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 1 is 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.
The term “in particular a smartphone” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in particular a smartphone” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further explanation or appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 18, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reh (Pub. No.: 2014/0151173 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Reh discloses the claimed electronic luggage lock for securing a piece of luggage that can be opened by a security institution without destruction, said electronic luggage lock comprising an electromechanical locking mechanism by which a securing section of the piece of luggage can be selectively locked or released relative to the luggage lock, a control device for controlling the electromechanical locking mechanism, and an identification device (figs. 1-5),
wherein the identification device provides a lock identification code that is individually associated with the luggage lock and that can be wirelessly read by means of a mobile opening device, in particular a smartphone (¶0051),
wherein the control device is connected to a memory in which a release code associated with the lock identification code is stored (¶0048),
wherein the control device is further connected to a code receiving device that is configured to receive an opening code from the mobile opening device via a wireless connection (¶0052), and
wherein the control device is configured to compare the received opening code with the stored release code and to control the electromechanical locking mechanism to release the securing section when if the received opening code matches the stored release code (¶0062).
2) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 1), Reh further disclose the electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to document in the memory at least one of:
the receiving of the opening code in the memory; a point in time at which the opening code was received; information about the mobile opening device; information about a location at which the opening code was received; or a receiving of a detection signal that is transmitted from a sensor to the control device upon directly or indirectly detecting a movement of the securing section of the piece of luggage relative to the luggage lock (¶0048 and ¶0060).
3) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 1), Reh further disclose the electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least one of:
the control device is configured to transmit an energy supply state signal to the opening device; or
the luggage lock has a button by whose actuation the code receiving device can be activated to receive the opening code (¶0062).
4) In regard to claim 27 (dependent on claim 1), Reh further disclose the electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 1, wherein the electronic luggage lock is integrated into a piece of luggage that comprises a luggage body having a securing section, a first container part and a second container part movable relative to the first container part between an open position and a closed position (figs. 3 & 4),
wherein the second container part enables access to an inner space of the luggage body in the open position and blocks the access in the closed position, and wherein the second container part can be secured in the closed position by locking the securing section (figs. 3 & 4 and ¶0062).
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 4-5, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reh (Pub. No.: 2014/0151173 A1) in view of Dubarry (Pub. No.: 2014/0139334 A1).
1) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Reh discloses the claimed electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to change information in the memory (¶0051).
Reh does not explicitly disclose the control device is configured, to change the release code stored in the memory in response to a code change command received from the opening device in a code change operation mode.
However, Dubarry discloses it is known for an electronic luggage lock, control device, to be configured to change the release code stored in a memory in response to a code change command received from the opening device in a code change operation mode (¶0054-¶0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the control device of Reh to change the lock code in the memory of the device, as taught by Dubarry.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dubarry as described above in order to allow the device to be customizable.
2) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 4), Reh and Dubarry further disclose the electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 4.
Reh and Dubarry do not explicitly disclose the control device is configured to distinguish between an owner authorization of the owner of the piece of luggage and an authority authorization of a security institution, and wherein the control device is configured to only change the release code stored in the memory when the control device determines the owner authorization.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a locking device to program the control device to be configured to distinguish between an owner authorization of the owner of the piece of luggage and an authority authorization of a security institution, and the control device is configured to only change the release code stored in the memory when the control device determines the owner authorization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the control device to determine the code change was authorized by the owner of the locking device.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Reh as described above in order to ensure the code is changed by an authorized user.
3) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 4), Reh and Dubarry further disclose the electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 4,
Reh and Dubarry do not explicitly disclose the release code comprises a release coding and information about a release period, and wherein the control device is configured to control the electromechanical locking mechanism to release the locked securing section when the received opening code comprises the release coding and the opening code is received within the release period.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a locking device to have a release code comprises a release coding and information about a release period, and wherein the control device is configured to control the electromechanical locking mechanism to release the locked securing section when the received opening code comprises the release coding and the opening code is received within the release period.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the locking device to include a release code for a specific period of time.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Reh as described above in order to provide authorization for a specific period of time.
4) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 10), Reh and Dubarry further disclose the electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 10, wherein the control device is configured, in the code change operation mode, to change at least one of the release coding or the information about the release period (Dubarry ¶0054-¶0056).
5) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 10), Reh and Dubarry further disclose the electronic luggage lock in accordance with claim 10.
Reh and Dubarry do not explicitly disclose the control device is configured to delete the release code from the memory after the release period has elapsed.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a locking device to program a control device to be configured to delete the release code from the memory after the release period has elapsed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the control device of Reh to delete codes which have expired.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Reh as described above in order to keep the memory of the device space free of information which needs to be deleted.
Claims 29, 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubarry (Pub. No.: 2014/0139334 A1) in view of Wolter (Pat. No.: 10,657,486 B1).
1) In regard to claim 29, Dubarry discloses the claimed method of providing an opening code for a security institution for opening an electronic luggage lock (fig. 1) comprising the steps:
transmitting data to a database (¶0067-¶0070);
Dubarry does not explicitly disclose transmitting a lock identification code of the luggage lock to a database, and transmitting the associated opening code to the database.
However, Wolter discloses it is known for a locking method to transmit a lock identification code of the lock to a database, and transmitting the associated opening code to the database (col. 7, lines 66-67 to col. 8, lines 1-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Dubarry to transmit a lock identification code and opening code to a database, as taught by Wolter.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dubarry as described above in order to provide updated data to the server for authenticating lock data.
2) In regard to claim 36 (dependent on claim 29), Dubarry and Wolter further disclose the method in accordance with claim 29.
Dubarry and Wolter do not explicitly disclose information about a release period during which the luggage lock can be opened by transmitting the opening code is transmitted to at least one of the luggage lock or the database.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a method to operate a lock to include information about a release period during which the luggage lock can be opened by transmitting the opening code is transmitted to at least one of the luggage lock or the database.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Dubarry to transmit information regarding a release period for an opening code.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dubarry as described above in order to allow access to the lock for a specific period of time.
3) In regard to claim 40 (dependent on claim 29), Dubarry and Wolter further disclose the method in accordance with claim 29.
Dubarry and Wolter do not explicitly disclose information about a travel route is transmitted to the database.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a method to transmit a travel route to a database.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Dubarry to transmit to the database a travel route.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dubarry as described above in order to ensure the lock is traveling in the correct direction.
Claims 41, 43, 45-46, and 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubarry (Pub. No.: 2014/0139334 A1) in view of Chun (Pub. No.: 2022/0207938 A1).
1) In regard to claim 41, Dubarry discloses the claimed method of opening an electronic luggage lock having a readable identification device by a security institution (fig. 1), comprising the steps:
transmitting the received opening code to the luggage lock by means of the mobile opening device (¶0056-¶0060).
Dubarry does not explicitly disclose reading a lock identification code of the luggage lock from the identification device, transmitting the lock identification code of the luggage lock by means of a mobile opening device of the security institution to a database and requesting an associated opening code, and receiving the opening code from the database.
However, Chun discloses it is known for a locking system execute the steps of reading a lock identification code of a lock from an identification device, transmitting the lock identification code of the lock by means of a mobile opening device of the security institution to a database and requesting an associated opening code, and receiving the opening code from the database (figs. 8 & 9 and ¶0123-¶0137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Dubarry to communicate with a server to receive an lock code to unlock the lock, as taught by Chun.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dubarry as described above in order to provide the lock with a strong security function, as taught by Chun (¶0002).
2) In regard to claim 43 (dependent on claim 41), Dubarry and Chun further disclose the method in accordance with claim 41 comprising documenting in the database at least one of:
the request for the opening code;
a point in time of the request for the opening code;
a location of the request for the opening code;
a device identification of the mobile opening device; or
a person identification of a requesting user is/are documented in the database (Chun ¶0126).
3) In regard to claim 45 (dependent on claim 41), Dubarry and Chun further disclose the method in accordance with claim 41, wherein a request authorization is assigned to at least one of a plurality of mobile opening devices or persons, and wherein the opening code is only transmitted when the opening code is requested by at least one of an authorized person or an authorized device (Chun ¶0038-¶0039).
4) In regard to claim 46 (dependent on claim 45), Dubarry and Chun further disclose the method in accordance with claim 45, wherein the request authorization is assigned in dependence on information about a travel route of the piece of luggage, said information being stored in the database and being associated with the lock identification code (Chun ¶0128).
5) In regard to claim 48 (dependent on claim 41), Dubarry and Chun further disclose the method in accordance with claim 41.
Dubarry and Chun does not explicitly disclose after the identification device has been read, information about a point in time of a previous request for the opening code is displayed at the opening device.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a locking method to determine after the identification device has been read, information about a point in time of a previous request for the opening code is displayed at the opening device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Dubarry to display identification data at the time of the request.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Dubarry as described above in order to display a log of user who accessed the lock and at what time the users accessed the lock.
6) In regard to claim 49 (dependent on claim 41), Dubarry and Chun further disclose the method in accordance with claim 41, wherein an opening of the luggage lock is enabled or effected by transmitting the received opening code to the luggage lock, wherein the opening is documented in a memory of the luggage lock (Chun ¶0136-¶0137).
7) In regard to claim 50 (dependent on claim 41), Dubarry and Chun further disclose the method in accordance with claim 41, wherein the opening code is only transmitted from the database to the mobile opening device when if the request for the opening code is received during a release period stored in the database (Chun ¶0005 and ¶0146).
8) In regard to claim 51 (dependent on claim 50), Dubarry and Chun further disclose the method in accordance with claim 50, wherein, before the release period elapses, a request for extending the release period is transmitted from the database to a mobile opening device of an owner of the piece of luggage by which at least one of the lock identification code or the opening code has been provided (Chun ¶0038-¶0039).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights