FINAL REJECTION
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, 35 USC 101 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 considered prior art 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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEFFERIES et al. (US 20140309842 A1) in view of MOHIUDDIN et al. (US 20130257589 A1).
Re claim 2. JEFFERIES discloses (abstract) a computer-implemented method (mobile app operates with QR code so as to interact with vehicle system) for displaying an unlock code using lock related indicia [0095] (FIG.9), comprising:
detecting, via a mobile communications device [0048-0052], a lock related indicia on or proximate a physical lock [0094-0096], wherein the physical lock is not capable of electronic communication (i.e. lock itself does not communicate using electronic means to a mobile device);
transmitting, by the mobile communications device, information corresponding to the lock related indicia to a remote computing system (steps 1001-1002 – require that user using mobile app on mobile device scan a proper code from vehicle and uploaded or transmitted to a remote server – i.e. lock related indicia such as bar/QR code related to a lock of vehicle – for processing by remote server in steps 1003-1011);
receiving, by the mobile communications device from the remote computing system, an unlock code associated with the lock related indicia (steps 1012 – remote server sends access code to mobile device for use by user carrying mobile device); and
generating, on a display of the mobile communications device (FIG.4-8).
JEFFERIES does not explicitly limit the actual process of displaying unlock code for lock and its format.
However, JEFFERIES fails to explicitly disclose:
a user-readable display of the unlock code for the physical lock, wherein the user-readable display of the unlock code comprises a display of a word, character, number or combination of one or more letters, symbols and numbers, and wherein the unlock code displayed on the mobile communications device is usable by a user to manually manipulate the physical lock in order to open the physical lock.
MOHIUDDIN teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, the concept of using user-readable display of an unlock code [0077] comprising a display of any combination format, so that a user can manually enter code in order to open a lock [0058].
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that unlock codes are commonly used in various forms such as alphanumeric or symbol codes, which can be entered or presented by a user to a physical lock device. As claimed the unlock code displayed could be any combination of letter, number or symbol currently existing in the field of unlock codes.
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 using an unlock code displayed for a user to enter manually to open a lock in order to facilitate unlocking function.
3. JEFFERIES discloses [0048-0050] the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the lock related indicia is detected from a camera of the mobile communications device.
4. JEFFERIES discloses [0048-0050] the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the lock related indicia comprises a tag detected by the mobile communications device.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEFFERIES et al. (US 20140309842 A1) in view of MOHIUDDIN et al. (US 20130257589 A1) further in view of MCCULLOUGH et al. (US 7266434 B2).
Re claim 5. JEFFERIES discloses (abstract) a computer-implemented method for displaying an unlock code using lock related indicia, comprising:
detecting, via a mobile communications device [0048-0052], a lock related indicia on or proximate a physical lock [0094-0096], wherein the physical lock is not capable of electronic communication (i.e. lock itself does not communicate using electronic means to a mobile device);
transmitting, by the mobile communications device, information corresponding to the lock related indicia to a remote computing system;
receiving, by the mobile communications device from the remote computing system, an unlock code associated with the lock related indicia (as explained above); and
generating, on a display of the mobile communications device (FIG.4-8), a user-readable display of the unlock code for the physical lock [0099] (see BRI interpretation as for claims 1-2, 10 and 15).
However, JEFFERIES as modified by MOHIUDDIN fails to explicitly disclose:
whereupon the physical lock can be manipulated manually using the displayed unlock code in order to open the lock.
MCCULLOUGH teaches (abstract) a vehicle system wherein a lock can be manipulated manually to open (c.5, l.65-67).
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 operating unlock feature manually as taught by MCCULLOUGH in order to open vehicle door as is well known in the art.
6. JEFFERIES discloses [0048-0050] the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the lock related indicia is detected from a camera of the mobile communications device.
7. JEFFERIES discloses [0048-0050] the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the lock related indicia comprises a tag detected by the mobile communications device.
8. JEFFERIES discloses (FIG.3) the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the physical lock comprises the lock related indicia.
9. JEFFERIES discloses (FIG.4) the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein a device in geographic proximity to the physical lock comprises the lock related indicia.
Re claim 15. JEFFERIES as modified by MOHIUDDIN and MCCULLOUGH discloses (as for claims 2 and 5) a lock arrangement, comprising:
a physical lock, wherein the physical lock is not capable of electronic communication; and
a lock related indicia detectable by a mobile communications device, wherein upon detection of the lock related indicia by the mobile communications device, an unlock code associated with the lock related indicia is received by the mobile communications device from the remote computing system, and a user-readable display of the unlock code is generated on a display of the mobile communications device, wherein the unlock code is for the physical lock and is usable by a user to manually manipulate the physical lock in order to open the physical lock.
16. As for claim 3.
17. As for claim 4.
18. As for claim 8.
19. As for claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in PTO-892 Form 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