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
Claims 1, 14-16, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 17-19, 26, and 27 were previously canceled.
Claims 31 and 32 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-16, 20-25, and 28-32 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 10-11, filed 13 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, and are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon further search and consideration, the cited art teaches the claimed invention. Citations to the prior art teachings can be found below.
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 1, 3-5, 8-16, 20-24, 28-29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpert (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20070257774), in view of Nakajima (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20030040980).
In regards to claim 1, Stumpert teaches the following limitations:
A method for causing of unlocking and locking of at least one door of a vehicle for delivery of a shipment, particularly a package and/or a letter, into the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶11-16 disclose a method of unlocking and locking a vehicle to facilitate the delivery of a good into the vehicle), the vehicle comprising a sensor that is one of a weight sensor, an occupancy sensor, a load sensor, a camera, or an ultrasonic sensor, the sensor of the vehicle being configured for at least one of determining vehicle occupancy, automatically levelling of headlamps, or monitoring an interior of the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶40, ¶46, ¶92-93, ¶101 disclose wherein the vehicle comprises a detector (i.e., a sensor), such as a camera or a weight detector, configured to detect the placing of the delivery good into the interior storage of the vehicle (i.e., monitoring an interior of the vehicle)), said method comprising:
obtaining a piece of access authorisation information at a control apparatus installed on and located with the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶66, ¶80 disclose that the delivery service may receive precise location information of the vehicle storage and information associated with the storage, like a car plate. This allows the delivery service to verify the delivery location using the car plate. Stumpert: ¶88-90 further disclose that a communication device of the delivery service may receive a message from a communication device of the customer, wherein the message contains a key for unlocking a locking system. Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶42-47, ¶103-104, ¶108-109 further disclose that the locking system (a lock of a vehicle, e.g. an electronic lock of a car), comprising a receiving unit and processing unit, may then receive the key (i.e., access authorisation information) from the communication device of the delivery service),
causing of the unlocking of the door of the vehicle, at least in part on the basis of the obtained piece of access authorisation information, by the control apparatus, wherein the door is a boot door of the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶32-33, ¶75, & ¶88-93 disclose that the locking system processor may verify the key received from the communication device of the delivery service and may unlock the lock of a trunk),
obtaining from the sensor of the vehicle one or more pieces of delivery event information, associated with a delivery event, at the control apparatus through a vehicle interface, wherein each of the one or more pieces of delivery event information indicates that the delivery event associated with the respective piece of delivery event information has been sensed (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶42-47, ¶75-76, ¶93 & ¶101-112 disclose wherein the lock system comprises a terminal connected to an electronic lock of a car and may also be integrated or connected to the detector that may be used to register the placing of the good into the vehicle (i.e., obtain delivery event information)),
checking, by the control apparatus, whether the obtained pieces of delivery event information are associated with one or more predetermined delivery events (Stumpert: ¶40, ¶46, ¶81, ¶89-93, ¶97, ¶108-109 disclose that the lock system may authenticate and supervise the delivery process to authorize the unlocking process and verify the occurrence of the predetermined delivery events).
Although Stumpert discloses that the locking system may automatically lock the vehicle upon the vehicle door being closed (Stumper: ¶91) and discloses of a detector (e.g., a camera or a weighing machine) of the vehicle, integrated or connected to the locking system processor, that may register if a good is transferred to the storage (Stumpert: ¶93), Stumpert does not explicitly state that the locking may be caused by the confirmation that the goods are detected.
However, Stumpert and Nakajima together teach the following limitations:
causing of the locking of the door of the vehicle by the control apparatus in response to the obtained pieces of delivery event information and only if the result of the check is that the obtained pieces of delivery event information are associated with the one or more predetermined delivery events (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶40, ¶46, ¶91-93, ¶101-112 disclose causing the locking system to lock the vehicle storage in response to a delivery event, wherein the delivery event includes recording of the delivery process of unlocking of the lock, the opening of the storage, the placing of the good into the opened storage, the closing of the storage, and the locking of the lock; Nakajima: ¶20, ¶41, ¶66, & ¶67 disclose of a system and method for the delivering and receiving of goods at a locker. The system consists of a locker with a weight sensor and object sensor for detecting whether an article is contained in the compartment. The sensor is also attached to the locker door’s locking mechanism, allowing the system to lock the door when it is detected that the goods are deposited in the compartment),
wherein at least one of the one or more predetermined delivery events is depositing of the shipment in a boot of the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶40, ¶46, ¶91-93, ¶101-112 disclose causing the locking system to lock the vehicle storage in response to a delivery event, wherein the delivery event includes recording of the delivery process of unlocking of the lock, the opening of the storage, the placing of the good into the opened storage, the closing of the storage, and the locking of the lock),
wherein the control apparatus infers that the shipment has been deposited in a boot of the vehicle based on information obtained by the sensor of the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶40, ¶46, ¶91-93, ¶101-112 disclose wherein the detector (i.e., the sensor) may detect the placing of the delivery good into the interior storage of the vehicle and determine and communicate confirmation of the successful delivery of the good to the customer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the locking caused by the detection of the shipment, as taught by Nakajima, into the method and system taught by Stumpert. Nakajima simply specifies that the locking of the door of the delivery compartment may be explicitly caused by the weight sensor’s detection of the shipment, which when combined with the locking mechanism and weight detectors of Stumpert, yields a predictable result. The claimed invention is merely a combination of these elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would have been motivated to make this combination.
In regards to claim 3, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches wherein at least one further predetermined delivery event of the one or more predetermined delivery events is
opening and/or closing of the door (Stumpert: ¶91 discloses that the locking system may automatically lock the vehicle upon the vehicle door being closed (i.e., delivery event)),
exceeding of a predetermined duration of a delivery process since the causing of the unlocking of the door of the vehicle and/or since the obtaining of a piece of delivery event information (Stumpert: ¶91 further discloses that the access time of the storage area may be restricted, i.e., the time after the unlocking took place. Such an access restriction may be achieved by specifying a time interval like a maximum duration for the opening of the storage starting at the time of the unlocking of the lock. The locking system can be adapted such that it automatically closes the storage and locks the lock if the access time is exceeded), and/or
a user input for completion of the delivery process by the delivery agent on a portable delivery agent apparatus (Stumpert: ¶95 & ¶102 further disclose that remote signing for delivery of the good may be achieved by sending a message (proxied or directly) comprising an electronic delivery note from the delivery service to the customer).
In regards to claim 4, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches sensing of at least one of the predetermined delivery events (Stumpert: ¶92-93, ¶101 disclose that the detector, integrated or connected to the locking system processor, may be a camera that can take a photo of the good in the storage area or a weighing machine that registers if a good is transferred to the storage).
In regards to claim 5, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches wherein the piece of access authorisation information and/or the pieces of delivery event information are received at the control apparatus via one or more wireless communication connections (Stumpert: ¶109 discloses that the receiving unit, the transmission unit, and the processing unit of the locking system may communicate with communication devices of the delivery service and the customer via short range communication techniques, e.g., hardwired or wireless, via Bluetooth or IR).
In regards to claim 8, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches said method additionally comprising: deciding about whether access can be granted for the delivery into the vehicle, at least in part on the basis of the obtained piece of access authorisation information, and causing of the unlocking of the door of the vehicle only if it has been decided that access can be granted (Stumpert: ¶89-90 disclose the verification and unlocking process of the locking system once it has received the unlock key from the communication device of the delivery service).
In regards to claim 9, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches wherein the piece of access authorisation information authorises access for the delivery into the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶88-90 disclose that a communication device of the delivery service may receive a message from a communication device of the customer, wherein the message contains a key for unlocking a locking system. Stumpert: ¶90 further discloses that the locking system processor may verify the key received from the communication device of the delivery service and may unlock the lock of the vehicle door).
In regards to claim 10, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches wherein the piece of access authorisation information has a limited temporal and/or spatial validity and/or is valid for a limited number of accesses (Stumpert: ¶89 discloses that the unlock key usage may be restricted to a one time limit, a temporal restriction of the usage like usage of key allowed only within a time-interval (e.g., 30 sec. after sending of the message for unlocking), or restricting the usage of the key to the current location of the locking system).
In regards to claim 11, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches wherein exclusively the boot door of the vehicle is unlocked (Stumpert: ¶32, ¶33, ¶75, & ¶91 disclose that the door of the vehicle to be unlocked may be the trunk (i.e., the boot), as the usage of the trunk offers a good compromise between low implementation effort, good comfortableness and reasonably security aspects for the first entity who typically does not want that someone else accesses the passengers compartment of his car).
In regards to claim 12, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches opening of the door and/or causing of the opening of the door, and/or closing of the door and/or causing of the closing of the door (Stumpert: ¶16, ¶91, ¶99, & ¶100 disclose that opening and closing the storage area may be executed automatically by the locking system based on pre-stored instruction data instructing the locking system about the automatically executable processes for opening, closing, and/or locking).
In regards to claim 13, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches initiating the predetermined delivery events (Stumpert: ¶88-90 disclose that a communication device of the customer may send a message, wherein the message contains a key for unlocking a locking system, to a communication device of the delivery service in order to initiate the delivery event).
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Stumpert further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program that, when the computer program runs on a processor of a control apparatus (Stumpert: ¶50-51 disclose computer program, stored on a computer readable medium, comprising portions of software codes in order to implement the disclosed method when operated by the processing unit (i.e., processor)).
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Stumpert further teaches a control apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory that contains program code (Stumpert: ¶103-104, ¶50-51 disclose computer program, stored in permanent or rewritable memory, comprising portions of software codes in order to implement the disclosed method when operated by the processing unit (i.e., processor)).
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Stumpert further teaches A vehicle, comprising: a sensor that is one of a weight sensor, an occupancy sensor, a load sensor, a camera, or an ultrasonic sensor, the sensor of the vehicle being configured for at least one of determining vehicle occupancy, automatically levelling of headlamps, or monitoring an interior of the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶40, ¶46, ¶92-93, ¶101 disclose wherein the vehicle comprises a detector (i.e., a sensor), such as a camera or a weight detector, configured to detect the placing of the delivery good into the interior storage of the vehicle (i.e., monitoring an interior of the vehicle)); at least one door (Stumpert: ¶32, ¶33, ¶75, & ¶91 disclose a door of the vehicle to be unlocked), locking means configured to lock and unlock the door (Stumpert: ¶103-104 disclose a locking system), and a control apparatus installed on and located with the vehicle, the control apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory that contains program code (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶42-47, ¶50-¶51, ¶103-104, ¶108-109 disclose computer program, stored in permanent or rewritable memory, comprising portions of software codes in order to implement the disclosed method when operated by the processing unit (i.e., processor of the locking system of the vehicle)).
In regards to claim 20, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the control apparatus of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 3.
In regards to claim 21, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the control apparatus of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4.
In regards to claim 22, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the control apparatus of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5.
In regards to claim 23, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the control apparatus of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 8.
In regards to claim 24, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the control apparatus of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 10 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 10.
In regards to claim 28, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches wherein the piece of access authorisation information includes an identifier of the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶88-90 disclose that a communication device of the delivery service may receive a message from a communication device of the customer, wherein the message contains a key for unlocking a locking system. Stumpert: ¶103-104 further disclose that the locking system, comprising a receiving unit and processing unit, may then receive the key (i.e., access authorisation information) from the communication device of the delivery service. Stumpert: ¶43 further discloses that the key may consist of a serial number that matches the key and the lock (i.e., identifier of the lock, therefore, identifier of the vehicle). The processing unit may verify if the key matches to the lock, e.g., by checking if a key serial number matches to a lock serial number (i.e., identifier of the lock, therefore, identifier of the vehicle), before generating or communicating the signal for the operation to the lock).
In regards to claim 29, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the control apparatus of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 28 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 28.
In regards to claim 31, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 1. Stumpert further teaches wherein the piece of access authorisation information has a limited temporal and spatial validity (Stumpert: ¶89-90 discloses that the unlock key usage may be restricted to a one time limit, a temporal restriction of the usage like usage of key allowed only within a time-interval (e.g., 30 sec. after sending of the message for unlocking), and/or a local restriction, e.g., restricting the usage of the key to the current location of the locking system).
In regards to claim 32, Stumpert and Nakajima teach the method of claim 31. Stumpert further teaches wherein the spatial validity is based on a piece of spatial information obtained at the control apparatus from a positioning sensor of the control apparatus and/or of the vehicle and wherein the spatial information is checked to determine whether a present position of the control apparatus and/or of the vehicle is within a predetermined delivery area (Stumpert: ¶19-20, ¶63-64, ¶66, ¶79, ¶89-90 discloses that the system comprises a GPS system configured to determine the current location of the storage and lock system in order to implement the local restriction to the delivery address location).
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpert (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20070257774), in view of Nakajima (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20030040980), in further view of Kelly (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20020046173).
In regards to claim 25, Stumpert teaches the method of claim 1. Although Stumpert teaches that unlocking of the door may be caused by the delivery event of a communication device of the delivery service communicating a unlock key to the locking system via Bluetooth (i.e., near field technology) (Stumpert: ¶73, ¶77-79, ¶88-90), Stumpert does not explicitly state that the NFC communication may also be necessary in the locking of the door.
However, Kelly teaches wherein another of the one or more predetermined delivery events necessary to cause locking of the door is a portable delivery agent apparatus is within signal range of the control apparatus, the signal range being a range of at least one of RFID signal, Bluetooth signal, NFC, or WLAN signal (Kelly: ¶29, ¶32, ¶36, ¶60-62, ¶84, ¶87).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the delivery event, as taught by Kelly, into the system and method taught by Stumpert and Nakajima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “close a loop in the supply chain to allow delivery of products to secure locations without requiring an attendant to be present to give access to the site...”, additionally, “an RFID device allows the secured area remain unpowered until needed, extending battery life, or reducing the additional electronics overheads” (Kelly: ¶77 & ¶82).
Claim 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpert (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20070257774), in view of Nakajima (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20030040980), in further view of Nakazawa (JP 2011084150 A).
In regards to claim 30, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
Furthermore, although Stumpert teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a detector (i.e., a sensor), such as a camera or a weight detector, configured to detect the placing of the delivery good into the interior storage of the vehicle (Stumpert: ¶31-32, ¶40, ¶46, ¶92-93, ¶101), the reference does not explicitly state that the weight detector is also used for headlight leveling.
However, Nakazawa teaches the vehicle comprising a load sensor that is used for automatic headlamp levelling (Nakazawa: ¶14, ¶21-27 disclose a vehicle comprising a load sensor located in the cargo compartment configured to detect cargo, wherein headlamp leveling is performed based on the cargo detected by the load sensor).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the load sensor, as taught by Nakazawa, into the system and method of Stumpert and Nakajima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the pitch angle can be calculated without using an expensive vehicle height sensor, the cost of the auto-leveling control device can be reduced” (Nakazawa: ¶27).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights