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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pukari (Pub. No.: 2015/0332527 A1) in view of Choi (Pub. No.: 2019/0147674 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Pukari discloses the claimed locking system (fig. 1a) comprising:
(a) a lock having a lock body (fig. 1: 116), a locking mechanism moveable between a locked position and an unlocked position, and a transceiver configured to transmit and receive data (¶0020);
(b) a controller (¶0020 discloses the lock is connected to an electronic circuitry which is interpreted as the controller) configured to
(i) perform lock operations (¶0021); and
(ii) authenticate a user for access to the lock (¶0021);
(c) wherein the controller is configured to:
(ii) receive an authorization token from a personal device of the user (¶0021); and
(iii) transition the locking mechanism between the locked position and the unlocked position upon verification of the authorization token (¶0021).
Pukari does not explicitly disclose the controller receive a first authorization token from a lock-control server, and compares it to a second authorization token from the portable device.
Pukari discloses in a different embodiment communicating with a server (i.e., authentication service) for authentication purposes (¶0029). However, Choi discloses it is known for a lock controller to receive a first authorization token from a lock-control server, and compares the first authorization token received from the lock-control server to a second authorization token from a portable device (¶0049).
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 system of Pukari to receive an authorization token from a server, as taught by Choi.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Pukari as described above in order to quickly authenticate a user by doing authorization locally.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Pukari and Choi further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the transceiver comprises a first radio unit and a second radio unit, and the controller is configured to receive the first authorization token via the first radio unit and receive the second authorization token via the second radio unit (Pukari fig. 1a and ¶0018).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Pukari and Choi further disclose the locking system of claim 2, wherein the first radio unit operates at a first frequency and the second radio unit operates at a second frequency that is different from the first frequency (Pukari fig. 1a and ¶0018).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Pukari and Choi further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the lock is within a predetermined range of the personal device; and deny access to the lock if the lock is not within the predetermined range (Pukari fig. 1a and ¶0018 discloses NFC; hence, if the mobile device isn’t in range, it cannot be authenticated).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Pukari and Choi further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: authenticate the first authorization token; and in response to authenticating the first authorization token, transmit an authorization request to the personal device of the user to prompt the user to send the second authorization token (Choi ¶0049).
6) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Pukari and Choi further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the lock further includes one or more sensors selected from a group consisting of: a temperature sensor, a water sensor, a chemical sensor, an environmental sensor, a pressure sensor, a fingerprint sensor, and a proximity sensor (Choi ¶0005).
7) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Pukari and Choi further disclose the locking system of claim 1, wherein the lock-control server is a cloud-based server (Choi fig. 1).
8) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Pukari and Choi further disclose the locking system of claim 1.
Pukari and Choi does not explicitly disclose the lock further comprises an overlock mechanism configured to selectively block operation of the locking mechanism.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a lock system to utilize an overlock mechanism configured to selectively block operation of the locking mechanism.
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 mechanism to be an overlock mechanism.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Pukari as described above in order to use one of a finite locking mechanism.
9) In regard to claim 9, claim 9 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
10) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 9), claim 10 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), claim 11 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 11), Pukari and Choi further disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the authorization token includes a time during which the user is authorized to operate the lock (Pukari ¶0025).
13) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 11), claim 13 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 4 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 10), Pukari and Choi further disclose the method of claim 10, that further includes the lock-control server contacting a third party (Choi ¶0046).
15) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 10), Pukari and Choi further disclose the method of claim 10.
Pukari and Choi do not explicitly disclose further comprising: the radio sending the user a token; the user sending the token to the lock-control server; the lock-control server verifying the user is permitted to access the lock; and in response to the lock-control server verifying the user is permitted to access the lock, the lock-control server sending the user the authorization token.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a lock system to have
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 Pukari to have the radio sending the user a token; the user sending the token to the lock-control server; the lock-control server verifying the user is permitted to access the lock; and in response to the lock-control server verifying the user is permitted to access the lock, the lock-control server sending the user the authorization token.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Pukari as described above in order to use a known technique for authenticating a user.
16) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 10), Pukari and Choi further disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the user requesting access to the lock includes sending a request to the lock-control server requesting access to the lock (¶0047).
17) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 16), Pukari and Choi further disclose the method of claim 16, further comprising: in response to receiving the request at the lock-control server, the lock-control server determining that the user is authorized to have access to the lock; in response to the lock-control server determining that the user is authorized to have access to the lock, the lock-control server sending the user the authorization token prior to the user sending the authorization token to the lock (¶0047).
18) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 17), Pukari and Choi further disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the user communicates with the lock and the lock- control server with the personal device (¶0047).
19) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 10), claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 7 and the references applied.
20) In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 15 and the references applied.
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