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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because conventional features illustrated in the drawing as rectangular boxes must be labeled. The drawings are objected to because the drawing in a non-provisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. MPEP 1.83 states that conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation ( e.g., a labeled rectangular box), however in this case that rectangular box 80-84 in fig. 4 and 101-125 in figs 5 and 7 are essential for a proper understanding of the invention and should be labeled as such. See 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As of claim 1, line 9, term “the identifier” should be –the electronic identifier—to be consistent with the terminology used in the line 3 of the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-10, 16 and 18 recite the term “the identifier” as well and should be changed accordingly.
As of claim 18, line 12, term “a device” should be –the device—since the term “device” is already introduced in line 3.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 19/121,319 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Present Application
19/121600 (Claim 1)
Reference Application
19/121,319 (Claim 1+10)
Comments
A method for commissioning an electromechanical locking device at a location, wherein the locking device comprises an electronic identifier (ID), and wherein the method includes the following steps:
receiving a location-specific user input by way of device for defining the location; wherein the receipt takes place by performing the location-specific user input on the device, b. assigning, the identifier to the defined location to form an ID location assignment, c. subsequently sending the ID location assignment by the device to a computing unit ,
wherein the method further includes the following steps:
i. receiving location- and/or lock system-specific authorisation information from the computing unit by the device, ii. then receiving authorisation information by the locking device, wherein step i. takes place after step c, wherein the authorisation information contains location- and/or lock system-specific encryption information, wherein a key is used as part of the method, wherein the authorisation information, which the locking device receives, corresponds to the authorisation information, which the device receives from the computing unit, or wherein the authorisation information, which the locking device receives, is modified in the device and/or in the key, wherein the authorisation information is sent to the key and is then sent, modified or unmodified, wired or wirelessly, from the key to the locking device.
A method for commissioning an electromechanical locking device at a location,
wherein a location-specific user input for defining the location provided by receiving the user input by way of the device (claim 10),
wherein a lock system selection of a lock system takes place by receiving a lock system user input by a device,
wherein an installer selects a lock system, wherein the method comprises the following step carried out by the locking device:
Receiving electronic configuration data, wherein the configuration data comprises at least one item of access authorisation information, wherein the lock system selection takes place before the configuration data is received,
wherein the access authorisation information contains location-specific and/or location region-specific and/or lock system-specific encryption information, which is designed as a cryptographic key and/or as a separate encryption algorithm,
wherein before the locking device receives the configuration data, the device sends the lock system information obtained by the lock system user input to a computing unit and receives location-specific, location region-specific and/or lock system-specific access authorisation information from the computing unit,
wherein the receipt of the access authorisation information by the device serves to prepare for the locking device to receive the configuration data.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is claimed in the copending application as well, even though the steps are ordered differently.
Dependent claims are rejected as follows:
2
6
3
6
4
10
5
1
6
2
7
1
8
4
13
8
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Reasons for Allowance
Application does not have an art rejection and will be allowed if a proper terminal disclaimer is filed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As of claim 1, none of the prior art discloses or suggest a method for commissioning an electromechanical lock comprising the step of: i. receiving location- and/or lock system-specific authorisation information from the computing unit by the device, ii. then receiving authorisation information by the locking device, wherein the authorisation information contains location- and/or lock system-specific encryption information, wherein a key is used as part of the method, wherein the authorisation information, which the locking device receives, corresponds to the authorisation information, which the device receives from the computing unit, or wherein the authorisation information, which the locking device receives, is modified in the device and/or in the key, wherein the authorisation information is sent to the key and is then sent, modified or unmodified, wired or wirelessly, from the key to the locking device , in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Pertinent Prior Art
Anderson et al. (US Pub 2015/0221152) a method for configuring a lock device, comprising the steps of receiving a location-specific user input by a mobile device, assigning an identifier to the defined location to form an ID location assignment and subsequently sending the ID location assignment by the mobile device to a computing device (see fig. 5).
Baumgarte (US Pub 2023/0162551) discloses a method for commissioning an access control device (lock) wherein a mobile device 104 receives commissioning data from an access control system (computing unit) and transmits the commissioning data to the access control device (see abstract).
Gokcebay (US 9,672,673) discloses an electronic locker lock system that includes a smartphone or other hand-held computer device, with a program for control of lock access. When locks of the system are to be set as to permitted access, or operating parameters of locks are to be adjusted, or for downloading information from the lock, information is entered into the smartphone and downloaded to a portable electronic data key. The data key is then touched to contacts of each lock to be affected, whereby the locks are set or the locks provide audit data to the smartphones (see abstract).
Borg et al. (US Pub 2016/0379431) discloses an access control system wherien a key device 1 receives access rights data form a computing device 30 and transfer the access rights data to a lock device 20 (see paragraph [0056]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686