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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 13, 14 are amended. Claims 1-14, 16-20 are pending.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11-14, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss (US 2016/0355308), and further in view of Fabre (US 20190066418 A1 A).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 14, Poss discloses a storage device and method comprising:
a first storage device having a battery storing energy for operating the first storage device (Para. 10, 14, 16),
a control module powered by the battery (via PLC 76, Para. 62-63),
a sensor component controlled by the control module and powered by the battery (via photoeye 84 or proximity sensor 85, Para. 62),
a first locking mechanism (insertion opening lock 201, Para. 63) and
a reader component (via rfid reader reads authorized RFID tag, Para. 63) to unlock the locking mechanism when the identification of the user matches a locally-stored authorization list on the storage device.
Poss already teaches the use of an RFID card to unlock the locking mechanism (the lock is disengaged when a valid RFID tag enters data in the switch panel 93, Para. 63), but Poss fails to disclose a second storage device having a second locking mechanism and configured without a storage device battery, a storage device control module, a storage device sensor component, or a storage device reader component, wherein the control module configured with the first storage device is in communication with and controls the second locking mechanism via a lock-control signal transmitted from the first storage device to the second storage device, and wherein the reader component of the first storage device is used to identify a user and causes both the first locking mechanism and the second locking mechanism to be locked or unlocked based on one access action comprising use of an RFID card.
Fabre teaches a storage system including a first storage device (compartment 10C, Para. 33) having an identification component (signal sensor 54, Para. 47), first locking mechanism (electronic lock 34c, Para. 43, 45) and a battery (element for storing electrical energy 72, Para. 51), second storage device (compartment 10B, Para. 33) having a second locking mechanism (lock 34B, Para. 43) and configured without a storage device battery, a storage device control module, a storage device sensor component, or a storage device reader component (module 36 and compartment 10C forming a first storage device, Para. 44); wherein the control module configured with the first storage device is in communication with and controls the second locking mechanism via a lock-control signal transmitted from the first storage device to the second storage device (datalink 38B, Para. 43), and wherein an identification component of the first storage device is used to authorized a user and causes both a first locking mechanism and a second locking mechanism to be unlocked based on one access authentication action (when it authenticates the received digital key CN, to generating an instruction signal for activating or deactivating the motor means 40, for the locking or unlocking of the doors 12A, 12B, 12C, Para. 53, 22).
From the teachings of Fabre, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss to include the features cited above in order to quickly control access to multiple storage devices and reduce the costs of the additional storage devices.
Regarding claim 2, Poss and Fabre disclose a wireless communication link enables communication between the first control module and the second storage device (datalink 38 can be wireless, Para. 67).
Regarding claim 3, Poss and Fabre discloses the claimed invention, wherein Poss teaches a reader component comprises an RFID reader (Para. 63).
Regarding claim 5, Poss teaches a storage device reducing component power consumption during low battery times (Said circuitry governs the rate of energy usage by the ancillary components by turning components on, off or initiating low-power modes at regular intervals, Para. 73; the PLC compares such levels to the previous time periods (e.g., the previous one or two weeks). Such calculation identifies battery trends. Based on a downward trend, prophylactic action (i.e. reducing the energy load by eliminating some functions) is taken in advance of the battery reaching a critically diminished state, Para. 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss and Fabre to include wherein the control module causes the reader component to function at certain periods of time when a battery power level is below a threshold in order to reduce power consumption during periods of low power.
Regarding claim 6, Poss and Fabre discloses the claimed invention, wherein Poss discloses the control module stores a listing of authorized external entities that can unlock the first storage device (via inherent list of valid RFID tags authorized to unlock, Para. 63).
Regarding claim 9, Poss and Fabre discloses the claimed invention, wherein Poss discloses wherein an external entity that interacts with the reader component will only be able to unlock one of the first storage device or the second storage device if the first storage device or the second storage device is respectively deemed ready for a collection or needs service (PLC is programmed to engage a solenoid or other actuator which locks the insertion opening when the waste chamber is full, Para. 94; unlock only available to service personnel to clear the chamber, Para. 98).
Regarding claim 11, Poss and Fabre disclose the claimed invention, wherein Poss discloses a first separate service compartment on the first storage device that is accessible only to authorized external entities (via waste removal door 73 operated by service personnel, Para. 57, 98; and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Poss and Fabre disclose the claimed invention, wherein Poss discloses the first storage device operates the first locking mechanism directly off of a solar panel when battery failure occurs (PLC is programmed to default to solar power source unless the device is connected to the grid, Para. 84).
Regarding claim 16, Poss discloses the locally-stored authorization list is stored at the first storage device for determining access to users and wherein the locally-stored authorization list provides authorization information on a per-device basis (via inherent list of valid RFID tags authorized to unlock storage device, Para. 63).
Regarding claim 19, Poss and Fabre teach wherein the control module stores access rules and control instructions that can cause the first locking mechanism and the second locking mechanism to open simultaneously (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Poss and Fabre teach registering the second storage device with the first storage device to enable management of the second locking mechanism by the control module of the first storage device (via connection of compartment 10B, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss, Fabre, and further in view of Yui (US 20040243812 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Poss, Fabre fail to disclose the control module stores additional instructions to adjust a temporary period of time, based on a battery power level that a door is unlocked.
Yui teaches a control module maintains an electronic locking mechanism in an unlock position for a predetermined period of time, after which the unlock position changes to a lock position (Para. 199).
Poss teaches adjusting component power consumption based on battery level (Para. 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss, Fabre to include control module stores additional instructions to adjust a temporary period of time, based on a battery power level that a door is unlocked in order to reduce the duration circuits are powered, thereby reduce power consumption.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss, Fabre, and further in view of Fetchel (US 20200370340).
Regarding claim 7, Poss, Fabre fail to disclose wherein the control module stores a listing of black-listed external entities that cannot unlock at least one of the first storage device and the second storage device.
Fetchel teaches a user can be black listed to prevent access by the black listed user (Para. 17 and 129).
From the teachings of Fetchel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss, Fabre to include wherein at least one of the first control module and the second control module stores a listing of black-listed external entities that cannot unlock at least one of the first storage device and the second storage device in order to preclude users that have caused trouble or damage to the storage devices from using the storage devices.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss, Fabre, and further in view of Grillo (US 2014/0265358).
Regarding claim 8, Poss, Fabre fail to disclose wherein one of the first storage device and the second storage device will unlock and remain unlocked when a respective low battery condition exists
Grillo teaches a locking device will unlock and remain unlocked in the event of a low battery condition to prevent a device from being unresponsive (Para. 46).
From the teachings of Grillo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss, Fabre to include wherein one of the first storage device and the second storage device will unlock and remain unlocked when a respective low battery condition exists in order to prevent the storage device from being inaccessible.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss, Fabre, and further in view of Fallah (US 2019/0319808).
Regarding claim 10, Poss, Fabre fail to disclose wherein an external entity that interacts with the reader component will only unlock the device during specific hours of a day.
Fallah teaches access to a device can be limited to specific hours (Para. 118).
From the teachings of Fallah, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss, Fabre to include wherein an external entity that interacts with the first reader component will only unlock the device during specific hours of a day in order to prevent abuse of the storage device during odd hours.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss in view of Fabre, and further in view of Metivier (US 2012/0157080 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Poss, Fabre fail to disclose receiving, from a remote server, the locally-stored authorization list.
Metivier teaches a security device including a reader component that communicates with an external entity to obtain access authorization request information (the lock device comprises an electroacoustic transducer capable of picking up the acoustic accreditations reproduced by the phone's transducer previously placed in the vicinity of the lock device, as well as means for recognizing, analyzing and authenticating the acoustic accreditations picked up by the transducer, and performing a programming of the access rights and/or of the additional data upon recognizing a compliant accreditation, Para. 19), wherein the stored authorization allowances are obtained from a remote server (A remote management site (10) includes a database (12) of locks and authorized users, having each lock, a list of authorized users with corresponding access rights, as well as an accreditation data generator (14). The accreditations are encrypted acoustic accreditations in the form of single-use audio signals, suitable for programming locks indexed in the database by the access rights indexed in the database and/or by additional data. The system includes a means for securely transmitting the encrypted acoustic accreditations from the management site to the mobile telephone of the master user, see Abstract).
From the teachings of Metivier, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss, Fabre to include receiving, from a remote server, the locally-stored authorization list in order to allow updating of the authorizations, thereby improve system convenience by permitting use by new authorized users.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poss in view of Fabre, and further in view of Fallah (US 2019/0319808).
Regarding claim 18, Poss, Fabre fail to disclose wherein the locally-stored authorization list further defines timing information regarding when at least one of the first storage device and the second storage device are eligible to be unlocked.
Fallah teaches access to a device can be limited to specific hours (Para. 118).
From the teachings of Fallah, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Poss and Fabre to include wherein the locally-stored authorization list further defines timing information regarding when at least one of the first storage device and the second storage device are eligible to be unlocked in order to prevent abuse of the storage devices during odd hours.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference (20190066418) not presented before.
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 YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights