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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I comprising claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Group II comprising claims 6-9, and Group III comprising claims 10-20 were non-elected (typographical error in restriction mailed on 10/21/2025 included claim 19 in group I). The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office fails to establish two-way distinctiveness with the purported combination and subcombination. This is not found persuasive because Groups I, II and III clearly claim different inventions that are not obvious variants of each other. As shown by the examiner in the restriction mailed on 10/21/2025, each group of claims includes a different claimed invention to make each of them distinct from the other group of claimed inventions. Therefore, there is a significant search burden on the examiner. And each patent application is only allowed one invention, not multiple distinct inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 3, and claim 3 states the rotating locking protection is a small drop-off door, but claim 4 states the rotating locking protection is also a rotating flap mounted onto a front plate. As shown in the Figures filed by the applicant, the rotating locking protection can be a small drop-off door (202, Fig. 2) or a rotating flap mounted onto a front plate (302, Fig. 3). Therefore, it is clear the rotating locking protection cannot be both at the same time, thus rendering claim 4 indefinite.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartal (US 20180046978), and further in view of Goja (US 11556885 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tartal discloses a locker system for shipment delivery and pick-up comprising:
a locker bank communicatively coupled with a remote shipping system via a long distance communication network and comprising a processor with a digital storage and a shipment compartment equipped with a door electronically controlled by the processor (via a smart drop box with an item receptacle and door 142, Para. 48 and Fig. 1B; drop box include wired and/or wireless communication systems to communicate with a central management system, Para. 3-4, 53),
wherein the locker bank further includes a drop compartment (collection container behind wall 105, Para. 49) comprising an aperture for shipment drop-offs (opening 147 of receptacle 140, Fig. 1B) and whose access is protected by a rotating locking protection electronically controlled by the processor (locking collection door 142 controlled by the processor, Para. 48-49).
Tartal fails to disclose the locker system further comprising more than one shipment compartments.
Section VI of MPEP 2144.04 states that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tartal to include more than one shipment compartments in order to allow storage of more items to be shipped.
Tartal fails to disclose a locking collection door electronically controlled by the processor and protecting access to the drop compartment, and wherein the rotating locking protection and locking collection door are in the same vertical plane as the doors of the single shipment compartments.
Goja teaches a smart drop box system comprising a locking collection door protecting access to a drop compartment (drop box door 103, col. 6, lines 27-34; Fig. 2b), and wherein a rotating locking protection (drop box tray 101, Fig. 2b) and locking collection door (103) are in the same vertical plane as the door of the single shipment compartment (Fig. 2b). And Tartal already teaches a door can be electronically controlled by the processor (Para. 48-49).
Thereofore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tartal to include a locking collection door electronically controlled by the processor and protecting access to the drop compartment in order to allow collection of items by authorized personnel only, thereby improve security; and wherein the rotating locking protection and locking collection door are in the same vertical plane as the doors of the single shipment compartments as section IV of MPEP 2144.04 states that changes in shape is merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartal in view of Goja, and further in view of Nguyen (US 20150324761 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tartal discloses a printing compartment including a label printer (a first printer output 128 may be configured to print adhesive labels, such as postage or shipping labels, Para. 46), but the prior arts cited fail to disclose the printing compartment is located above the drop compartment including a label liner trash, wherein the printing compartment is secured by a printer door comprising a label reception cavity and a label liner slit.
Nguyen teaches a kiosk can be configured to include a department for accepting trash via a slit (slot 145, Para. 31). Tartal already teaches a door with lock can be used to secure a compartment (door 142, Para. 48 and Fig. 1B). And section IV of MPEP 2144.04 states that changes in shape is merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tartal to include the printing compartment is located above the drop compartment in order to make the printer easily accessible by a maintenance personnel, and wherein the printing compartment is secured by a printer door comprising a label reception cavity and a label liner slit in order to protect the printer and provide a place for trash to reduce littering by users.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartal in view of Goja, and further in view of Swider (US 20030226884 A1) and Robinson (US 4335828).
Regarding claim 3, Tartal teaches the rotating locking protection is a small drop-off door located above the locking collection door (142, Fig. 1b of Tartal; and rejection of claim 1), but the cited arts fail to disclose wherein the aperture is centered on a mask plate securely attached to the drop compartment, and wherein the drop compartment is configured so that the mask plate can be exchanged on-site using minimal tools with a new mask plate having an aperture with different dimensions, and wherein the dimensions of the aperture are between 25 cm and 26 cm wide and between 6 and 7 cm high.
Swider teaches a drop box including an aperture (14, Fig. 1) centered on a mask plate (60, Fig. 1) securely attached to a drop compartment (Fig. 1, Para. 43-52) to allow dropping of items of appropriate sizes.
Robinson teaches a plate of a container device can be made easily replaceable (easily replaced interchangeable covers for the top of a refuse container, Abstract).
And section IV of MPEP 2144.04 states that changes in shape is merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include wherein the aperture is centered on a mask plate securely attached to the drop compartment in order to drop items of appropriate sizes, and wherein the drop compartment is configured so that the mask plate can be exchanged on-site using minimal tools with a new mask plate having an aperture with different dimensions, and wherein the dimensions of the aperture are between 25 cm and 26 cm wide and between 6 and 7 cm high as changes to the aperture sizes are merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartal in view of Goja, and further in view of Carlson (US 20210321809 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tartal and Goja fail to disclose wherein the rotating locking protection is a rotating flap mounted onto a front plate securely attached above the locking collection door and wherein the front plate comprises the aperture centered in the front plate and the rotating flap is configured to open and close by rotation around a horizontal axis near a top edge of the aperture.
Carlson teaches a drop box device including a rotating flap (150, Para. 28) mounted onto a front plate securely attached above a locking collection door (130, Para, 27) and wherein the front plate comprises an aperture (140, Para. 28) centered in the front plate and the rotating flap is configured to open and close by rotation around a horizontal axis near a top edge of the aperture (Fig. 1).
And section IV of MPEP 2144.04 states that changes in shape is merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include wherein the rotating locking protection is a rotating flap mounted onto a front plate securely attached above the locking collection door and wherein the front plate comprises the aperture centered in the front plate and the rotating flap is configured to open and close by rotation around a horizontal axis near a top edge of the aperture in order to protect the aperture from unwanted items, thereby improve security.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartal in view of Goja, and further in view of Swider (US 20030226884 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tartal and Goja fail to disclose the locking collection door is an internal door comprising the aperture in the top part of the internal door and the rotating locking protection is a tall external door protecting access to the internal door.
But Tartal already teaches a door to protect access to an aperture for deposit (via door 142 to protect aperture/receptacle 140, Para. 48). And Swider teaches including an aperture in the top part of a drop box (deposit port 14, Para. 48)
And section IV of MPEP 2144.04 states that changes in shape is merely a design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include the locking collection door is an internal door comprising the aperture in the top part of the internal door and the rotating locking protection is a tall external door protecting access to the internal door as changes to the shapes and sizes are merely a design choice.
Conclusion
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