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 7/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5 are amended. Claims 6-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 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 (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.
7. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartal (US 20180046978), and further in view of Robinson (US 20180060812 A1), Swider (US 20030226884 A1) and 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; a kiosk or other structure attached to the smart drop box 100 may securely enclose a space in which received items can be stored after deposit until they are retrieved by the distribution network, Para. 3-4, 53),
wherein the locker bank further includes a drop compartment comprising an aperture for shipment drop-offs (opening 147 of receptacle 140, Fig. 1B, Para. 48), a rotating drop-off door electronically controlled by the processor, the rotating drop-off door operable to selectively cover the aperture (the smart drop box 100 locks the door 142 at the locking mechanism 144, Para. 49, Fig. 1B; Para. 63).
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.
Robinson teaches a locker bank with more than one shipment compartments (Abstract, Para. 25, 27).
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 deposit/storage of more items.
Tartal and Robinson fail to disclose a physical barrier positioned in front of a top part of the drop compartment, the physical barrier comprising a mask plate securely attached to the drop compartment, wherein the aperture is centered on the mask plate.
Swider teaches a drop box including an aperture (14, Fig. 1) centered on a mask plate (60, Fig. 1) securely attached to a top part of a drop compartment (Fig. 1, Para. 43-52) to allow dropping of items of appropriate sizes only.
From the teachings of Swider, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tartal and Robinson to include a physical barrier positioned in front of a top part of the drop compartment, the physical barrier comprising a mask plate securely attached to the drop compartment, wherein the aperture is centered on the mask plate in order to allow deposit of items of appropriate sizes only.
Tartal, Robinson and Swider fail to disclose a locking collection door electronically controlled by the processor, the locking collection door being distinct from the rotating drop-off door and operable to selectively control access to a collection zone of the drop compartment located below the physical barrier; and wherein the rotating drop-off door and the locking collection door are in a 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). Tartal already teaches a door can be electronically controlled by the processor (Para. 48-49), and Robinson already teaches the doors of the locker banks can be configured in the same vertical plane (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tartal, Robinson, Swider to include a locking collection door electronically controlled by the processor, the locking collection door being distinct from the rotating drop-off door and operable to selectively control access to a collection zone of the drop compartment located below the physical barrier in order to selectively allow access to the collection of items deposited to improve security and access; and wherein the rotating drop-off door and the locking collection door are in a 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 Robinson, Swider and 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 try 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 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 Robinson, Swider and Goja, and further in view of Robinson (US 4335828).
Regarding claim 3, the cited arts fail to disclose 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.
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 try 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 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 to allow deposit of items of certain sizes only.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tartal in view of Robinson, Swider and Goja, and further in view of Carlson (US 20210321809 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the prior arts cited fail to disclose wherein the rotating drop-off door 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 try 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 drop-off door 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes new reference not presented before.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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