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 16 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note “a device” was not yet introduced in claim 1 upon which claim 16 depends. Revision is required to provide clarity to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lappalainen (US 20110174029 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lappalainen teaches a method for commissioning an electromechanical locking device (106) at a location, wherein the locking device (106) comprises an electromechanical actuator (110), locking device electronics (112) and a driver (118), wherein the electromechanical actuator (110) can be activated by the locking device electronics (112) in order to transfer the driver from a non-rotatable to a rotatable state (para. 0021);
and wherein the method (1, 85) comprises the following steps carried out by the locking device:
a. detecting an electronic key (130; para. 0032-0033),
b. triggering a function verification routine (para. 0027, when a lock is in factory state all keys are capable of opening a lock, therefore after insertion of the key a function verification routine is triggered because all keys are capable of operating the lock), with the actuator (35) being electrically activated in order to transfer the driver (36) from the non-rotatable to the rotatable state (para. 0027),wherein the locking device (20) is in a factory state during steps a. and b. (para. 0032-0033),
c. subsequently receiving (124) configuration data, with the configuration data comprising at least one item of access authorization information (steps 204, 208, 212; master key authorized and end function key inserted and programmed into lock), whereby the locking device is transferred from the factory state to a configured state, wherein the access authorization information contains location-specific and/or location region-specific and/or lock system-specific encryption information (steps 204, 208, 212; master key and end function key are programmed into lock), wherein the locking device in steps a. and b. is designed to be free of location-specific and/or location region-specific and/or lock system-specific encryption information (factory state prior to insertion of the key).
Regarding claim 2, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step b. takes place after an installation of the locking device in or on a closure element (para. 0032, occurs at first programming), , and/or wherein step b. takes place to install the locking device on a closure element (para. 0032, “lock initialization”).
Regarding claim 3, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in step b. the function verification routine is triggered independently of a lock system assignment by the key structurally matching the locking device (para. 0027, 0032; all keys are operable to open the lock in the factory state therefore the first key inserted during initialization is able to trigger the function verification routine).
Regarding claim 4, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in step b. the function verification routine is triggered independently of a location region assignment and/or a location assignment of the locking device by the key structurally matching the locking device (para. 0027, 0032; all keys are operable to open the lock in the factory state therefore the first key inserted during initialization is able to trigger the function verification routine).
Regarding claim 5, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step b. takes place without an access authorization, which depends on an electronic identifier of the locking device and/or an electronic key identifier and/or on the location, having been verified beforehand (para. 0027 all keys operate the lock in factory state therefore no access authorization is required for step b).
Regarding claim 6, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step c comprises location-specific, location region-specific and/or lock system specific access authorization information (step C comprises identifying the master and end function keys which are lock system specific access information).
Regarding claim 9, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data comprises location-specific and/or location region-specific and/or lock system-specific locking device operating data (steps 204, 208, 212; master key and end function key are programmed into lock), wherein the locking device is designed in steps a and b to be free of location specific and/or region specific and/or lock system specific locking device operating data (factory state for a and b).
Regarding claim 14, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in step c, the access authorization information is sent from the key (130) to the locking device, wherein the key in step a is a first key (130), wherein the key for sending in step c is a second key (132), and wherein the first key and the second key are mechanically identical and/or comprise different authorizations (para. 0025).
Regarding claim 16, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein before step c, the method comprises the following step:
Wirelessly sending from a device (the machine that codes the keys to be master or an end key) to the key a configuration message that a locking device is to be configured (the keys need to be programmed prior to configuration).
Regarding claim 17, Lappalainen teaches a system for commissioning a locking device at a location, wherein the system comprises a key with electronics wherein the system comprises an electromechanical locking device (106), wherein the locking device (106) comprises an electromechanical actuator (110), locking device electronics (112) and a driver (118), wherein the electromechanical actuator (110) can be activated by the locking device electronics (112) in order to transfer the driver from a non-rotatable to a rotatable state (para. 0021) wherein the locking device is designed to carry out the following method steps;
a. detecting the electronic key (130; para. 0032-0033),
b. triggering a function verification routine (para. 0027, when a lock is in factory state all keys are capable of opening a lock, therefore after insertion of the key a function verification routine is triggered because all keys are capable of operating the lock), wherein the actuator (35) is electrically activated in order to transfer the driver (36) from the non-rotatable to the rotatable state (para. 0027),wherein the locking device (20) is in a factory state during steps a. and b. (para. 0032-0033),
c. subsequently receiving (124) configuration data, wherein the configuration data comprising at least one item of access authorization information (steps 204, 208, 212; master key authorized and end function key inserted and programmed into lock), whereby the locking device is transferred from the factory state to a configured state, wherein the access authorization information contains location-specific and/or location region-specific and/or lock system-specific encryption information (steps 204, 208, 212; master key and end function key are programmed into lock), wherein the locking device in steps a. and b. is designed to be free of location-specific and/or location region-specific and/or lock system-specific encryption information (factory state prior to insertion of the key).
Regarding claim 18, Lappalainen teaches the system according to claim 17, wherein the system comprises a computer program product for execution (program to code keys), on a device (device to code keys), wherein the computer program product is designed to carry out the method, wherein a location-specific user input for defining the location takes place by receiving the user input by way of a device before step c (when keys are coded before insertion)., and/or wherein a lock system selection of a lock system takes place by receiving a lock system user input by way of the device before step c on the device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lappalainen (US 20110174029 A1) in view of Imedio (US 20110140838 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, however does not explicitly teach wherein the access authorization information contains a location-specific and/or location region-specific and/or lock system-specific blacklist, wherein the locking device in steps a and b is designed to be free of a location-specific and/or region-specific and/or lock system-specific blacklist.
Imedio teaches a similar method for operating an access control system including a lock system-specific blacklist included in the installed access control system (para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lappalainen with those of Imedio in order to include a blacklist to identify all of the failed entry attempts. Keeping a log of failed entry attempts provides an added level of security to identify patterns or check when an attempt was made. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lappalainen (US 20110174029 A1) in view of Kruempel (EP 3300036 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lappalainen teaches the method according to claim 1, however does not explicitly teach receiving the lock system user input from a device, the input comes from the key itself.
Kruempel teaches a similar method for operating a locking system which utilizes a device (7) to input lock system user input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lappalainen with those of Kruempel in order to utilize a device to update the locking information rather than a series of key inputs. Displaying the lock information on a screen and selecting the appropriate information allows for an easy user friendly programing experience. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Lappalainen in view of Kruempel teaches the method of claim 10, Kruempel further teaches wherein the location-specific user input and/or lock system user input takes place by selection from lists and/or overview plans displayed on a screen of the device (7).
Regarding claim 12, Lappalainen in view of Kruempel teaches the method of claim 10, Kruempel further teaches wherein before step c, the device (7) sends the lock system information obtained by way of the lock system user input to a computing unit (6; fig 1 shows the signal transfer diagram which can be initiated at any time).
Regarding claim 13, Lappalainen in view of Kruempel teaches the method of claim 12, Kruempel further teaches wherein access authorization information is sent from the key to the locking device (fig. 1), wherein the key comprises a key shank, wherein the key is introduced with the key shank into the locking device to send the access authorization information to the locking device (fig. 1), wherein the key has previously received access authorization information from the device (para. 0019).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 15 contains allowable subject matter for disclosing that the method contains a step denying authorization for the key that sent the authorization information to the locking device in order to verify the function of the locking device in the configured state. The key of Lappalainen is the master key and is always accepted in the locking device therefore it would be improper hindsight to modify the locking device to deny the master key.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.E.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675