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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The application of Matthew Frank Trapani for Multi-Mode Electronic Access Control System And Method filed 7/13/2025 has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,773.
Although the conflicting claim is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generally broader than the claims in the patent. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See in re Van Ornumand Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); in re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622 and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying “meat” is obvious double patenting of narrow patent specifying “pork”).
Regarding claims 1-20, the instant claims are generally broader than the patented claims of US Patent 12,361,773 because the limitations of the instant claims are recited in the patented claims.
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) 1-6,9-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kincaid et al. US Patent 10,231,183.
Regarding claim 1, Kincaid teaches an electronic access control method comprising:
configuring, with at least one processor, a plurality of operational modes for an electronic
access control device (fig. 7, col. 7 lines 8-26),
wherein each operational mode in the plurality of operational modes comprises a
different set of parameters for operation of the electronic access control device (different conditions are required for each operating mode, col. 7 line 8-57),
wherein the parameters for operation of the electronic access control device comprise one
or more security parameters, user parameters, or functional parameters (time interval, access time, user credential entered, col. 7 line 39-col. 8 line 22);
provisioning, with the at least one processor, the electronic access control device with the
plurality of operational modes (col. 4 line 63-col. 5 line 22);
configuring, with the at least one processor, the electronic access control device
according to a first mode of operation (col. 4 line 63-col. 5 line 22);
configuring, with the at least one processor, the electronic access control device
according to a second mode of operation (col. 4 line 63-col. 5 line 22);
wherein the second mode of operation is configured according to one or more of the
security parameters, user parameters, or functional parameters,
wherein the second mode of operation is different from the first mode of operation (fig. 7, col. 7 lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 2, Kincaid teaches configuring, with the at least one processor, the electronic access control device according to a third mode of operation,
wherein the third mode of operation is configured to restrict one or more functions of the
electronic access control device according to one or more installation or testing parameters (access device configured to work with one or more bridge device to provide RF communication, col. 2 lines 47-62).
Regarding claim 3, Kincaid teaches configuring, with the at
least one processor, the electronic access control device according to a third mode of operation,
wherein the second mode of operation is configured according to at least one first user role and
the third mode of operation is configured according to at least one second user role (credential entered, col. 7 line 39-col. 8 line 22, connection mode, col. 3 lines 12-30).
Regarding claim 4, Kincaid teaches configuring, with the at least one processor, the second mode of operation according to a first set of user parameters (col. 4 line 63-col. 5 line 22).
Regarding claim 5, Kincaid teaches configuring, with the at
least one processor, the second mode of operation according to a first set of site parameters (col. 4 line 63-col. 5 line 22).
Regarding claim 6, Kincaid teaches configuring, with the at
least one processor, the second mode of operation according to one or more installation or testing
parameters connection mode, col. 3 lines 12-30).
Regarding claim 9, Kincaid teaches the third mode of operation is configured according to one or more shared user roles (entering credential, col. 7 line 39-col. 8 line 22, connection mode, col. 3 lines 12-30).
. Regarding claim 10, Kincaid teaches an electronic access control system comprising:
at least one first computing device (col. 3 lines 1-12); and
an electronic access control device (24) communicably engaged with the at least one first
computing device (col. 3 lines 13-22),
wherein the at least one first computing device comprises at least one processor and a
non-transitory computer readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions stored
thereon that (col. 3 lines 1-12), when executed, command the at least one processor to perform one or more operations, the one or more operations comprising:
configuring a plurality of operational modes for the electronic access control
device (fig. 7, col. 7 lines 8-26),
wherein each operational mode in the plurality of operational modes comprises a
different set of parameters for operation of the electronic access control device (different conditions are required for each operating mode, col. 7 line 8-57),
wherein the parameters for operation of the electronic access control device
comprise one or more security parameters, user parameters, or functional parameters provisioning the electronic access control device with the plurality of operational
modes (fig. 7, col. 7 lines 8-26); and configuring the electronic access control device according to a first mode of operation (wake mode, col. 3 lines 23-45),
wherein the plurality of operational modes comprises at least one second mode of
operation (sleep mode, col. 6 lines 56-66),
wherein the electronic access control device is configurable between the first
mode of operation and the at least one second mode of operation (fig. 6),
wherein the at least one second mode of operation is configured according to one
or more of the security parameters, user parameters, or functional parameters,
wherein the at least one second mode of operation is different from the first mode
of operation (fig. 7, col. 7 lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 11, Kincaid teaches at least one client device communicably engaged with the electronic access control device via at least one data transfer interface (col. 6 lines 27-43).
Regarding claim 12, Kincaid teaches the at least one client device is
operably configured to configure the electronic access control device from the first mode of
operation to the at least one second mode of operation (power state transmission, col. 6 lines 44-67).
Regarding claim 15, Kincaid teaches configuring, with the at least one processor, the electronic access control device according to a third mode of operation,
wherein the third mode of operation is configured to restrict one or more functions of the
electronic access control device according to one or more installation or testing parameters (access device configured to work with one or more bridge device to provide RF communication, col. 2 lines 47-62).
Regarding claim 16. Kincaid teaches an electronic access control system comprising:
a server (col. 4 line 55-63); and
an electronic access control device communicably engaged with the server (col. 4 line 55-63);
wherein the electronic access control device is configurable according to a plurality of
operational modes (fig. 7, col. 7 lines 8-26),
wherein each operational mode in the plurality of operational modes comprises a
different set of parameters for operation of the electronic access control device (different conditions are required for each operating mode, col. 7 line 8-57),
wherein the parameters for operation of the electronic access control device comprise one
or more security parameters, user parameters, or functional parameters time interval, access time, user credential entered, col. 7 line 39-col. 8 line 22),
wherein the electronic access control device is configured according to a first mode of
operation (wake mode, col. 3 lines 23-45),
wherein the server is configured to configure the electronic access control device from
the first mode of operation to a second mode of operation (wake mode, col. 3 lines 23-45),
wherein the second mode of operation is configured according to one or more of the
security parameters, user parameters, or functional parameters,
wherein the second mode of operation is different from the first mode of operation (fig. 7, col. 7 lines 8-26) .
Regarding claim 17, Kincaid teaches at least one client device communicably engaged with the electronic access control device and the server (col. 4 lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 18, Kincaid teaches the at least one client device is configured to configure the electronic access control device from the first mode of operation to the second mode of operation (col. 4 lines 58-63,col. 6 lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 19, Kincaid teaches the second mode of operation comprises one or more installation or testing parameters that are different from the first mode of operation (access device configured to work with one or more bridge device to provide RF communication, col. 2 lines 47-62).
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(s) 7-8,13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid et al. US Patent 10,231,183 in view of Kirkjan US Patent Application Publication 20210327177.
Regarding claims 7-8, Kincaid is silent on teaching the first mode of operation comprises
a first set of security parameters and the second mode of operation comprises a second set of
security parameters. Kirkjan in an analogous art teaches the first mode of operation comprises
a first set of security parameters and the second mode of operation comprises a second set of
security parameters (master key allows the lock to be place in an administrative mode in which administrative functions are perform and slave key only have access privileges, paragraph 048). Kirkjan teaches the first set of user parameters are associated with a first user or a first user role.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Kincaid as disclosed by Kirkjan because such modification represent an improvement over the system Kincaid by restricting access to the lock operating mode and further increasing the security of the access control system.
Regarding claims 13-14, Kincaid is silent on teaching the first mode of operation comprises
a first set of security parameters and the second mode of operation comprises a second set of
security parameters. Kirkjan in an analogous art teaches the first mode of operation comprises
a first set of security parameters and the second mode of operation comprises a second set of
security parameters (master key allows the lock to be place in an administrative mode in which administrative functions are perform and slave key only have access privileges, paragraph 048). Kirkjan teaches the first set of user parameters are associated with a first user or a first user role.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Kincaid as disclosed by Kirkjan because such modification represent an improvement over the system Kincaid by restricting access to the lock operating mode and further increasing the security of the access control system.
Regarding claim 20, Kincaid is silent on teaching the first mode of operation comprises
a first set of security parameters and the second mode of operation comprises a second set of
security parameters. Kirkjan in an analogous art teaches the first mode of operation comprises
a first set of security parameters and the second mode of operation comprises a second set of
security parameters (master key allows the lock to be place in an administrative mode in which administrative functions are perform and slave key only have access privileges, paragraph 048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Kincaid as disclosed by Kirkjan because such modification represent an improvement over the system Kincaid by restricting access to the lock operating mode and further increasing the security of the access control system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights