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) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first door lock plate assembly configured to be mounted to an exterior side of a door at a lock region,” and subsequently recites “a hands-free bump knob supported by the first door lock plate.” However, there is no antecedent basis for “the first door lock plate.” The claim previously recites a “first door lock plate assembly,” but does not separately introduce a “first door lock plate.” Therefore, it is unclear whether “the first door lock plate” refers to the previously recited “first door lock plate assembly” or to a separate structural element, thereby rendering the scope of claim 1 indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0260458 A1) in view of Earl et al. (US 5,999,095).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an integrated door lock comprising a first door lock plate assembly configured to be mounted to an exterior side of a door at a lock region, wherein supports 10 and housings 20 are coupled to the front and rear surfaces of door 200, and the exterior housing includes key input unit 22 (paras 46–55; Figs. 2, 5, and 8).
Lee further teaches a hands-free bump knob supported by the first door lock plate and communicatively mechanically coupled to a bolt of the integrated door lock, in the form of lever 30 supported by exterior housing 20 and mechanically coupled through protruding portion 31, movable member 41, gears 42 and 43, and actuating rod 44 to latch bolt 140. Lee teaches that movement of lever 30 causes protruding portion 31 to move driving unit 40, which rotates actuating rod 44 and thereby moves latch bolt 140 (paras 56–60, 69, 72–76; Figs. 3–7).
Lee further teaches the bump knob being configured to retract the bolt of the integrated door lock into a retracted state when the hands-free bump knob is pressed into an open state. Specifically, when lever 30 is pushed, protruding portion 31 lowers movable member 41, thereby rotating first gear 42, second gear 43, and actuating rod 44 to unlock lock mechanism 100; actuating rod 44 moves latch bolt 140 (paras 74–76, 88; Figs. 6 and 7).
Lee further teaches the latch bolt being movable between its latched/non-retracted and unlatched/retracted positions using conventional latch structures associated with actuating rod 44 (paras 75–76). Thus, upon removal of the actuating force from lever 30, the conventional latch mechanism returns latch bolt 140 to its non-retracted position.
Lee further teaches the first door lock plate assembly further being configured to enable at least one physical module to be mechanically and communicatively attached thereto. In particular, Lee teaches key input unit 22 physically provided on exterior housing 20, wherein key input unit 22 may comprise a keypad, keyhole, card reader, or combinations thereof, and communicates an input signal to the lock mechanism for unlocking deadbolt 130 (paras 24–25, 51–55, 98–100; Fig. 8).
Lee, however, does not teach that the physical module is communicatively coupled to an alarm system that monitors a premises and is configured to transition the alarm system from an activated state to an inactivated state, and vice versa, when activated.
Earl teaches an electronic access-control device positioned at a building entrance and communicatively coupled to both an electric door lock and an associated premises alarm system. Earl teaches that presentation of an authorized credential to the exterior lock controller causes a door-lock relay to unlock the door and also causes alarm relay 226 to transition the alarm from an armed state to a disarmed state. Earl further teaches that subsequent user activation causes alarm relay 226 to transition the alarm back to the armed state. Earl expressly explains that the arrangement integrates the door-lock controller with the alarm controller so that a user need not separately operate the door lock and an alarm console when entering or leaving the building. Earl further teaches that the same concept may be implemented using a code pad at the door, biometric sensor, speech recognition unit, or other user-input device (Col 4 lines 27 to col. 5, lines 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Lee's exterior key input unit 22 to additionally communicate with and control a premises alarm system as taught by Earl, such that activation of the exterior physical input module would transition the alarm system between armed and disarmed states. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to consolidate door-access and premises-alarm control at the entry point, thereby eliminating the need for a user to separately operate the door lock and a separate alarm console when entering or leaving the premises, as expressly taught by Earl. Such a modification would have amounted to the predictable use of a known electronic lock input device to perform the known additional function of controlling an associated alarm system.
Regarding claim 2, Earl teaches the additional limitation of claim 2, “further comprising a non-transitory memory configured to store information for at least one authorized user and at least one associated authentication data,” Earl teaches TRAC-Station unit 210 including CPU 218 and memory 220, wherein a user presents electronic key 215 and provides authorization information to the TRAC-Station unit, which validates the authorization information to determine whether the user/key is authorized. Earl further teaches storing access activity information in memory, including the date/time and keyholder ID associated with the authorized access (Fig. 2; col. 3–4).
Earl therefore teaches storing information associated with authorized users and authentication credentials used to determine whether access is permitted. Earl further teaches that its operations are implemented using program and data instructions stored in CPU 218 and memory 220.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electronic door lock system of Lee, as modified by Earl in claim 1, with Earl’s memory for storing authorized-user and associated authentication information, in order to permit the lock controller to determine whether authentication information presented by a user corresponds to an authorized user before permitting access. Such a modification would have amounted to the predictable use of known memory-based credential verification in an electronic access-control system.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches “an authentication module that includes at least one processor configured to receive a plurality of authentication data” insofar as Lee teaches key input unit 22 provided on exterior housing 20, wherein key input unit 22 may include multiple credential-input devices, including a keypad and a card reader. Lee further teaches an embodiment in which deadbolt 130 may be opened by inputting a password through the keypad and contacting a card key, thereby teaching receipt of multiple authentication data from a user (paras 51–55; Figs. 8–9).
Lee does not expressly teach “at least one processor configured to … validate at least one authentication data provided by the user by accessing the information stored in the non-transitory memory.”
Earl teaches TRAC-Station unit 210 including CPU 218 and memory 220. Earl further teaches that a user presents electronic key 215 and enters a PIN code, after which authorization information is provided to the TRAC-Station unit and the TRAC-Station unit validates the authorization information to determine whether the user is authorized. If the user is authorized, the TRAC-Station unit powers the door-unlocking solenoid; if the user is unauthorized, access is denied. Earl further teaches that the operations of the TRAC-Station are performed using program and data instructions stored in CPU 218 and memory 220 (Col. 4, lines 25-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’s multiple-credential key input unit with Earl’s processor-based authorization-validation functionality, such that authentication data received from Lee’s keypad and/or card reader is processed and validated before permitting operation of the electronic door lock, in order to restrict access to authorized users.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches “wherein the at least one physical module further includes a keypad configured to enable the user to enter a keycode as the at least one authentication data,” Lee teaches key input unit 22 provided on exterior housing 20, wherein key input unit 22 may include a keypad, a keyhole, a card reader, or combinations thereof (paras 51–54). Lee further expressly teaches that when key input unit 22 uses a keypad, deadbolt 130 may be opened by “inputting a password through the keypad,” thereby teaching a keypad configured to receive a user-entered keycode for authentication/access control (para 55; Figs. 8–9).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches “at least two physical sub-modules configured to enable a user to perform respective functions,” wherein key input unit 22 provided on exterior housing 20 may include multiple physical input components, including a keypad, keyhole, and card reader, either individually or in combinations. Lee expressly teaches embodiments employing a keypad together with a card reader (paras 51–55; Figs. 8–9).
Lee further teaches “wherein at least one of the physical sub-modules is configured to receive respective disparate authentication data from the user,” because the keypad is configured to receive a user-entered password, while the card reader is configured to receive authentication information from a card key. Lee specifically teaches that deadbolt 130 may be opened by “inputting a password through the keypad and contacting a card key,” thereby teaching different physical sub-modules receiving disparate types of authentication data from the user (para 55).
Regarding claim 9, “a second door lock plate assembly configured to be secured to an interior surface of the door, wherein the first door lock plate assembly and the second door lock plate assembly are further configured to be mechanically secured to one another via the door,” Lee teaches first and second main bodies disposed on opposite sides of door 200, including supports and housings respectively provided on the front and rear surfaces of the door. Lee expressly teaches that the housings are coupled to the inside and outside of the door by respective supports, thereby teaching exterior and interior lock assemblies mechanically secured about opposite sides of the same door (paras 6–10; claim 1).
Lee further teaches “wherein the second door lock plate assembly includes a second hands-free bump knob (i) supported by the second door lock plate assembly and (ii) communicatively mechanically coupled to the bolt of the integrated door lock.” Lee teaches lever 30 provided on each of the housings coupled respectively to the inside and outside surfaces of door 200. Each lever pivots in a front-and-back direction and includes protruding portion 31 that operates driving unit 40, including movable member 41, gears 42 and 43, and actuating rod 44 connected to lock mechanism 100 and latch bolt 140 (paras 7–13, 72–76; claim 1).
Lee further teaches the second hands-free bump knob being “configured to retract the bolt of the integrated door lock to the retracted state when pressed into the open state.” Lee expressly teaches that the levers of both the first and second main bodies may perform a push or pull operation to unlock lock mechanism 100, and that movement of lever 30 causes movable member 41 to rotate gears 42, 43 and actuating rod 44, thereby moving latch bolt 140 (paras 11–13, 72–76).
Lee further teaches the latch bolt being returned to its non-retracted position after the lever is released through the conventional latch mechanism associated with actuating rod 44. Lee expressly states that latch bolt 140 moves according to rotation of actuating rod 44 using common lock structures and methods (paras 75–76).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0260458 A1) in view of Earl et al. (US 5,999,095), and further in view of Belhadia et al. (US 2017/0011573 A1), for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Lee does not explicitly teach “further comprising wireless communications electronics configured to wirelessly communicate data to a data repository to update (i) a status of the integrated door lock with the user, (ii) timestamp a change of the status or interaction, and (iii) a type of the authentication data provided by the user,”
Belhadia teaches a smart lock having wireless transceiver 206 configured to communicate with a mobile device, network device, administrator device, or central access server using wireless communications including Bluetooth, NFC, ZigBee, cellular broadband, or similar wireless technologies (paras 55–57, 65–67).
Belhadia further teaches communicating door and bolt status information, including whether the door is opened or closed and whether the bolt is locked or unlocked, to an administrator device or central access server (paras 64, 106–107, 115).
Belhadia further teaches storing and reporting access-event information including when the door was opened or closed, when the bolt was locked or unlocked, and the precise time a user accessed the smart lock (paras 62–63, 122–125). Belhadia also teaches that the logs identify how the lock was accessed, including whether access was obtained using a passcode, biometric scan, or wireless token, thereby teaching identification of the type of authentication data provided by the user (paras 33, 48, 113, 118, 122–125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electronic lock system of Lee and Earl with the wireless reporting and access-logging functionality taught by Belhadia, such that lock status, the time of a lock-status change or user interaction, and the type of authentication used are wirelessly communicated to a central access server or other remote data repository. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to enable remote monitoring of lock status and maintain a detailed record of who accessed the lock, when the access occurred, and how the lock was accessed, as expressly contemplated by Belhadia.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2014/0260458 A1) in view of Earl et al. (US 5,999,095), and further in view of Sumcad et al. (US 2011/0252843 A1), for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Lee does not explicitly teach, “wherein the first door lock plate assembly is further configured to enable a plurality of physical modules to be mechanically and communicatively attached thereto to add additional functionality to the integrated door lock,”. However, Sumcad teaches an electronic door lock having an outer portion 28 mounted to the exterior side of a door and including an attachment interface 100 formed on the outer portion. Sumcad teaches a plurality of different physical credential-reader modules, including keypad 76, proximity detector 80, proximity detector/keypad 84, magnetic stripe reader 88, magnetic stripe reader/keypad 92, and biometric reader 96, each configured for mounting to attachment interface 100 (paras 19, 23–25; Fig. 2).
Sumcad further teaches that each credential reader 48 is mechanically attached to attachment interface 100 using corresponding attachment portions, alignment structures, and mounting fasteners 127, 131, and is communicatively/electrically coupled through connector 136 mating with connector 134 of attachment interface 100, thereby electrically connecting the credential reader to control circuit 154 (paras 29–30; Figs. 2 and 4).
Sumcad further teaches that the different credential-reader modules provide different functionality to the electronic door lock. For example, the modules may provide keypad, proximity, magnetic-stripe, biometric, or combinations of credential-input functionality, and Sumcad expressly teaches that a user may remove one type of credential reader and attach another type as the user's security needs or preferences change, thereby providing modularity, interchangeability, and upgradeability (paras 23–25, 41–42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the exterior lock assembly of Lee, as modified by Earl, with Sumcad's attachment interface for accepting different physical electronic modules, thereby permitting different physical modules to be mechanically secured and communicatively connected to the lock assembly to provide additional or different lock functionality. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to permit the functionality of the electronic door lock to be changed or upgraded without replacing the entire lock, thereby improving flexibility, interchangeability, and upgradeability while reducing the cost and complexity of modifying the access-control system, as expressly taught by Sumcad.
Regarding claim 8, “further comprising first electronics supported by the first door lock plate assembly,” Sumcad teaches outer portion 28 of electronic door lock 20 including attachment interface 100 formed on the exterior portion of the lock. Attachment interface 100 includes electrical connector 134, which is electrically communicatively coupled to control circuit 154 of the electronic door lock (paras 29–30; Figs. 2 and 4).
Sumcad further teaches “wherein the plurality of physical modules includes a second electronics configured to be electrically communicatively coupled to the first electronics.” Specifically, each physical credential-reader module 48 is self-contained and includes the electrical components and firmware necessary to receive an input credential and output the credential or a corresponding signal. Each credential reader further includes connector 136 configured to mate with connector 134 of attachment interface 100, thereby electrically connecting the electronics of the credential-reader module to the electronics/control circuitry of electronic door lock 20 (paras 23–24, 29–30; Figs. 2 and 4).
Sumcad expressly teaches that, for example, keypad module 76 receives a numeric or alphanumeric code and communicates the entered credential to control circuit 154, while biometric module 96 receives and processes biometric data and communicates corresponding data to control circuit 154. Thus, Sumcad teaches electronic circuitry in the physical modules electrically and communicatively coupled through the lock-side electrical interface to the electronics of the electronic door lock (paras 23–24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modular lock arrangement of Lee and Earl, as modified by Sumcad in claim 7, with Sumcad’s electrical interface between the lock-side electronics and the electronics of the attachable physical modules, so that the different physical modules could communicate credential or control information to the electronic door lock. One would have been motivated to provide such an electrical and communicative interface in order to permit interchangeable electronic modules to operate with the common door-lock control circuitry while allowing the functionality of the lock to be changed or upgraded without replacing the entire lock assembly, as expressly contemplated by Sumcad.
Claims 10-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhadia et al. (US 2017/0011573 A1) in view of Lee (US 2014/0260458 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Belhadia teaches “a method of operating an integrated door lock” including smart lock 104 having an exterior button 205, hardware processor 203, storage medium 201, wireless transceiver 206, keypad 207, biometric scanner 208, cylinder 204, cam 209, and a bolt operated by the cam (paras 65–71; Figs. 2A–2B).
Belhadia teaches “receiving, by an authentication module of a door lock interface coupled to an exterior side of a door, authentication data from a user,” wherein hardware processor 203 receives authentication information through one or more access channels, including a fingerprint received through biometric scanner 208, a passcode entered through keypad 207, or a wireless token received from a user's mobile device. The exterior button 205 and associated credential interfaces are disposed at the exterior-facing end of cylinder 204 (paras 65–71).
Belhadia further teaches “comparing, by the authentication module, the authentication data to a list of stored authentication data.” Specifically, storage medium 201 stores authentication information for authorized users, including biometric data such as fingerprints, and the smart lock compares a received biometric scan to the biometric data stored at the smart lock to determine whether the user is authorized. Belhadia similarly teaches validating entered passcodes by comparing the received passcode with authentication information generated from processes stored in the smart lock (paras 40, 44, 49, 54, 65–66, 88).
Belhadia further teaches “enabling a hands-free bump knob to transition a bolt to a retracted state if the authentication data matches the stored authentication data.” Belhadia expressly teaches that, before authentication, button 205 freely rotates and does not engage cam 209. Once the user's authentication information has been validated, button 205 is enabled such that pushing the button inward activates a clutch that engages cam 209, thereby mechanically coupling the button to the bolt-operating mechanism (paras 65, 69, 79, 88–89).
Belhadia, however, does not teach “in response to the hands-free bump knob being pressed, retracting the bolt” in the claimed manner. Although Belhadia teaches pushing button 205 inward after authentication to engage the clutch, Belhadia thereafter requires the user to rotate button 205 so that cam 209 moves the bolt from the locked position to the unlocked position (para 69).
Lee teaches a push-operated door lock in which exterior lever 30 is mechanically coupled through protruding portion 31, movable member 41, gears 42 and 43, and actuating rod 44 to latch bolt 140. Lee expressly teaches that pushing lever 30 causes the driving unit to rotate actuating rod 44 and thereby operate latch bolt 140 to unlock the lock mechanism, without requiring the rotational manipulation of the exterior user-operated member required by Belhadia (paras 74–76, 95, 97–101; Figs. 6, 12–13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Belhadia's authentication-enabled exterior button and clutch arrangement such that, once authentication enables the button to engage the bolt-operating mechanism, pressing the exterior user-operated member directly retracts the latch bolt as taught by Lee. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to simplify physical operation of the authenticated electronic lock by permitting the user to open the door through a direct push operation rather than requiring the additional rotational manipulation of the exterior button, while retaining Belhadia's authentication-controlled engagement of the lock mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, “further comprising providing a memory configured to store information for at least one authorized user and the at least one authorized user's associated authentication information in a list of verified authentication data,” Belhadia teaches smart lock 104 including storage medium 201 configured to store information and data used for validating authentication information. Belhadia expressly teaches that storage medium 201 may store biographic data for users authorized to open the lock and authentication information associated with those users (paras 54, 65).
Belhadia further teaches that biometric data, including fingerprints for users granted access to the smart lock, may be stored in storage medium 201. When a biometric scan is received from a user, smart lock 104 compares the received scan with the stored biometric data and grants access when the received authentication data matches the stored data (para 54).
Belhadia additionally teaches storing access rights identifying individual users and associating those users with particular smart locks, wherein the stored access rights and authentication information are checked to determine whether the user is authorized to access the lock (paras 32, 39–40).
Regarding claim 12, “further comprising enabling the hands-free bump knob to transition the bolt from a non-retracted state to the retracted state if at least two authentication data received matches at least two entries on the list of verified authentication data,” Belhadia teaches authenticating a user using multiple different authentication data before permitting operation of the smart lock. Specifically, Belhadia teaches that users may be required to authenticate themselves using a combination of access channels, expressly providing the example of requiring a dynamic passcode and a fingerprint before granting access to the lock (para 48).
Belhadia further teaches that a received passcode is validated by comparison with authentication information generated according to a process stored at the smart lock, while a received biometric scan is compared with biometric data stored at the smart lock. Access is granted when the received authentication information is successfully validated (paras 49, 54, 65–66, 88–89).
Belhadia further teaches that, following successful authentication, exterior button 205 is enabled to engage cam 209 and operate the bolt; prior to authorization, the button does not engage the cam (paras 69, 79, 89).
Regarding claim 13, “wherein receiving the authentication data from the user comprises receiving the authentication data from a keypad,” Belhadia expressly teaches smart lock 104 including passcode keypad 207 as an authentication input device. A user may manually enter a passcode on the keypad, and the smart lock receives and validates the entered passcode as authentication information (paras 9–10, 14, 33, 48–49, 65, 71, 87–88).
Belhadia further teaches that passcodes may be fixed or dynamic and may be manually entered onto the smart lock keypad. The entered passcode is then validated to determine whether the user is authorized to access the lock (paras 14, 47–50, 88–89).
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the authentication data received from the keypad is a keycode,” Belhadia teaches that smart lock 104 includes passcode keypad 207 and that a user may manually enter a passcode on the keypad as authentication information. Belhadia further explains that a passcode may include letters, numbers, symbols, or combinations thereof, and may be fixed or dynamic (paras 14, 44, 47–53, 65, 71).
Belhadia further teaches that the entered passcode is validated by the smart lock to determine whether the user is authorized to access the lock, including by comparing the entered passcode with a passcode generated according to a process stored at the smart lock (paras 49, 65–66, 88–89).
Regarding claim 15, “wherein receiving the authentication data from the user comprises receiving first authentication data from a first physical sub-module and receiving second authentication data from a second physical sub-module,” Belhadia teaches smart lock 104 having multiple distinct physical authentication input components, including passcode keypad 207 and biometric scanner 208. Belhadia teaches that the keypad receives a passcode from the user and the biometric scanner receives biometric information, such as a fingerprint, from the user (paras 9–10, 33, 48, 54, 65, 71).
Belhadia further expressly teaches that users may be required to authenticate using a combination of different access channels, including the specific example of requiring both a dynamic passcode and a fingerprint before access is granted (para 48).
Belhadia further teaches validating the different authentication data before allowing the user to operate the smart lock, including comparing biometric information to stored biometric data and validating passcodes according to stored authentication processes or access rules (paras 49, 54, 65–66, 88–89).
Regarding claim 16, “transmitting, by the integrated door lock, data to a data repository to update a status of the integrated door lock with a user identifier, a timestamp of a change of the status or interaction, and a type of the authentication data provided by the user,” Belhadia teaches smart lock 104 communicating access and lock-status information to central access server 105/106, either indirectly through a user's mobile device or network device, or directly using a wireless connection (paras 31, 55–57, 64, 67, 106–107, 122–125).
Belhadia teaches the claimed “status of the integrated door lock” by expressly transmitting information indicating whether a door is open or closed and whether the bolt is locked or unlocked. Belhadia further teaches transmitting the lock/unlock status to the central access server so that the status can be provided to a master or administrator (paras 62–64, 106–107, 115, 123).
Belhadia teaches the claimed “user identifier” because its access logs identify the particular user associated with an access event. Belhadia expressly states that logs may report who accessed the smart lock and also describes interfaces identifying users by name and other user information (paras 109, 112–113, 122–124).
Belhadia teaches the claimed “timestamp of a change of the status or interaction” because the smart lock records when a door was opened or closed and when the bolt was locked or unlocked, and its access logs include the precise time that a user accessed the smart lock (paras 62–63, 122–124).
Belhadia further teaches the claimed “type of the authentication data provided by the user” because the smart lock supports different authentication channels, including passcode, biometric scan, and wireless token, and Belhadia expressly teaches that its access logs identify how the smart lock was accessed (paras 33, 48, 118, 122–124).
Belhadia further teaches that these logs may be communicated to a master or administrator periodically or in near real-time and may be communicated directly from the smart lock to a central server using the lock's wireless connection (paras 124–125).
Regarding claim 18, Belhadia teaches “an apparatus comprising: a door lock interface configured to be coupled to an exterior side of a door” through smart lock 104, including cylinder 204 and exterior-facing button 205 disposed on the outside of the door (paras 65, 69–71; Figs. 2A–2B).
Belhadia teaches “a hands-free bump knob supported by the door lock interface and mechanically coupled to a bolt of the door lock,” wherein exterior button 205 is associated with cylinder 204 and cam 209 that engages the bolt. Once enabled, the button engages the cam to operate the bolt (paras 65, 68–69).
Belhadia further teaches “an authentication module configured to prevent operation of the hands-free bump knob until authentication data received from a user is successfully authenticated.” Specifically, hardware processor 203 and storage medium 201 receive and validate authentication information including a passcode, biometric scan, or wireless token. Belhadia expressly teaches that, before the user is authorized, button 205 freely rotates and does not engage cam 209; after authentication is successfully validated, the button is enabled to engage the cam and operate the bolt (paras 65–66, 69, 79, 88–89).
Belhadia therefore directly teaches the authentication-controlled disabling/enabling aspect of claim 18.
To the extent “hands-free bump knob” is construed as requiring a user-operated member whose pressing action itself retracts the bolt, Lee teaches a push-operated exterior lever mechanically coupled to the latch through protruding portion 31, movable member 41, gears 42 and 43, and actuating rod 44, such that pushing the exterior member operates latch bolt 140 to unlock the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Belhadia’s authentication-controlled exterior button with Lee’s direct push-operated latch mechanism so that, after successful authentication enables the exterior user-operated member, pressing that member directly retracts the latch bolt. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to simplify operation of the authenticated electronic lock by allowing direct push actuation rather than requiring the additional rotational manipulation taught by Belhadia.
Regarding claim 19, “further comprising a memory configured to store information for at least one authorized user and at least one associated authentication data,” Belhadia teaches smart lock 104 including storage medium 201 and hardware processor 203. Belhadia expressly teaches that storage medium 201 stores information and data for validating authentication information and may store data associated with users authorized to open the smart lock (paras 54, 65).
More specifically, Belhadia teaches that storage medium 201 may store biometric data for each user granted access to the lock, including fingerprints. When a biometric scan is subsequently received, smart lock 104 compares the received biometric information with the stored biometric data and grants access when the information matches (para 54).
Belhadia further teaches access rights identifying individual users and associating those users with particular smart locks, wherein such access rights and rules may be stored in the smart lock or central access server and checked to determine whether the particular user is authorized to access the lock (paras 32, 39–40).
Regarding claim 20, “further comprising an authentication module including at least one processor configured to receive authentication data from a user and validate the authentication data,” Belhadia teaches smart lock 104 including hardware processor 203 and storage medium 201. Belhadia teaches that authentication information may be received from a plurality of access channels, including passcode keypad 207, biometric scanner 208, and wireless transceiver 206 receiving a token from a user's mobile device, and that hardware processor 203 validates the received authentication information before access is permitted (paras 65–66; Figs. 2A–2B).
Belhadia further teaches that the hardware processor validates received authentication information based on stored authentication information and access rules. For example, biometric information received from a user is compared with biometric data stored at the smart lock, while passcodes and tokens are likewise validated to determine whether the user is authorized to access the lock (paras 40, 44, 49, 54, 65–66, 88–89).
Belhadia further teaches that when the authentication information is successfully validated, the processor permits operation of exterior button 205 so that the button may engage cam 209 and operate the bolt. Prior to authorization, button 205 does not engage the cam and therefore cannot operate the bolt (paras 69, 79, 88–89).
Regarding claim 21, “wherein the authentication module further comprises a keypad configured to receive authentication data from the user,” Belhadia teaches smart lock 104 including passcode keypad 207 as one of the physical authentication input channels of the lock. Belhadia teaches that a user may enter a passcode through keypad 207 and that the entered passcode is received as authentication information for determining whether the user is authorized to access the lock (paras 9–10, 33, 48–49, 65, 71).
Belhadia further teaches that the hardware processor validates authentication information received from the passcode keypad, biometric scanner, or mobile device. In particular, Belhadia’s claim 1 expressly recites a passcode keypad as an access channel for receiving authentication information and a hardware processor configured to validate authentication information received from the passcode keypad.
Belhadia additionally teaches that a fixed passcode may be manually entered on the smart lock keypad and that the smart lock validates the entered passcode before granting access (paras 47–49). Belhadia also teaches receiving a passcode on the keypad as part of the authentication process in paras 87–89 and 95.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhadia et al. (US 2017/0011573 A1) in view of Lee (US 2014/0260458 A1), and further in view of Earl et al. (US 5,999,095), for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, “setting an alarm communication module to an active state, transmitting a signal from the alarm communication module to an alarm system, and transitioning the alarm system to an ON state,” Earl teaches an electronic access-control system in which the door-lock controller includes switching circuitry for controlling an associated alarm unit and switching the alarm between armed and disarmed states. Earl expressly teaches that when the user engages the access controller when leaving the premises, the alarm-control relay is toggled back to the armed state.
More specifically, Earl teaches a second relay or switching circuit controlling the alarm state. Upon the appropriate user interaction, the controller actuates that alarm-control circuitry so that the associated alarm system transitions from the disarmed state to the armed state. Earl further expressly states that, when an authorized key is presented, alarm relay 226 is toggled “back to armed.”
Earl's claim 1 likewise expressly recites a controller having a switching circuit that switches a control signal of an associated alarm unit between armed and disarmed states, and claim 7 recites, in response to a second user signal, toggling the alarm state to armed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the authenticated electronic door-lock system of Belhadia and Lee with Earl's alarm-control functionality such that a user command causes alarm-control circuitry associated with the door lock to send a control signal to the premises alarm system and transition the alarm system to its armed or ON state. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to integrate door-access and premises-alarm operation so that a user could secure the premises and arm the alarm through the same door-access interface, thereby avoiding the need to separately operate a remote alarm console, as expressly contemplated by Earl.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin (US 2012/0073084) Fig. 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights