unlock codes with a respective physical lock of a plurality of physical locks in a database [0011] (steps 202-206), wherein each of the plurality of physical locks is adapted to restrict access to a respective physical location of a plurality of physical locations [0044-45];
associating a code reset device with the plurality of physical locks [0163] (lock management system can reset the code after a time period);
generating a replacement unlock code for the first unlock code (implicitly once a time period expires, a new code or a resetting of a unlock code for a specific lock would generate a replacement unlock code for any of the plurality of physical locks – alternatively if an account is considered delinquent (FIG.7) a unlock code would only be released or transmitted to a customer after account is determined not delinquent), and recording, in the database, an association between the first physical lock and the replacement unlock code (claim 1); and
transmitting the replacement unlock code to a mobile communications device. (step 306)
MINSLEY clearly suggests user requesting an unlock code which operates after verification of non-delinquency of an account during processing of method (FIG.7). Furthermore, MINSLEY suggests at least one user can designate another person to request unlock code.
[0071] In yet another embodiment, the customer 106 can designate authorized parties who can request the unlock code as well. For example, a customer's spouse, authorized agents, business associates, attorneys, and any other parties whom the customer 106 wishes to have access to the storage unit 104 can have their credentials associated with the storage unit. In this embodiment, the database record for the storage unit 104 and/or over-lock 110 includes a listing of all authorized parties and their respective credentials.
1. A method for associating locks with unlock codes and lock identifiers, the method comprising: selecting a lock to be marked with a lock identifier and programmed with an unlock code, wherein the lock is not capable of electronic communication, wherein a database coupled to a processor stores unlock codes and lock identifiers, the processor configured to: (i) randomly generate a plurality of unlock codes, (ii) randomly generate a plurality of lock identifiers, (iii) create a plurality of unlock code/lock identifier pairs by randomly selecting an unlock code from the plurality of unlock codes, and randomly selecting a lock identifier from the plurality of lock identifiers, and (iv) select an unlock code/lock identifier pair from the plurality of unlock code/identifier pairs, wherein the lock is marked with the selected lock identifier, and wherein the lock is programmed with the selected unlock code.
However, MINSLEY fails to explicitly disclose:
based on a request to reset a first unlock code associated with a first physical lock of the plurality of physical locks.
LU teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, resetting a first unlock code with another unlock code based on a request by the system (resetting module) to reset the unlock code and then send such second or new unlock code to a mobile device [0017].
[0013] The resetting module 103 generates the second unlocking password, and replaces the first unlocking password of the electronic device 1 with the second unlocking password, upon the condition that the verification information is included in the request message. After the first unlocking password is replaced, the resetting module 103 sends the second unlocking password to the destination. In the embodiment, the second unlocking password may be a randomly-formulated password.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try generating a replacement unlock code based on a system request in order to provide a new unique unlock code for another user as needed after proper verification of request.
However, MINSLEY as modified by LU fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the request identifies the first physical lock by at least one of a physical location identifier or a unit identifier.
BROMBACH teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0034] the function of using a database to store new registered vehicle keys with unit identifiers correlating the keys with associated vehicles (i.e. using VIN data for association) and updating keys as needed in such database. [0019, 0029]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try identifying a specific lock by at least unit identifier data in order to identify physical locks with unit identifier data to properly associate each code with each corresponding physical lock.
However, MINSLEY fails to explicitly disclose:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising de-associating the first unlock code with the first physical lock after the request to reset the first unlock code.
LU teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, resetting a first unlock code with another unlock code based on a request by the system (resetting module) to reset the unlock code and then send such second or new unlock code to a mobile device [0017], this function requires replacing a code by de-associating at least some portion of physical lock.
[0013] The resetting module 103 generates the second unlocking password, and replaces the first unlocking password of the electronic device 1 with the second unlocking password, upon the condition that the verification information is included in the request message. After the first unlocking password is replaced, the resetting module 103 sends the second unlocking password to the destination. In the embodiment, the second unlocking password may be a randomly-formulated password.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try generating a replacement unlock code based on a system request which would occur after a request in order to provide a new unique unlock code for another user as needed after proper verification of request.
3. MINSLEY discloses (i.e. FIG.1 suggests implicitly that a request operation could be received thru a server device given that server is part of the system to control and process code resetting performed by management site 118) The method of claim 1, wherein the request is received from the code reset device.
4. MINSLEY discloses [0042] The method of claim 1, wherein the code reset device is the mobile communications device.
5. MINSLEY discloses [0163] The method of claim 1, wherein the code reset device is different from the mobile communications device.
8. MINSLEY [0150] as modified by LU and BROMBACH discloses The method of claim 1, wherein associating each of the plurality of unlock codes with the respective physical lock of the plurality of physical locks comprises receiving a selection of a respective physical location from the plurality of physical locations as presented in a graphical user interface in communication with the database and using the selection to identify the first physical lock for the requested reset.
10. MINSLEY discloses [0058] The method of claim 1, further comprising providing a physical key operable to interact with each of the plurality of physical locks, whereupon engagement of the physical key with the first physical lock permits the first unlock code to be changed to the replacement unlock code.
12. MINSLEY discloses [0011-13] The method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of physical locks are not capable of electronic communication.
13. MINSLEY discloses [0011-13] The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of physical locks are not capable of electronic communication
14. As for claim 1, a system, comprising:
a processor, and
a memory device storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
associate each of a plurality of unlock codes with a respective physical lock of a plurality of physical locks in a database, wherein each of the plurality of physical locks is adapted to restrict access to a respective physical location of a plurality of physical locations;
associate a code reset device with the plurality of physical locks;
based on a request to reset a first unlock code associated with a first physical lock of the plurality of physical locks, wherein the request identifies the first physical lock by at least one of a physical location identifier or a unit identifier, generate a replacement unlock code for the first unlock code and record, in the database, an association between the first physical lock and the replacement unlock code; and
transmit the replacement unlock code to a mobile communications device.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) further in view of BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) and further in view of BENIGNUS et al. (US 6385737 B1)
However, MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) further in view of BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) fails to explicitly disclose:
6. (original) The method of claim 5, wherein the code reset device is a physical key.
BENIGNUS teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a code resetting is performed by assistance of a physical key (claim 6-8). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that using a physical key or master key can assist in resetting of unlock codes or re-key operations such as with smart keys (i.e. Kwikset).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to adopt the option of using a physical key of some sort to reset an unlock code. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to try using a physical key to reset a locking mechanism.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) further in view of BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) and further in view of WALLACE (US 4071092 A).
However, MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) and BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) fails to explicitly disclose:
7. (original) The method of claim 5, wherein the code reset device is a screwdriver.
WALLACE teaches (abstract) using as a locking mechanism resetting using a screwdriver (claim 7).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of using a screwdriver to reset a lock. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to try using a screwdriver to reset a locking mechanism.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) further in view of BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) and further in view of LAI (US 9464460 B2).
However, MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) and BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) fails to explicitly disclose:
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the replacement unlock code on an override device operable to interact with each of the plurality of locks.
LAI teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a lock control system (FIG.1) wherein an unlock code can be processed by an override device able to interact with a lock.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of using an override device so as to provide another means for unlocking. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to add another means of unlocking in case of an emergency.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) further in view of BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) and further in view of LINGALA et al. (US 20220076514 A1)
However, MINSLEY et al. (US 20220343416 A1) in view of LU (US 20130212657 A1) and BROMBACH et al. (US 20190047514 A1) fails to explicitly disclose:
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of physical locks are capable of electronic communication.
LINGALA teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, plural physical locks capable of electronic communication, which helps lock boxes operate properly as needed. [0003, 0023, 0031]
The use of physical locks capable of electronic communication rather than physical locks that are not capable of electronic communication would have been a predictable modification communication capability has known advantages such as allowing lock boxes to be controlled remotely or in another location, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, given that this limitation appears to be not critical for the operation of claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights