DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 2/24/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Simply asserting the art of record does not teach the independent claims is not sufficient to specifically point out how the claim language is distinct from the art of record.
The rearranging of the location of the RFID limitations in the claims, slight changes of the coordinate system limitation, and inclusion of mobile device guidance does not overcome the art of record. Wakim teaches sending to a user’s mobile device instructions to retrieve the item, based on the recorded item location, said instructions including a location and access code to a particular location. The user in Wakim corresponds to the operator of the container in the present claims. The vehicle in Wakim is not intended to be the delivery destination, as the vehicle is arranged in a location as to provide access to a user, who travels to the meetup location to pick up the item. The claims do not wholly preclude the scope of the consumer being the operator, nor do they fully limit the invention to the narrower scope of a delivery vehicle operated by an employee of a delivery company who retrieves an item from the vehicle and delivers the item to a consumer’s location. Then, the rejections are maintained.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakim (US 20170330144 A1) in view of Bodin (US 2008/0055084 A1).
Claims 1 and 11. Wakim teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining an identifier to an item for placement in a container, the item being associated with a delivery destination; (Wakim para. 36 showing items associated with a specific location in the delivery container by scanning the location in container and the item, as items are placed in container; para. 38 shows the item being delivered to a destination)
in response to placement of the item at a storage position within the container, recording a storage location; (Wakim paragraphs 36 and 38 showing recording location of item storage.)
monitoring transit information of the container during transport of the container, and determining whether a location of the container corresponds to the delivery destination associated with the item; (Wakim para. 79 showing mobile container determining GPS coordinates and notifying user of container being at delivery location, and further sending user information for retrieving item from location)
when the location of the container corresponds to the delivery destination, retrieving the recorded storage location of the item within the container; (Wakim para. 55 showing control station identifying a specific storage location when mobile container reaches user location and user interacts with control station.)
controlling an output assembly to generate item retrieval guidance based on the recorded storage location; (Wakim para. 55, showing identifying to user specific location is accessible for item retrieval by a spring mechanism propelling door outward.)
transmitting the item retrieval guidance to a mobile device of an operator of the container, and (para. 125 showing item retrieval guidance including container location and access code to user who will operate the container to obtain their item)
retrieving, by the operator and based on the item retrieval guidance, the item from the container and depositing the item at the delivery destination, wherein (para. 126 showing user retrieving an item, user being delivery destination)
and the container is a mobile container affixed to or integrated with a vehicle and is not indicative of the delivery destination. (Figure 2 of Wakim showing a vehicle with integrated containers for purposes of meeting a customer/user for final delivery. While the container is not the delivery destination, it is corresponding to the delivery destination, as is claimed.)
Wakim teaches coordinates of the container, as well as storage location of the item in the container. (paragraphs 36, 79 and 55). It does not, but Bodin teaches storage location of the item at the storage position according to a coordinate system indicative of an area within the container and associating coordinates of the storage location with the identifier. (Paragraphs 38 and 39 showing coordinates of item on shelf being used to identify item location)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of coordinates-based locating in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for precise location determinations. (See paragraphs 38 and 39 of Bodin, showing precise coordinates for precise location of identified item on shelf.)
Wakim teaches scanning items for identifiers (para. 34), and RFID tags for storage location (para. 50). It does not, but Bodin teaches wherein obtaining the identifier of a radio frequency identification tag affixed to an item by a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader (Bodin para. 35 showing RFID tags on items being used for identification) disposed at a doorway of the container. (Bodin paragraph 57 showing shelves with entry/exit readers; para. 58 showing said readers RFID readers; para. 40 showing readers activated by opening of door and reading said items.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of RFID readers at entry/exits in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item tracking and placement. (para. 40 of Bodin showing control of RFID readers by container access events.)
Claim 11. Rejected on the same basis as claim 1, with the additional limitations: a computing device, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured. (Wakim paragraphs 135 and 137 showing computer implemented process.)
Claims 6 and 16. Wakim as modified by Bodin teaches the method of claim 1. Wakim teaches a scale or weight determination component for weighing items (para. 46.) It does not, but Bodin teaches wherein recording the storage location includes, in response to obtaining the item identifier:
receiving sensor data from a load sensor disposed at a support surface within the container; (Bodin para. 28 showing mass sensor for weight and location identification of item)
and detecting the storage location based on the sensor data. (Paragraph 28 of Bodin, showing identifying item location using mass sensor.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of mass and weight sensing in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (para. 28 of Bodin showing mass sensor for item identification.)
Claims 7 and 17. Wakim as modified by Bodin teaches the method of claim 1. Wakim teaches using sounds or lights to locate the mobile container (para. 28). It does not, but Bodin teaches wherein controlling the output assembly includes:
controlling an indicator light disposed within the container to generate a visual indication of the storage location. (Para. 78 of Bodin showing indicator light showing position of item on shelf)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of light based guidance in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (para. 78 of Bodin showing lighting for item identification.)
Claims 9 and 19. Wakim as modified by Bodin teaches the method of claim 7. Wakim does not, but Bodin teaches wherein the indicator light includes an electronic shelf label disposed on a support surface corresponding to the storage location. (Bodin para. 73 showing electronic display on shelf that identifies item location)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of light based guidance in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (para. 73 of Bodin showing lighting for item identification.)
Claims 10 and 20. Wakim as modified by Bodin method of claim 1. Wakim teaches having a speaker to help users locate the pickup unit, or container (paras. 43, 71 and 94). It does not, but Bodin teaches wherein controlling the output assembly includes:
controlling a speaker disposed within the container to generate an audible indicator of the storage location. (Bodin para. 79 showing audible indicators of storage system and user hearing storage system identify location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of sound based guidance in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (para. 79 of Bodin showing speech for item identification.)
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakim (US 20170330144 A1) in view of Bodin (US 2008/0055084 A1), and in further view of Adams (US 2023/0267406 A1).
Claims 3 and 13. Wakim as modified by Bodin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein recording the storage location includes, in response to obtaining the item identifier:
controlling a camera to capture a sequence of images of an interior of the container. (Wakim para. 58 showing camera for video/images of interior of container)
Wakim teaches using images to determine if an item is in a specific location of a container (para. 60). Wakim as modified by Bodin does not, but Adams teaches tracking the item within the container, based on the sequence of images, to determine the storage location. (Adams para. 29 showing camera used to locate and track movement of item to provide location of item on shelf. See Figure 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of camera-based tracking in Adams because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (Adams para. 29 showing item identification using a camera.)
Claims 4 and 14. Wakim as modified by Bodin teaches the method of claim 3. Wakim teaches a scale to weight items (para. 46). It does not, but Bodin teaches wherein recording the storage location further includes:
receiving sensor data from a load sensor disposed at a support surface corresponding to the storage location; (Bodin para. 28 showing mass sensor for weight and location identification of item)
and validating the storage location based on the sensor data. (Bodin para. 28, showing identifying item location using mass sensor.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of mass and weight sensing in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (para. 28 of Bodin showing mass sensor for item identification.)
Claims 5 and 15. Wakim as modified by Bodin teaches the method of claim 4. Wakim does not, but Bodin teaches wherein validating the storage location includes comparing the sensor data to a predetermined dimension of the item. (Bodin paragraphs 71 and 72 showing mass sensor indicating shape of item detected as part of a certain object; para. 46 showing footprint database for identification)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of mass and weight sensing in Bodin because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (para. 28 of Bodin showing mass sensor and footprint for item identification.)
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakim (US 20170330144 A1) in view of Bodin (US 2008/0055084 A1), and in further view of Nashif (US 2021/0158241 A1).
Claims 8 and 18. Wakim as modified by Bodin teaches the method of claim 7. It does not, but Nashif teaches wherein the indicator light includes a movable laser pointer mounted within the container. (Nashif paras. 38 and 47 showing pan and tilt light device using lasers for locating positions of items)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of location aware guided item retrieval in Wakim, with the known technique of light based guidance in Nashif because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for item identification. (para. 38 of Nashif showing laser pointing for item identification.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights