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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received November 19, 2025. A preliminary amendment was entered canceling claim 1 and entering claims 2-21. Claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 18/400,337, 17/470,479, 15/638,570, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 2, 9, and 16, which are similar in scope, the limitation:
And in response to determining that the current status of the property does not match the property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible, transmitting instructions to the property to allow access to a first portion of the property and to deny access to a second portion of the property.
There does not appear to be support for finding that the current status of the property does not match the property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible, then due to that allowing access to a first portion of the property and denying access to a second portion of the property.
In response, Examiner requests citation showing where there is 112a support for this and, if instead amendments are provided, including amendments from dependent claims, Examiner requests citations showing priority support for the amendments. If new claims are provided, then priority support for the new claims must be shown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A search of the specification did not find support for the following:
And in response to determining that the current status of the property does not match the property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible, transmitting instructions to the property to allow access to a first portion of the property and to deny access to a second portion of the property.
There does not appear to be support for finding that the current status of the property does not match the property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible, then due to that allowing access to a first portion of the property and denying access to a second portion of the property.
In response, Examiner requests citation showing where there is 112a support for this and, if instead amendments are provided, including amendments from dependent claims, Examiner requests citations showing original disclosure support for the amendments. If new claims are provided then original disclosure support for the new claims must be shown.
Claims 2-8; 10-15; and 17-21 are rejected for being dependent on claims 2, 9, and 16.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
receiving first data representing a period of time during which a property is accessible; receiving, , second data representing a current status of the property; determining, using the first data and the second data, whether the current status of the property matches a property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible; and in response to determining that the current status of the property does not match the property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible, transmitting instructions to allow access to a first portion of the property and to deny access to a second portion of the property.
The above recites an abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activity because it is a commercial interaction – real estate, allowing a property for property showing. The above also recites a mental process because one could do each step mentally or with pen and paper. Steps such as determining a match are done by observing whether A = B and then transmitting instructions (speaking, pen and paper) if a certain condition is met. Therefore, the steps above recite a certain method of organizing human activity or a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements alone and in combination are apply it elements that are taught by generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising
from a reservation system
from/to the property
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation the additional element “from/to the property” where information is being sent/received, is taught by a generic computer which would be the property or a part of property.
Taking the claims as a whole the additional elements plus the abstract idea amount to apply it instructions applying generic computing components to operate in their ordinary capacity to carry out the property showing / reservation limitations, and in following the cases in MPEP 210.6.05(a)(2) would not be a practical application.
Claim 9 recites similar additional elements to claim 2 (from/to the property, reservation system).
Claim 16 recites similar additional elements to claim 2 but also the CRM claim of: ‘One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising” which is instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer readable medium.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in Prong 2 (practical application) is carried over here. For the same reasons that there is not a practical application there is not significantly more, considering the additional elements individually, in combination, and the claims as a whole.
Per the dependent claims:
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected for similar reasons as the independent claims. Monitoring sensor data is an abstract idea that is a mental process; transmitting a notification is also a mental process. To a device is apply it. Providing instructions “to allow a device” to have settings changed is a further definition of the abstract idea and applied to the “device” with a “physical interface.”
Likewise, per claims 5-8, 12-15, and 19-21 the instructions to allow/deny access at a certain time are an abstract idea further defining that of the independent claims and the devices, similar to claims 3-4, are apply it. Noted that a remote device is similar to the mobile unit and server of TLI Communications, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), where that was found as apply it. Transmitting a signal to cause a device to prevent alteration is reciting the desired function or result as there is no detail as to how this is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Therefore, claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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) 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodard et al., US PGPUB 20090219133 A1 (“Woodard”).
Per claims 2, 9, and 16, which are similar in scope, Woodard teaches A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a reservation system, first data representing a period of time during which a property is accessible in par 052: “FIG. 3B shows another embodiment where the showing management system 100 transmits the showing appointment data directly to the electronic lockbox 103 that has been assigned to the property for which the showing has been scheduled. However, in this embodiment, the electronic lockbox 103 is operatively coupled to and powered by a powered bridge/relay device 103A, capable of receiving and transmitting data. The bridge/relay device 103A could be, for example, a computer, a wireless LAN access point, etc. The bridge/relay device 103A is operatively coupled to the electronic lockbox 103 via a wired or wireless communications link.”
Woodard then teaches receiving, from the property, second data representing a current status of the property in par 051: “The electronic lockbox 103 may also be capable to send and receive encrypted data, including encrypted showing appointment data. The wireless connection between the lockbox 103 and the showing management system 100 may be permanent or only temporary following an activation request. A wired connection may also be implemented but appears to be of limited practicality for portable electronic lockboxes.” Par 074: “The flowchart of FIG. 13 depicts one possible sequence of steps for preprocessing lockbox access records from a lockbox having a particular Lockbox ID. The showing management system gathers all available lockbox access records from one particular lockbox and orders all Access Events by Access Date and Access Time in ascending order. When an Access Event in the access record does not list a Listing ID, the logic will compare the Listing ID recorded for the previous Access Event (X) with the first available Listing ID in an access event (Y) after this incomplete Access Event. If the Listing ID of Access event X and Y are identical, the logic will set the Listing ID for all the incomplete Access Events between Access Event X and Y to that of Access Event X. Accordingly, in the example above, the showing management system's logic would automatically set the Listing ID for the Access Events L2 and L3 to 1234.”
Woodard then teaches determining, using the first data and the second data, whether the current status of the property matches a property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible in par 049: “Showing agent Smith with the Showing Agent ID 534 uses the showing management system 100 to schedule a showing appointment for the property with the Listing ID 1234 on Jan. 11, 2008 between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM. The actual showing appointment time may begin some time before 10:00 AM (X) and end some time after 11:00 AM (Y) on Jan. 11, 2008. The value for X and Y can be fixed values across the systems or could vary, for example, depending on individual showing appointments, different showing management systems, markets, properties, lockboxes, etc.” See par 083: “Third, Showing Appointment A3 was set for a 4:00 PM showing of Listing ID 1234 by the agent having Agent ID 244. According to the lockbox Access Event L3, Agent ID 244 was accessing Lockbox ID 9001 at 3:50 PM. Since the lockbox access occurred by the agent having Agent ID 244 at about the same time as the appointment was scheduled, i.e., 10 minutes early, it is likely that the agent was accessing the property with the Listing ID 1234 using the lockbox with Lockbox ID 9001. Furthermore, for this same reason it is unlikely that the other lockboxes match Listing ID 1234 or that any other Listing ID is associated with Lockbox ID 9001.”
Woodard then teaches and in response to determining that the current status of the property does not match the property-showing status before the period of time during which the property is accessible, transmitting instructions to the property to allow access to a first portion of the property and to deny access to a second portion of the property in par 014: “To achieve the foregoing and other advantages, and in accordance with one aspect of the present invention, a method for restricting access to a real property is provided, wherein said real property includes an access control mechanism restricting access to at least a portion of said real property and in which the method comprises the steps of: scheduling for said real property a showing appointment, including a showing time period, for at least one showing agent of a plurality of showing agents to access said real property during said showing time period, said at least one showing agent being associated with a unique showing agent identifier; storing said showing appointment in a database, said database operatively associated with a showing management system; communicating said showing appointment including said showing time period and said unique showing agent identifier of said at least one showing agent to said access control mechanism; and restricting access to said real property except for allowing said showing agent associated with said showing agent identifier to access said real property during said showing time period.”
Per claims 4, 11, and 18, which are similar in scope, Woodard teaches the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16, above. Woodard further teaches providing instructions to enable, during the period of time during which the first portion of the property is accessible, a device at the property and that includes a physical input interface to have a setting changed on the device via the physical input interface in par 065: “Once the showing appointment data is available at the electronic lockbox 103, the actual access to lockbox 103 is controlled by a logic executed inside the electronic lockbox 103. FIG. 9 shows a possible sequence of steps for controlling access when the showing appointment data is available at the electronic lockbox 103. In this embodiment, the logic inside the electronic lockbox 103 compares the current date and time of the internal timer and the Showing Agent ID of the showing agent attempting to access the lockbox 103 with the stored showing appointment data. As noted above, the showing appointment time comprises a time range/interval that may included a predetermined period of time before and after the actual showing appointment time as well as the Showing Agent ID of the showing agent for whom the appointment was made. In case the showing appointment was made for a plurality of showing agents or the showing management system has defined a team of showing agents, each of the corresponding Showing Agent IDs would also be included in showing appointment data. If the accessing Showing Agent ID and the current access time match the stored showing appointment data, the lockbox 103 will grant access.”
Therefore, claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 102.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard et al., US PGPUB 20090219133 A1 (“Woodard”) in view of Henderson et al., US PGPUB 20140354429 A1 (“Henderson”).
Per claims 3, 10, and 17, which are similar in scope, Woodard teaches the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16, above. Woodard does not teach monitoring, during the period of time which during which the property is accessible, sensor data a sensor located in the second portion of the property; determining, using the sensor data, whether a person is present in the second portion of the property; and in response to determining that the person is present in the second portion of the property, transmitting an notification to a device.
Henderson teaches a presence sensor network. See abstract.
Henderson teaches monitoring, during the period of time which during which the property is accessible, sensor data a sensor located in the second portion of the property; in par 040: “The room data 122 can include, but is not limited to, data defining a monitored location 130 such as a room, building, vehicle, area, region, or the like. Thus, the room data 122 can define, for example, walls of a monitored location 130; furniture and/or fixtures within or at a monitored location 130; structures and/or other physical aspects of the monitored location 130; data defining portions and/or regions of the monitored locations 130, for example, data defining a portion or region of a monitored location 130 as a customer area, an operations area, or the like; and/or other data that defines the room and/or other area that is monitored via the presence service 116. The room data 122 also can define relationships between various structures, fixtures, and/or movable objects within the monitored location 130. Because the monitored location 130 can include a room or other area, region, structure, or the like, it should be understood that these examples of the room data 122 are illustrative, and should not be construed as being limiting in any way.”
Henderson then teaches determining, using the sensor data, whether a person is present in the second portion of the property; in par 042: “The trigger data 126 can include, for example, data that defines one or more triggers for presence-based alarms, alerts, and/or other types of notifications. As used herein, a "presence-based alarm" can include, for example, an alarm, alert, or other notification that can be generated by the presence service 116 in response to detecting a presence condition at the monitored location 130 and/or in response to detecting other conditions or trends at the monitored location 130. Thus, presence-based alarms can be generated or triggered by the presence service 116, for example, in response to detecting a number of people at the monitored location 130, a number of people at a portion or area of the monitored location 130, a trend in the number of people at the monitored location 130 and/or portion thereof, a time duration for which a number of people has been exceeded at the monitored location 130, a concentration of people at the monitored location 130 and/or a portion thereof, combinations thereof, or the like.”
Henderson then teaches and in response to determining that the person is present in the second portion of the property, transmitting an notification to a device in par 030: “The presence service can obtain presence data associated with the monitored location. The presence data can be provided by a computer or other computing system located at the monitored location. The presence data can be received by the presence service and used to determine presence at the monitored location. In some embodiments, the presence service compares the presence data to room data, sensor ID data, trigger data, other data, or the like, and determines the presence at the monitored location based upon this information. The presence service can generate presence display data that visually represents the determined presence, and also can trigger and/or generate alarms or alerts if determined to be appropriate based upon the determined presence. The presence display data can be provided to a user device, which can render one or more user interfaces for a user such as, for example, a manager, or the like.” But also see par 0122: “As illustrated in FIG. 11, the mobile device 1100 can include a display 1102 for displaying data. According to various embodiments, the display 1102 can be configured to display asset information, asset tag or asset ID information, asset management account information, various graphical user interface ("GUI") elements, text, images, video, virtual keypads and/or keyboards, messaging data, notification messages, metadata, internet content, device status, time, date, calendar data, device preferences, map and location data, combinations thereof, and/or the like. The mobile device 1100 also can include a processor 1104 and a memory or other data storage device ("memory") 1106.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic access to property for property showing teaching of Woodard with the sensor teaching of Henderson because Henderson teaches in par 002 that security can be provided with presences sensors to keep people safe. As safety could be a concern in restricting certain areas of a property, see Woodard teaching above for restricting a portion of property, one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Henderson to maintain safety. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Henderson.
Per claims 8 and 15, which are similar in scope, Woodard teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 9, above. Woodard does not teach determining whether the period of time during which the property is accessible has begun and whether sensor data from the property indicates the property is occupied; and in response to determining that the period of time during which the property is accessible has begun and that sensor data from the property indicates the property is occupied, generating a notification indicating the property is likely accessed.
Henderson teaches determining whether the period of time during which the property is accessible has begun and whether sensor data from the property indicates the property is occupied; in par 042: “The trigger data 126 can include, for example, data that defines one or more triggers for presence-based alarms, alerts, and/or other types of notifications. As used herein, a "presence-based alarm" can include, for example, an alarm, alert, or other notification that can be generated by the presence service 116 in response to detecting a presence condition at the monitored location 130 and/or in response to detecting other conditions or trends at the monitored location 130. Thus, presence-based alarms can be generated or triggered by the presence service 116, for example, in response to detecting a number of people at the monitored location 130, a number of people at a portion or area of the monitored location 130, a trend in the number of people at the monitored location 130 and/or portion thereof, a time duration for which a number of people has been exceeded at the monitored location 130, a concentration of people at the monitored location 130 and/or a portion thereof, combinations thereof, or the like.”
Henderson then teaches and in response to determining that the period of time during which the property is accessible has begun and that sensor data from the property indicates the property is occupied, generating a notification indicating the property is likely accessed in par 030: “The presence service can obtain presence data associated with the monitored location. The presence data can be provided by a computer or other computing system located at the monitored location. The presence data can be received by the presence service and used to determine presence at the monitored location. In some embodiments, the presence service compares the presence data to room data, sensor ID data, trigger data, other data, or the like, and determines the presence at the monitored location based upon this information. The presence service can generate presence display data that visually represents the determined presence, and also can trigger and/or generate alarms or alerts if determined to be appropriate based upon the determined presence. The presence display data can be provided to a user device, which can render one or more user interfaces for a user such as, for example, a manager, or the like.” But also see par 0122: “As illustrated in FIG. 11, the mobile device 1100 can include a display 1102 for displaying data. According to various embodiments, the display 1102 can be configured to display asset information, asset tag or asset ID information, asset management account information, various graphical user interface ("GUI") elements, text, images, video, virtual keypads and/or keyboards, messaging data, notification messages, metadata, internet content, device status, time, date, calendar data, device preferences, map and location data, combinations thereof, and/or the like. The mobile device 1100 also can include a processor 1104 and a memory or other data storage device ("memory") 1106.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic access to property for property showing teaching of Woodard with the sensor teaching of Henderson because Henderson teaches in par 002 that security can be provided with presences sensors to keep people safe. As safety could be a concern in restricting certain areas of a property, see Woodard teaching above for restricting a portion of property, one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Henderson to maintain safety. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Henderson.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard et al., US PGPUB 20090219133 A1 (“Woodard”) in view of Almomani, US PGPUB 20140118107 A1 (“Almomani”).
Per claims 5, 12, and 19, which are similar in scope, Woodard teaches the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16, above. Woodard does not teach before transmitting instructions to the property to allow access to the first portion of the property and to deny access to the second portion of the property: configuring, for a device at the property and using a remote input interface for the device, a setting for the device to maintain during the period of time during which the first portion of the property is accessible; and transmitting, to the device at the property that includes a physical input interface, a signal to cause the device to prevent alteration of the setting by the physical input interface during the period of time during which the first portion of the property is accessible.
Almomani teaches an electronic lock that can be updated using a mobile device. See abstract.
Almomani teaches before transmitting instructions to the property to allow access to the first portion of the property and to deny access to the second portion of the property: configuring, for a device at the property and using a remote input interface for the device, a setting for the device to maintain during the period of time during which the first portion of the property is accessible in par 025: “For example, accordance with the present invention, base board 11 and/or daughter card 12 of electronics circuitry 9 is configured to support wireless communication with the existing mobile device 20. The existing mobile device 20 may be, for example, a smartphone or tablet that includes an App for generating a user interface configured to communicate lock settings to/from the electronic lock EL. As used herein, a "smartphone" is a mobile phone built on a mobile operating system that has additional functionality such as that of a portable media players, digital cameras, web browsers, etc., and includes a high-resolution touch screen which provides its user interface.”
Almomani then teaches and transmitting, to the device at the property that includes a physical input interface, a signal to cause the device to prevent alteration of the setting by the physical input interface during the period of time during which the first portion of the property is accessible in par 035-037: “referring again to FIGS. 5 and 6, when a customer is finished making changes to the lock settings from the lock settings mobile device user interface App executing on mobile device 20, the user can walk back to the electronic lock (i.e., within wireless range) to upload or sync the changes to the electronic lock, e.g., by again pressing the "Sync" icon, to sync mobile device 20 with the electronic lock; on the lock settings mobile device user interface generated by the mobile App, the user will press the sync "lock" settings for accepting all the changes to transfer the lock settings wirelessly from mobile device 20 to the electronic lock; the handshaking between mobile device 20 and the electronic lock EL provides some level of feedback (e.g., a progress bar on the mobile App lock settings mobile device user interface) to show that all lock settings took effect and/or that the transfer of the lock settings to/from the electronic lock has completed successfully.” See for prevent alteration par 039, Encryption techniques to protect the transfer of lock setting information between the electronic lock and mobile device. See Fig 1B for physical interface.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the property access teaching of Woodard with the physical remote interfaces teaching of Almomani because Almomani teaches the following improvements:
It is recognized that mobile devices have become readily available and commonly used by the public. With the present invention, an existing mobile device, such as a smartphone or tablet, is used to access the lock settings of the electronic lock and to make the necessary changes to the lock settings. Advantageously, with the present invention there is no need to add expensive dedicated hardware displays to the electronic lock. Rather, with embodiments of the present invention a user operates an existing mobile device executing a lock settings user interface application, commonly referred to as an "App," configured to communicate with the electronic lock to allow the user to enter or change lock settings for the electronic lock. The mobile device user interface is easier to use than a keypad interface in modifying the lock settings of the electronic lock, and provides more programming options, thus improving the user experience in changing lock settings of the electronic lock.
Par 007. One would be motivated by these taught improvements to combine Almomani with Woodard so that one did not need to add expensive hardware displays but could use one readily available. This would make altering settings on the device more affordable and would also be easier than making changes using a lock keypad. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Almomani.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard et al., US PGPUB 20090219133 A1 (“Woodard”) in view of Henderson et al., US PGPUB 20140354429 A1 (“Henderson”), further in view of Almomani, US PGPUB 20140118107 A1 (“Almomani”).
Per claims 6, 13, and 20, which are similar in scope, Woodard teaches the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16, above. Woodard does not teach determining whether the property is occupied during at least a portion of the period of time during which the first portion of the property is accessible; and in response to determining that the property is occupied during at least the portion of the period of time during which the property is accessible, transmitting a signal.
Henderson teaches determining whether the property is occupied during at least a portion of the period of time during which the first portion of the property is accessible; and in response to determining that the property is occupied during at least the portion of the period of time during which the property is accessible, transmitting a signal in par 030: “The presence service can obtain presence data associated with the monitored location. The presence data can be provided by a computer or other computing system located at the monitored location. The presence data can be received by the presence service and used to determine presence at the monitored location. In some embodiments, the presence service compares the presence data to room data, sensor ID data, trigger data, other data, or the like, and determines the presence at the monitored location based upon this information. The presence service can generate presence display data that visually represents the determined presence, and also can trigger and/or generate alarms or alerts if determined to be appropriate based upon the determined presence. The presence display data can be provided to a user device, which can render one or more user interfaces for a user such as, for example, a manager, or the like.” But also see par 0122: “As illustrated in FIG. 11, the mobile device 1100 can include a display 1102 for displaying data. According to various embodiments, the display 1102 can be configured to display asset information, asset tag or asset ID information, asset management account information, various graphical user interface ("GUI") elements, text, images, video, virtual keypads and/or keyboards, messaging data, notification messages, metadata, internet content, device status, time, date, calendar data, device preferences, map and location data, combinations thereof, and/or the like. The mobile device 1100 also can include a processor 1104 and a memory or other data storage device ("memory") 1106.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic access to property for property showing teaching of Woodard with the sensor teaching of Henderson because Henderson teaches in par 002 that security can be provided with presences sensors to keep people safe. As safety could be a concern in restricting certain areas of a property, see Woodard teaching above for restricting a portion of property, one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Henderson to maintain safety. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Henderson.
Woodard does not teach transmitting, to a device at the property that includes a physical input interface, a signal to cause the device to prevent alteration of at least one setting for the device at the property.
Almomani teaches transmitting, to a device at the property that includes a physical input interface, a signal to cause the device to prevent alteration of at least one setting for the device at the property in par 035-037: “referring again to FIGS. 5 and 6, when a customer is finished making changes to the lock settings from the lock settings mobile device user interface App executing on mobile device 20, the user can walk back to the electronic lock (i.e., within wireless range) to upload or sync the changes to the electronic lock, e.g., by again pressing the "Sync" icon, to sync mobile device 20 with the electronic lock; on the lock settings mobile device user interface generated by the mobile App, the user will press the sync "lock" settings for accepting all the changes to transfer the lock settings wirelessly from mobile device 20 to the electronic lock; the handshaking between mobile device 20 and the electronic lock EL provides some level of feedback (e.g., a progress bar on the mobile App lock settings mobile device user interface) to show that all lock settings took effect and/or that the transfer of the lock settings to/from the electronic lock has completed successfully.” See for prevent alteration par 039, Encryption techniques to protect the transfer of lock setting information between the electronic lock and mobile device. See Fig 1B for physical interface.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the property access teaching of Woodard with the physical remote interfaces teaching of Almomani because Almomani teaches the following improvements:
It is recognized that mobile devices have become readily available and commonly used by the public. With the present invention, an existing mobile device, such as a smartphone or tablet, is used to access the lock settings of the electronic lock and to make the necessary changes to the lock settings. Advantageously, with the present invention there is no need to add expensive dedicated hardware displays to the electronic lock. Rather, with embodiments of the present invention a user operates an existing mobile device executing a lock settings user interface application, commonly referred to as an "App," configured to communicate with the electronic lock to allow the user to enter or change lock settings for the electronic lock. The mobile device user interface is easier to use than a keypad interface in modifying the lock settings of the electronic lock, and provides more programming options, thus improving the user experience in changing lock settings of the electronic lock.
Par 007. One would be motivated by these taught improvements to combine Almomani with Woodard so that one did not need to add expensive hardware displays but could use one readily available. This would make altering settings on the device more affordable and would also be easier than making changes using a lock keypad. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Woodard with Almomani.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard et al., US PGPUB 20090219133 A1 (“Woodard”) in view of Black et al., US PGPUB 20140046716 A1 (“Black”).
Per claims 7, 14, and 21, which are similar in scope, Woodard teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16, above. Woodard does not teach determining whether the period of time during which the property is accessible has passed and whether the property is occupied; and in response to determining that the period of time during which the property is accessible has passed and that the property is not occupied, altering a setting for a device at the property.
Black teaches managing a physical resource like a room with sensors. See abstract.
Black teaches determining whether the period of time during which the property is accessible has passed and whether the property is occupied; and in response to determining that the period of time during which the property is accessible has passed and that the property is not occupied, altering a setting for a device at the property in par 027: “In another example, if the received reservation is not utilized within 30 minutes of the start of the reservation (e.g., detected using a motion sensor inside a conference room resource), the reservation is cancelled. A notice may also be sent to one or more users that the reservation has been modified.” Then for altering a setting see par 028: “In some embodiments, the action includes controlling heating, cooling, and/or lighting associated with a resource. If the analysis indicated that no action is needed, no action is taken.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access teaching of Woodard with the detecting access and altering settings teaching of Black because Black teaches that by preventing unutilized reservations, it helps to avoid blocking people from using a resource. Therefore this problem is overcome with Black’s teaching and one would be motivated to combine the references to better utilize the resource in the most efficient manner possible.
Therefore, claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant but is not relied upon in the above rejection:
Rently.com, archived on February 3, 2016, available at: < https://web.archive.org/web/20160203024905/https://use.rently.com/ >
Teaches self service showings providing access to renters and vendors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights