DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 the Application
Claims 1-63 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1, 26, 42-43, 46, 50, and 61-62 were amended. Claims 1-63 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/434,492, filed on December 22, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 6/30/2025 through 12/30/2025 have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejections of claims 1-63 (pgs. 18-19 of 10/08/2025 remarks) have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the updated non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-63 applied below, in response to applicant’s amendments. Please see the current non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 1-63 below.
35 USC § 112(b):
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 42-63 (pgs. 19 of remarks) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 43 is amended to describe “an entrance opening of the node-based logistics receptacle” and claim 46 has been amended to recite “a temporary storage area of the node-based logistics receptacle,” which overcome the previous issues. The previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 42-63 are withdrawn.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-27, 29-32, 34-36, and 38-63 (pg. 20, remarks filed 10/08/2025) have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the § 103 rejections below, in response to the 10/08/2025 amendments.
Please see the new grounds of rejection applied in the current § 103 rejections of claims 1-27 and 29-63 below, which are necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Also note that the newly applied combination of references (including US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al.) based on the amended scope of the independent claims was also found to teach claims 33 and 37, which are no longer considered novel/non-obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 12-13, 15-17, 19, 22-23, 42-47, 51-52, 54-56, 58, and 61-62 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 28, 33-35, 42, 69, and 74-75 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 (reference application) in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1: All of the limitations of instant claim 1 are taught by the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘814 application, except for the limitation:
after transmitting the validation message, receive a validation confirmation message over the communication interface from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer
However, Parameswaran teaches verifying/authorizing payment for a package being deposited at a kiosk by transmitting a validation request message displayed on a mobile device and receiving a response including a validation code for validating payment (Parameswaran: ¶ 0061-0063; alternatively, also see ¶ 0069 “in one embodiment, in response to a determination that the account is valid, the kiosk 120 may automatically initiate communication with a mobile device 110 associated with the account for wireless services. Thus, in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device” which requires at least a message sent to the mobile device and subsequent response from the mobile device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the verification communications between a kiosk and mobile device of Parameswaran in the system of the ‘814 application with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “With an ever-increasing desire for customer-friendly shipping options, a need exits for a solution that allows customers to pay for shipping services using a mobile device” (Parameswaran: ¶ 0002).
Claim 2: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 2 are taught by claim 33 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 3: As above, instant claim 2 is taught by claims 1 and 33 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 3 are taught by claim 35 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 4: As above, instant claim 2 is taught by claim 1 and 33 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 4 are taught by claim 33 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 5: As above, instant claim 4 is taught by claims 1 and 33 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 5 are taught by claim 33 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 6: As above, instant claim 4 is taught by claims 1 and 33 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 6 are taught by claim 33 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 7: As above, instant claim 2 is taught by claim 1 and 33 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 7 are taught by claim 34 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 8: As above, instant claim 7 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 8 are taught by claim 34 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 12: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 12 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation message requests authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 13: As above, instant claim 12 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 13 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 15: As above, instant claim 12 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 15 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 16: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 16 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation confirmation message includes authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 17: As above, instant claim 16 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 17 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 19: As above, instant claim 16 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 19 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 22: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 22 are also taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 23: As above, instant claim 22 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 23 are taught by claim 28 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 42: Instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application, except for the limitation:
after transmitting the validation message, receiving, by the bridge node, a validation confirmation message from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer
However, Parameswaran teaches verifying/authorizing payment for a package being deposited at a kiosk by transmitting a validation request message displayed on a mobile device and receiving a response including a validation code for validating payment (Parameswaran: ¶ 0061-0063; alternatively, also see ¶ 0069 “in one embodiment, in response to a determination that the account is valid, the kiosk 120 may automatically initiate communication with a mobile device 110 associated with the account for wireless services. Thus, in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device” which requires at least a message sent to the mobile device and subsequent response from the mobile device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the verification communications between a kiosk and mobile device of Parameswaran in the system of the ‘814 application with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “With an ever-increasing desire for customer-friendly shipping options, a need exits for a solution that allows customers to pay for shipping services using a mobile device” (Parameswaran: ¶ 0002).
Claim 43: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 43 are taught by claim 74 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 44: As above, instant claim 43 is taught by claims 42 and 74 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 44 are taught by claim 74 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 45: As above, instant claim 43 is taught by claims 42 and 74 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 45 are taught by claim 74 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 46: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 46 are taught by claim 75 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 47: As above, instant claim 46 is taught by claims 42 and 75 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 47 are taught by claim 75 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 51: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 12 above teaching analogous limitation to claim 51.
Claim 52: As above, instant claim 51 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 13 above teaching analogous limitation to claim 52.
Claim 54: As above, instant claim 51 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 15 above teaching analogous limitations to claim 54.
Claim 55: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 16 above teaching analogous limitation to claim 55.
Claim 56: As above, instant claim 55 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 17 above teaching analogous limitation to claim 56.
Claim 58: As above, instant claim 55 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 19 above teaching analogous limitations to claim 58.
Claim 61: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 61 are also taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application.
Claim 62: As above, instant claim 61 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 62 are taught by claim 69 of the ‘814 application.
Claims 9-10 and 48-49 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 42 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20150178677 A1 to Strand et al. (Strand). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 9: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 9 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, however, Strand teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect the wireless communication signal broadcast by being operative to receive the wireless communication signal broadcast from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer over the communication interface (Strand: ¶ 0090 “ In another embodiment, the revocable authentication token may include a wireless identifier of a mobile device of the seller so that the locker can operate the compartment by waving his mobile device in front of the corresponding compartment. The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token” wherein as per ¶ 0047 “the mobile device of the seller may communicate directly with the compartment via infrared, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or any other wireless means and send the lock code directly to the compartment”); and
recognize the mobile user device as an authorized mobile user device based upon authorization data within the wireless communication signal (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token. The compartment may operate to lock after receiving a validation from the kiosk application 122”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection of an authentication token including a mobile device identifier to authorize a seller to open a compartment and deposit the package of Strand in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, it would have also addressed the issues that “The shipping process typically includes the seller packing the item in a box, sealing it up, bringing it to the post office, filling out the necessary forms, weighing it to calculate the postage, paying for the postage, affixing the stamp on the box, and finally dropping the box in the parcel deposit area. Because this inefficient shipping process entails many steps, it becomes a deterrent for sellers to list, sell, and ship their items” (Strand: ¶ 0002).
Claim 10: As above, instant claim 9 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Strand. The further limitations of instant claim 10 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, however, Strand teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device by being operative to: identify the authorization data within the wireless communication signal (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The seller may then operate the compartment identified with the compartment identifier using a lock code that may include a revocable authentication token of the seller…the revocable authentication token may include a wireless identifier of a mobile device of the seller so that the locker can operate the compartment by waving his mobile device in front of the corresponding compartment. The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token”);
compare the authorization data to information on a plurality of pre-authorized mobile user devices (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token” wherein as per ¶ 0047, ¶ 0052 the received lock code data is verified against data stored in server, which would indicate/read on “pre-authorized mobile user devices” given that the lock code information includes the authentication token and wireless identifier of the mobile device according to ¶ 0090); and
recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device based upon the results of comparing the authorization data to the information on the pre- authorized mobile user devices (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token. The compartment may operate to lock after receiving a validation from the kiosk application 122”; see ¶ 0047, ¶ 0052 as per above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection of an authentication token including a mobile device identifier to authorize a seller to open a compartment and deposit the package of Strand in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Strand with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claim 48: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 9 above teaching the further limitations of instant claim 48.
Claim 49: As above, instant claim 48 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Strand. See the rejection of claim 10 above teaching the further limitations of instant claim 49.
Claims 11, 14, 18, 50, 53, and 57 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 42 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20200311671 A1 to Lundahl et al. (Lundahl). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 11 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the validation message requests confirmation that the parcel customer has deposited the delivery item in the storage receptacle (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 showing “the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lindahl in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to enhance convenience for their customers. The shippers obtain necessary security information about the identity of the sender and the mail piece, and receive additional benefits from electronic access to the customer at the point of sale in the form of opportunities to offer up-sell services and sell location-sensitive advertising” (Lundahl: ¶ 0021)
Claim 14: As above, instant claim 12 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 14 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lindahl in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to enhance convenience for their customers. The shippers obtain necessary security information about the identity of the sender and the mail piece, and receive additional benefits from electronic access to the customer at the point of sale in the form of opportunities to offer up-sell services and sell location-sensitive advertising” (Lundahl: ¶ 0021).
Claim 18: As above, instant claim 16 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 18 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included requesting and receiving an image confirmation of a deposited delivery item from the customer as taught by Lindahl in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to enhance convenience for their customers. The shippers obtain necessary security information about the identity of the sender and the mail piece, and receive additional benefits from electronic access to the customer at the point of sale in the form of opportunities to offer up-sell services and sell location-sensitive advertising” (Lundahl: ¶ 0021).
Claim 50: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 11 above teaching analogous limitation to claim 50.
Claim 53: As above, instant claim 51 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 14 above teaching analogous limitation to claim 53.
Claim 57: As above, instant claim 55 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 18 above teaching analogous limitation to claim 57.
Claims 20-21 and 59-60 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 42 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20180046978 A1 to Tartal et al. (Tartal). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 20: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. To the extent the further limitations of instant claim 20 are not taught entirely by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, Tartal teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is further operative to update custodial control information maintained within the bridge node memory related to custody of the delivery item (Tartal: ¶ 0106 “ information contained in the label may be recorded in memory associated with the computer system, such as a database of deposited items”) when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer (Tartal: ¶ 0078 showing “Acceptance verification as described herein can include information such as a serial or tracking number, item weight, item size, amount of postage paid, selected shipping service, identity of the user depositing the item, a photograph of the user depositing the item”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included updating stored information about the deposited item while also sending an acceptance verification to the customer of Tartal in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would also have found it obvious to do so before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with that motivation that “a depositor may desire to receive verification of the deposit. For example, a seller shipping a sold item to the buyer of the item might wish to receive a printed or electronic receipt confirming that the item was deposited with a distribution network for shipping. Similarly, the buyer or a transaction facilitator, such as a business-to-consumer or consumer-to-consumer e-commerce platform, might wish to receive an electronic confirmation that the item was shipped or inducted for shipping before releasing payment to the seller” and “deposit verification may allow an e-commerce platform to improve customer satisfaction by transferring funds as soon as an item is confirmed to be deposited, rather than waiting until the item is delivered” (Tartal: ¶ 0039).
Claim 21: As above, instant claim 20 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Tartal. To the extent the further limitations of instant claim 21 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, Tartal teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising the updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Tartal: ¶ 0106 “information contained in the label may be recorded in memory associated with the computer system, such as a database of deposited items”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included updating stored information about the deposited item while also sending an acceptance verification to the customer of Tartal in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Tartal with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 20 above.
Claim 59: As above, instant claim 42 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 20 above teaching analogous limitations to claim 59.
Claim 60: As above, instant claim 59 is taught by claim 42 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Tartal. See the rejection of claim 21 above teaching analogous limitations to claim 60.
Claims 24 and 63 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 28, 42 and 69 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20150349917 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (Skaaksrud). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 24: As above, instant claim 23 is taught by claims 1 and 28 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of instant claim 24 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, however, Skaaksrud teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising an identification of the delivery item and updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services; also see ¶ 0551 transferring custody to drop node and updating service with the custody information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include transmitting the information reporting the package deposited in the receptacle as taught by Skaaksrud in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 63: As above, instant claim 62 is taught by claims 42 and 69 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. See the rejection of claim 24 above teaching analogous limitations to instant claim 63.
Claims 25-26, 30-31, 33-35, 37 and 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 33-34 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 25: As above, instant claim 1 is taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran. The further limitations of claim 25 are taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Czachor:
record timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0047 showing “At some point, items 12 are in fact deposited within the receiving box 10 and the system 14 senses same by way of the detector 16 (305). Note here that the deposit of an item 12 in the receiving box as at 305 may or may not cause a triggering event, depending on how a triggering event is defined and how the detector 16 and controller 18 are arranged and/or programmed to perceive such triggering event”; and ¶ 0048 showing “Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”); and
broadcast the updated advertising signal having a data available flag set within the updated advertising signal, the data available flag indicating the wireless accessory sensor node has the event information available for upload by the bridge node (Czachor: ¶ 0044-0049 showing a sensor broadcasts a signal indicating detection of a package, which may be received as a triggering event by the processor that indicates to the processor that it should be reported by the reporter as a triggering event),
the event information including at least the timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0048 “the reporter 20 in fact reports the triggering event and perhaps associated details to a person or service associated with the enterprise (311). Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”)
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect, using the communication interface, the updated advertising signal having the data available flag set (Czachor: ¶ 0044-0049 showing a sensor broadcasts a signal indicating detection of a package, which may be received with the signal and indicating a triggering event by the processor that indicates to the processor that it should be reported by the reporter as a triggering event),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection and reporting of a triggering event, including a date and time, associated with deposit of a package of Czachor in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a need exists for such a system and method that detects when the receiving box is occupied by a predetermined amount of deposited items and sends a notification regarding same. Even more particularly, a need exists for such a system and method that sends the notification remotely by way of a wireless communications system” (Czachor: ¶ 0005).
Claim 26: Claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application teach the limitations of claim 26, except for the following. With respect to the limitation:
after transmitting the validation message, receive a validation confirmation message over the communication interface from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer
Claim 1 of the ‘814 application teaches receiving a validation confirmation message but does not explicitly state that it occurs after transmitting the validation message. However, Parameswaran teaches verifying/authorizing payment for a package being deposited at a kiosk by transmitting a validation request message displayed on a mobile device and receiving a response including a validation code for validating payment (Parameswaran: ¶ 0061-0063; alternatively, also see ¶ 0069 “in one embodiment, in response to a determination that the account is valid, the kiosk 120 may automatically initiate communication with a mobile device 110 associated with the account for wireless services. Thus, in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device” which requires at least a message sent to the mobile device and subsequent response from the mobile device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the verification communications between a kiosk and mobile device of Parameswaran in the system of the ‘814 application with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “With an ever-increasing desire for customer-friendly shipping options, a need exits for a solution that allows customers to pay for shipping services using a mobile device” (Parameswaran: ¶ 0002).
With respect to the following limitations, the ‘814 application/Parameswaran do not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Czachor teaches:
record timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0047 showing “At some point, items 12 are in fact deposited within the receiving box 10 and the system 14 senses same by way of the detector 16 (305). Note here that the deposit of an item 12 in the receiving box as at 305 may or may not cause a triggering event, depending on how a triggering event is defined and how the detector 16 and controller 18 are arranged and/or programmed to perceive such triggering event”; and ¶ 0048 showing “Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”); and
broadcast the updated advertising signal having a data available flag set within the updated advertising signal, the data available flag indicating the wireless accessory sensor node has the event information available for upload by the bridge node (Czachor: ¶ 0044-0049 showing a sensor broadcasts a signal indicating detection of a package, which may be received as a triggering event by the processor that indicates to the processor that it should be reported by the reporter as a triggering event),
the event information including at least the timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0048 “the reporter 20 in fact reports the triggering event and perhaps associated details to a person or service associated with the enterprise (311). Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”)
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect, using the communication interface, the updated advertising signal having the data available flag set (Czachor: ¶ 0044-0049 showing a sensor broadcasts a signal indicating detection of a package, which may be received with the signal and indicating a triggering event by the processor that indicates to the processor that it should be reported by the reporter as a triggering event),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection and reporting of a triggering event, including a date and time, associated with deposit of a package of Czachor in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a need exists for such a system and method that detects when the receiving box is occupied by a predetermined amount of deposited items and sends a notification regarding same. Even more particularly, a need exists for such a system and method that sends the notification remotely by way of a wireless communications system” (Czachor: ¶ 0005).
Claim 30: As above, instant claim 26 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 30 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation message requests authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 31: As above, instant claim 30 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 31 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 33: As above, instant claim 30 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 33 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 34: As above, instant claim 26 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 34 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation confirmation message includes authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 35: As above, instant claim 34 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 35 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 37: As above, instant claim 34 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 37 are not taught by the ‘814 application, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 40: As above, instant claim 26 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 40 are further taught by claim 1 of the ‘814 application.
Claims 27-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 33-34 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), further in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor), and further in view of US 20150178677 A1 to Strand et al. (Strand). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 27: As above, instant claim 26 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. To the extent the further limitations of instant claim 27 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, Strand teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect the wireless communication signal broadcast by being operative to receive the wireless communication signal broadcast from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer over the communication interface (Strand: ¶ 0090 “ In another embodiment, the revocable authentication token may include a wireless identifier of a mobile device of the seller so that the locker can operate the compartment by waving his mobile device in front of the corresponding compartment. The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token” wherein as per ¶ 0047 “the mobile device of the seller may communicate directly with the compartment via infrared, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, or any other wireless means and send the lock code directly to the compartment”); and
recognize the mobile user device as an authorized mobile user device based upon authorization data within the wireless communication signal (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token. The compartment may operate to lock after receiving a validation from the kiosk application 122”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection of an authentication token including a mobile device identifier to authorize a seller to open a compartment and deposit the package of Strand in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, it would have also addressed the issues that “The shipping process typically includes the seller packing the item in a box, sealing it up, bringing it to the post office, filling out the necessary forms, weighing it to calculate the postage, paying for the postage, affixing the stamp on the box, and finally dropping the box in the parcel deposit area. Because this inefficient shipping process entails many steps, it becomes a deterrent for sellers to list, sell, and ship their items” (Strand: ¶ 0002).
Claim 28: As above, instant claim 27 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor/Strand. The further limitations of instant claim 28 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, however, Strand teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device by being operative to: identify the authorization data within the wireless communication signal (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The seller may then operate the compartment identified with the compartment identifier using a lock code that may include a revocable authentication token of the seller…the revocable authentication token may include a wireless identifier of a mobile device of the seller so that the locker can operate the compartment by waving his mobile device in front of the corresponding compartment. The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token”);
compare the authorization data to information on a plurality of pre-authorized mobile user devices (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token” wherein as per ¶ 0047, ¶ 0052 the received lock code data is verified against data stored in server, which would indicate/read on “pre-authorized mobile user devices” given that the lock code information includes the authentication token and wireless identifier of the mobile device according to ¶ 0090); and
recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device based upon the results of comparing the authorization data to the information on the pre- authorized mobile user devices (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token. The compartment may operate to lock after receiving a validation from the kiosk application 122”; see ¶ 0047, ¶ 0052 as per above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection of an authentication token including a mobile device identifier to authorize a seller to open a compartment and deposit the package of Strand in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor/Strand with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 27 above.
Claims 29, 32 and 36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 33-34 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), further in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor), and further in view of US 20200311671 A1 to Lundahl et al. (Lundahl). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 29: As above, instant claim 26 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 29 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the validation message requests confirmation that the parcel customer has deposited the delivery item in the storage receptacle (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 showing “the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lindahl in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, “to enhance convenience for their customers. The shippers obtain necessary security information about the identity of the sender and the mail piece, and receive additional benefits from electronic access to the customer at the point of sale in the form of opportunities to offer up-sell services and sell location-sensitive advertising” (Lundahl: ¶ 0021)
Claim 32: As above, instant claim 30 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 32 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lindahl in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 30 above.
Claim 36: As above, instant claim 34 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 36 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included requesting and receiving an image confirmation of a deposited delivery item from the customer as taught by Lindahl in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 34 above.
Claims 38-39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 33-34 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), further in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor), and further in view of US 20180046978 A1 to Tartal et al. (Tartal). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 38: As above, instant claim 26 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 38 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, however, Tartal teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is further operative to update custodial control information maintained within the bridge node memory related to custody of the delivery item (Tartal: ¶ 0106 “ information contained in the label may be recorded in memory associated with the computer system, such as a database of deposited items”) when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer (Tartal: ¶ 0078 showing “Acceptance verification as described herein can include information such as a serial or tracking number, item weight, item size, amount of postage paid, selected shipping service, identity of the user depositing the item, a photograph of the user depositing the item”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included updating stored information about the deposited item while also sending an acceptance verification to the customer of Tartal in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would also have found it obvious to do so before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with that motivation that “a depositor may desire to receive verification of the deposit. For example, a seller shipping a sold item to the buyer of the item might wish to receive a printed or electronic receipt confirming that the item was deposited with a distribution network for shipping. Similarly, the buyer or a transaction facilitator, such as a business-to-consumer or consumer-to-consumer e-commerce platform, might wish to receive an electronic confirmation that the item was shipped or inducted for shipping before releasing payment to the seller” and “deposit verification may allow an e-commerce platform to improve customer satisfaction by transferring funds as soon as an item is confirmed to be deposited, rather than waiting until the item is delivered” (Tartal: ¶ 0039).
Claim 39: As above, instant claim 38 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor/Tartal. The further limitations of instant claim 39 are not taught by the ‘‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, however, Tartal teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising the updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Tartal: ¶ 0106 “information contained in the label may be recorded in memory associated with the computer system, such as a database of deposited items”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included updating stored information about the deposited item while also sending an acceptance verification to the customer of Tartal in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor/Tartal with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 38 above.
Claim 41 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 33-34 of copending Application No. 18/497,814 in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), further in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor), and further in view of US 20150349917 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (Skaaksrud). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 41: As above, instant claim 40 is taught by claims 1 and 33-34 of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor. The further limitations of instant claim 41 are not taught by the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, however, Skaaksrud teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising an identification of the delivery item and updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services; also see ¶ 0551 transferring custody to drop node and updating service with the custody information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include transmitting the information reporting the package deposited in the receptacle as taught by Skaaksrud in the package receptacle system of the ‘814 application/Parameswaran/Czachor, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 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 1-9, 11-24, 42-48, and 50-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150349917 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (Skaaksrud) in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20200311671 A1 to Lundahl et al. (Lundahl).
Claim 1: Skaaksrud teaches:
A connected logistics receptacle system (Skaaksrud: at least ¶ 0713-0714, ¶ 0739-0740, ¶ 0773-0776 showing node-enabled logistics receptacle system including a node-enabled logistics receptacle with capability to communicate with a server and also other ID nodes/master nodes; see Figs. 82A-82B, Figs. 85A-85B, and Figs. 89A-89B displaying the node-enabled logistics receptacle system and the structure of the receptacle itself) with enhanced customer identification related to a delivery item being deposited by a parcel customer (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0551 showing customer uses user access device to hand off package to drop node, i.e. node-enabled logistics receptacle, ¶ 0558 showing a shipping customer may use their smartphone to enter shipping information about the item (such as package 130) to be shipped), the system comprising:
a storage receptacle for receiving the delivery item (Skaaksrud: Figs. 82A-82B and ¶ 0713-0716 showing node-enabled logistics receptacle 8200 for receiving a delivery package from a customer; also see Figs. 89A-89D),
the storage receptacle comprising a plurality of monitored storage receptacle components (Skaaksrud: at least ¶ 0746 showing “The receptacle has an entrance opening (such as opening 8205) through which the package is received and a temporary storage area (such as region 8230) where the package is temporarily and securely maintained until an authorized pickup”, which as per ¶ 0774-0776 are monitored to detect a package inserted into the receptacle);
a bridge node mounted to the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0739, ¶ 0740, 0745, ¶ 0747, ¶ 0753, ¶ 0763 showing a node mounted to the receptacle, which is a master node in direct communication with server over a network), the bridge node comprising a bridge node processor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0722 “a node processing unit…” and ¶ 0747 “The node assembled with the receptacle…comprises a node processing unit, a node memory storage, and at least one communication interface. The node memory storage is coupled to the node processing unit, and maintains code for execution by the node processing unit”),
a bridge node memory coupled to the bridge node processor, the bridge node memory maintaining monitoring and management code for execution by the bridge node processor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0722 showing “the node assembled with the logistics receptacle further comprises…a node memory storage,” ¶ 0747 “The node assembled with the receptacle (such as node 8220, master node 8505, or ID node 8605) comprises …a node memory storage…The node memory storage is coupled to the node processing unit, and maintains code for execution by the node processing unit,” and ¶ 0748 “The node processing unit, when executing the code maintained on the node memory storage, is operative to perform various functions when proactively reporting a content status of the node-enabled logistics receptacle”),
a communication interface coupled to the bridge node processor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0747 showing the node includes a communication interface),
the communication interface being operative to communicate with at least a backend server over a first communication path (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0753 “the node assembled with the receptacle in the apparatus may comprise a master node (such as master node 8505) operative to communicate directly to a server in the wireless node network. As such, the node processing unit may be further operative to broadcasting the status information over the at least one communication interface directly to the server in the wireless node network”);
a wireless accessory sensor node mounted to the storage receptacle and coupled to a plurality of sensors (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0637-0639, ¶ 0646 showing one or more separate sensors/sensor nodes operating within the wireless node network and integrated into the node-enabled logistics receptacle or drop-box)
wherein each of the sensors respectively monitors for a change in state of the storage receptacle related to at least one of the monitored storage receptacle components (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0789 “the node processing unit may be further operative to detect the second type of package by being operative to sense the deposit of the second package within the node-enabled logistics receptacle based upon a sensor signal provided by the sensor to the node processing unit”; and see ¶ 0774-0776, ¶ 0790-0791 sensors for detecting when a new package is inserted into the receptacle),
wherein the wireless accessory sensor node being further operative to detect the change in state of the storage receptacle based upon sensor data generated by the at least one sensor and broadcast an updated advertising signal in response to the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0789-0792 showing sensor signal generated by the coupled sensor(s) and transmitted to the node; also see ¶ 0637 showing “identify items being shipped that have related advertising nodes with the item as the items are left near or deposited in the receptacle (such as a drop box type of container). The node assembled with the receptacle operates to detect signals from nodes related to items being shipped. When detected, the receptacle's node associates with the node related to the item being shipped and based upon the location of the that node relative to the receptacle, the receptacle's node may alter a current inventory related to the receptacle that is stored in that node's memory storage”);
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect the updated advertising signal over the communication interface (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0789-0792 showing sensor signals generated by the coupled sensor(s) and transmitted to the node, and used to detect packages that are deposited),
detect a wireless communication signal broadcast from a mobile user device associated with the parcel customer (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83, ¶ 0724-0727 showing broadcast signals from user access devices of customers received by the receptacle; also see ¶ 0551 showing “As the shipping customer physically places ID node 120 a into drop node 110 a, device 200 may hand-off ID node 120 a to drop node 110 a, update server 100 with this association information, and disassociate from ID node 120 a”),
Note: Upon further consideration of additional portions of Skaaksrud, Skaaksrud teaches a plurality of sensors (separate from the node processor) mounted to the storage receptacle and in connection with a drop-node, which reads on a wireless accessory sensor node coupled to a plurality of sensors.
With respect to the limitations:
transmit a validation message over the communication interface to the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer in response to the detected wireless communication signal and the detected updated advertising signal,
after transmitting the validation message, receive a validation confirmation message over the communication interface from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer,
Skaaksrud teaches detecting the parcel customer mobile device (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83, ¶ 0724-0727 showing broadcast signals from user access devices of customers received by the receptacle; also see ¶ 0551 showing “As the shipping customer physically places ID node 120 a into drop node 110 a, device 200 may hand-off ID node 120 a to drop node 110 a, update server 100 with this association information, and disassociate from ID node 120 a”) and detecting an updated advertising signal indicating a package detected by the receptacle (Skaaskrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0789-0792 showing sensor signal generated by the coupled sensor(s) and transmitted to the node; also see ¶ 0637 showing “identify items being shipped that have related advertising nodes with the item as the items are left near or deposited in the receptacle (such as a drop box type of container). The node assembled with the receptacle operates to detect signals from nodes related to items being shipped. When detected, the receptacle's node associates with the node related to the item being shipped and based upon the location of the that node relative to the receptacle, the receptacle's node may alter a current inventory related to the receptacle that is stored in that node's memory storage”), and further initiating a payment process over a communication interface to the mobile user device between the mobile user device and a master node in response to detecting the package (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0609-0616, ¶ 0696), but does not explicitly teach the payment being verified via transmitting a validation message to the mobile device and in response, receiving a validation confirmation message.
However, Parameswaran teaches verifying/authorizing payment for a package being deposited at a kiosk by transmitting a validation request message displayed on a mobile device and then receiving a response including a validation code for validating payment (Parameswaran: ¶ 0061-0063; alternatively, also see ¶ 0069 “in one embodiment, in response to a determination that the account is valid, the kiosk 120 may automatically initiate communication with a mobile device 110 associated with the account for wireless services. Thus, in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device” which requires at least a message sent to the mobile device and subsequent response from the mobile device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the verification communications between a kiosk and mobile device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “With an ever-increasing desire for customer-friendly shipping options, a need exits for a solution that allows customers to pay for shipping services using a mobile device” (Parameswaran: ¶ 0002).
With respect to the limitation:
transmit, using the communication interface, event information to the backend server when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer,
the event information including at least information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle
Skaaksrud teaches transmitting, using the communication interface, event information to the backend server, the event information including at least information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0771-0781 showing the node processor of the node-enabled logistics receptacle detecting package deposited in receptacle, and ¶ 0786, ¶¶ 0806-0807 sending communications to the server that notifies the server of event information regarding the detected package, i.e. change in state), and Parameswaran teaches the validation message authenticating payment for the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0061-0063 and ¶ 0069), but Skaaksrud/Parameswaran merely lack an explicit teaching of transmitting the event information to the backend server when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer.
However, Lundahl teaches transmitting event information indicating the status/presence of a package in a kiosk, by the kiosk to a server, following the previous authentication of a customer using a mobile device (Lundahl: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0065, ¶ 0082; ¶ 0018, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0063 see customer authentication). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transmitting the event information when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer of Lundahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to enhance convenience for their customers. The shippers obtain necessary security information about the identity of the sender and the mail piece, and receive additional benefits from electronic access to the customer at the point of sale in the form of opportunities to offer up-sell services and sell location-sensitive advertising” (Lundahl: ¶ 0021). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the monitored storage receptacle components comprise at least an entrance opening for receiving the delivery item (Skaaksrud: Fig. 82A-82B, ¶ 0713 showing “a deposit entrance 8205”) and a temporary storage area for temporarily maintaining the delivery item once the delivery item has been deposited within the storage receptacle through the entrance opening (Skaaksrud: Fig. 82B, ¶ 0713 showing “node-enabled logistics receptacle 8200 can receive and temporarily maintain custody of a package being shipped…with an entrance opening 8205 through which the package is received by the receptacle and a temporary storage area within the receptacle where the package is temporarily and securely maintained until an authorized pickup”)
Claim 3: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 2. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the monitored storage receptacle components further comprise a selectively accessible retrieval door providing access to the temporary storage area of the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: Figs. 82A-82B elements 8210 and 8215, with ¶ 0713 showing “Typically, a shipping entity's courier personnel may arrive and pickup any deposited packages using payload access door 8210 and security lock 8215”; also see ¶ 0716)
Claim 4: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 2. Skaaskrud, as modified above (such that the sensor is a wireless sensor node), further teaches:
wherein the wireless accessory sensor node is operative to detect the change in state of the storage receptacle based upon sensor data generated by a first of the sensors monitoring the entrance opening (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0780, ¶ 0783 ¶ 0789 showing at least a first sensor, such as a door sensor, for detecting a package inserted through the entrance of the receptacle)
Claim 5: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 4. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the sensor data generated by the first of the sensors monitoring the entrance opening comprises motion sensor data related to motion of the entrance opening (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0779 “a door sensor that detects movement of the door shown”; ¶ 0790 “the sensor may be implemented as a motion detector coupled to the node assembled with the receptacle. As such, the motion detector may sense movement of the first package and the second package as the packages are respectively deposited within the interior storage region, and may provide the sensor signal to the node processing unit related to the sensed movement”)
Claim 6: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 4. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the sensor data generated by the first of the sensors monitoring the entrance opening comprises motion sensor data related to motion of an object through the entrance opening (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0775 “sensor 8925 may be a light sensor where a package, which is moving from the opening 8205 and through the top interior part 8225 of receptacle 8200 to enter and travel through the interior storage region 8230, breaks a light being sensed or detected by sensor 8925, which then generates a responsive sensor signal”; see Fig. 89C showing the sensor is monitoring the entrance opening)
Claim 7: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 2. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the wireless accessory sensor node is operative to detect the change in state of the storage receptacle based upon sensor data generated by a second of the sensors monitoring the temporary storage area (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0773 one or more sensors for detecting packages as they are deposited; ¶ 0774 showing sensor pad for detecting a package based on weight or impact; ¶ 0775 showing echolocation sensor, and a light sensor; i.e. at least data generated by a second sensor monitoring the receptacle)
Claim 8: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 7. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the sensor data generated by the second of the sensors monitoring the temporary storage area comprises at least one from the group consisting of motion sensor data related to motion of an object within the temporary storage area (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0779, ¶ 0790 showing motion sensor, and also ¶ 0797 “ the sensor may comprise a motion detector coupled to the node assembled within the node-enabled logistics receptacle. As such, the motion detector may sense movement of the first package and the second package when deposited within the interior storage region of the node-enabled logistics receptacle and may provide the sensor signal to the node processing unit related to the sensed movement”),
image sensor data related a change of contents maintained within the temporary storage area (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0777 “Additional embodiments may implement sensor 8920 with a scanner capable of capturing barcode scan information from an exterior label present on the package being deposited”),
weight sensor data related a change in weight of what is stored within the temporary storage area (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0751 showing sensing “a weight of the packages within the receptacle obtained via a built-in scale or weight sensor at the bottom of the interior storage region (e.g., region 8230)”)
Claim 9: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect the wireless communication signal broadcast by being operative to receive the wireless communication signal broadcast from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer over the communication interface (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83 and ¶ 0719, ¶ 0724-0728 showing detecting signals broadcast by one or more customer mobile devices; also see ¶ 0551 “As the shipping customer physically places ID node 120 a into drop node 110 a, device 200 may hand-off ID node 120 a to drop node 110 a”); and
With respect to the following limitation, while Skaaksrud teaches a node processor of the node-enabled logistics receptacle detecting a wireless signal of a customer mobile device (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83, ¶ 0724-0728 and also ¶ 0551), and further teaches a separate example where a mobile user device is recognized as an authorized mobile user device based on a wireless communication signal (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0860, ¶ 0902, ¶ 0906-0909, ¶ 0915). To the extent that Skaaskrud/Parameswaran do not specifically describe the master node of the logistics receptacle performing the recognizing of the user device as an authorized mobile user device, Lundahl teaches:
recognize the mobile user device as an authorized mobile user device based upon authorization data within the wireless communication signal (Lundahl: ¶ 0014 “If the user is authorized by the shipper, the web-based server may send a command back to the smartphone that communicates with the mailbox system to unlock it for the user”; also see ¶ 0035, ¶ 0065, ¶ 0082)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transmitting a signal indicating authorization of the customer smartphone to connect with the mailbox of Lundahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 11: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Parameswaran do not explicitly teach the following, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the validation message requests confirmation that the parcel customer has deposited the delivery item in the storage receptacle (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 showing “the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lindahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 12: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation message requests authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 13: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 12. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 14: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 12. With respect to the following limitation, to the extent that Skaaksrud/Parameswaran do not explicitly teach the following, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lundahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 15: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 12. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach the following. However, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 16: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation confirmation message includes authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 17: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 18: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 16. With respect to the following limitation, to the extent that Skaaksrud/Parameswaran do not explicitly teach the following, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included requesting and receiving an image confirmation of a deposited delivery item from the customer as taught by Lindahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 19: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 16. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach the following. However, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 20: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is further operative to update custodial control information maintained within the bridge node memory related to custody of the delivery item when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer
Skaaksrud teaches wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is further operative to update custodial control information maintained within the bridge node memory related to custody of the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0551, and ¶ 0748, ¶ 0752, ¶ 0758 showing updated the memory of the node-enabled logistics receptacle with the status/event information indicating packages that have been deposited), but does not explicitly teach doing so when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer.
However, Parameswaran teaches updating stored information pertaining to a package/item deposited in a drop box after verification of an authorization code received from a parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0050-0051, with ¶ 0051 showing “in response to a determination that the parcel is approved for shipment, the carrier system 100 can store the shipment information in association with the tracking identifier, the authorization code, and/or the account identifier (Block 435). In one embodiment, this may include automatically creating a parcel level detail (“PLD”) record. The PLD record may include shipping information, such as the consignor's address, the consignor's mobile phone number, the authorization code, the tracking number, the consignee's address, the class of service, and/or the method of payment” and ¶ 0065 “the kiosk 120/carrier system 100 may create a PLD record to store the shipping information, such as the consignor's address, the consignor's mobile phone number, the authorization code, the consignee's address, tracking number, class of service, and/or method of payment”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included updating stored information about the parcel being shipped of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 21: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 20. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising the updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services; also see ¶ 0551 transferring custody to drop node and updating service with the custody information)
Claim 22: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to transmit the event information to the backend server by being operative to transmit, using the communication interface, the event information to the backend server when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer to cause the backend server to initiate a dispatched logistics operation related to the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 showing “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may be presented with options for other alternative shipping solutions (e.g., other locations with other logistics receptacles or shipping facilities). Additionally, in an embodiment, the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services”; also see ¶ 0745, ¶ 0751-0753, ¶ 0759-0761 showing node processor reports status/event information regarding one or more detected packages directly to the server)
Claim 23: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 22. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server comprising at least timing information related to the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services. As such, payment may be made by the shipping customer using smartphone 200 (e.g., using wireless payment options with node associations as discussed in more detail herein), and schedule information for courier pick-up of packages within node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b may be prioritized”, i.e. timing information corresponding to prioritized reporting of the detected package and quicker pickup than normal)
Claim 24: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 23. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising an identification of the delivery item and updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services; also see ¶ 0551 transferring custody to drop node and updating service with the custody information)
Claim 42: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations. Skaaksrud further teaches “A method for enhanced customer identification related to a delivery item being deposited with a node-based logistics receptacle…” (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0793-0800 generally showing “method for detecting a plurality of package types within a node-enabled logistics receptacle”; also see ¶ 0551 showing customer uses user access device to hand off package to drop node, i.e. node-enabled logistics receptacle, ¶ 0558 showing a shipping customer may use their smartphone to enter shipping information about the item (such as package 130) to be shipped).
Claim 43: See the rejection of claim 4 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 44: See the rejection of claim 5 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 45: See the rejection of claim 6 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 46: See the rejection of claim 7 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 47: See the rejection of claim 8 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 48: See the rejection of claim 9 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 50: See the rejection of claim 11 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 51: See the rejection of claim 12 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 52: See the rejection of claim 13 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 53: See the rejection of claim 14 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 54: See the rejection of claim 15 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 55: See the rejection of claim 16 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 56: See the rejection of claim 17 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 57: See the rejection of claim 18 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 58: See the rejection of claim 19 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 59: See the rejection of claim 20 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 60: See the rejection of claim 21 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 61: See the rejection of claim 22 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 62: See the rejection of claim 23 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 63: See the rejection of claim 24 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claims 10 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150349917 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (Skaaksrud) in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), further in view of US 20200311671 A1 to Lundahl et al. (Lundahl), and further in view of US 20150178677 A1 to Strand et al. (Strand).
Claim 10: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 9. With respect to the following limitations, Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl do not explicitly teach, however, Strand teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device by being operative to: identify the authorization data within the wireless communication signal (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The seller may then operate the compartment identified with the compartment identifier using a lock code that may include a revocable authentication token of the seller…the revocable authentication token may include a wireless identifier of a mobile device of the seller so that the locker can operate the compartment by waving his mobile device in front of the corresponding compartment. The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token”);
compare the authorization data to information on a plurality of pre-authorized mobile user devices (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token” wherein as per ¶ 0047, ¶ 0052 the received lock code data is verified against data stored in server, which would indicate/read on “pre-authorized mobile user devices” given that the lock code information includes the authentication token and wireless identifier of the mobile device according to ¶ 0090); and
recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device based upon the results of comparing the authorization data to the information on the pre- authorized mobile user devices (Strand: ¶ 0090 “The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token. The compartment may operate to lock after receiving a validation from the kiosk application 122”; see ¶ 0047, ¶ 0052 as per above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection of an authentication token including a mobile device identifier to authorize a seller to open a compartment and deposit the package of Strand in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, it would have also addressed the issues that “The shipping process typically includes the seller packing the item in a box, sealing it up, bringing it to the post office, filling out the necessary forms, weighing it to calculate the postage, paying for the postage, affixing the stamp on the box, and finally dropping the box in the parcel deposit area. Because this inefficient shipping process entails many steps, it becomes a deterrent for sellers to list, sell, and ship their items” (Strand: ¶ 0002).
Claim 49: See the rejection of claim 10 above teaching analogous limitations.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150349917 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (Skaaksrud) in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), further in view of US 20200311671 A1 to Lundahl et al. (Lundahl), and further in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor).
Claim 25: Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 1. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the wireless accessory sensor node being further operative to detect the change in state of the storage receptacle based upon the sensor data generated by the at least one sensor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0789-0792 showing sensor signal generated by the coupled sensor(s) and transmitted to the node; also ¶ 0780, ¶ 0783, ¶ 0789 showing at least a first sensor, such as a door sensor, for detecting a package inserted through the entrance of the receptacle);
With respect to the following limitations, while Skaaksrud teaches detecting a change is state of the logistics receptacle as per above (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0780, ¶ 0783, ¶ 089-0792), Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl do not explicitly teach the following for recording and reporting time stamped information about the detected change. However, Czachor teaches:
record timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0047 showing “At some point, items 12 are in fact deposited within the receiving box 10 and the system 14 senses same by way of the detector 16 (305). Note here that the deposit of an item 12 in the receiving box as at 305 may or may not cause a triggering event, depending on how a triggering event is defined and how the detector 16 and controller 18 are arranged and/or programmed to perceive such triggering event”; and ¶ 0048 showing “Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”); and
broadcast the updated advertising signal having a data available flag set within the updated advertising signal, the data available flag indicating the wireless accessory sensor node has the event information available for upload by the bridge node (Czachor: ¶ 0044-0049 showing a sensor broadcasts a signal indicating detection of a package, which may be received as a triggering event by the processor that indicates to the processor that it should be reported by the reporter as a triggering event),
the event information including at least the timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0048 “the reporter 20 in fact reports the triggering event and perhaps associated details to a person or service associated with the enterprise (311). Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection and reporting of a triggering event, including a date and time, associated with deposit of a package of Czachor in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a need exists for such a system and method that detects when the receiving box is occupied by a predetermined amount of deposited items and sends a notification regarding same. Even more particularly, a need exists for such a system and method that sends the notification remotely by way of a wireless communications system” (Czachor: ¶ 0005).
Claims 26-27 and 29-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150349917 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (Skaaksrud) in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor), further in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20200311671 A1 to Lundahl et al. (Lundahl).
Claim 26: A connected logistics receptacle system (Skaaksrud: at least ¶ 0713-0714, ¶ 0739-0740, ¶ 0773-0776 showing node-enabled logistics receptacle system including a node-enabled logistics receptacle with capability to communicate with a server and also other ID nodes/master nodes; see Figs. 82A-82B, Figs. 85A-85B, and Figs. 89A-89B displaying the node-enabled logistics receptacle system and the structure of the receptacle itself) with enhanced customer identification related to a delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0551 showing customer uses user access device to hand off package to drop node, i.e. node-enabled logistics receptacle, ¶ 0558 showing a shipping customer may use their smartphone to enter shipping information about the item (such as package 130) to be shipped), the system comprising:
a storage receptacle for receiving the delivery item (Skaaksrud: Figs. 82A-82B and ¶ 0713-0716 showing node-enabled logistics receptacle 8200 for receiving a delivery package from a customer; also see Figs. 89A-89D), the storage receptacle comprising a plurality of monitored storage receptacle components (Skaaksrud: at least ¶ 0746 showing “The receptacle has an entrance opening (such as opening 8205) through which the package is received and a temporary storage area (such as region 8230) where the package is temporarily and securely maintained until an authorized pickup”, which as per ¶ 0774-0776 are monitored to detect a package inserted into the receptacle) including at least:
an entrance opening for receiving the delivery item (Skaaksrud: at least ¶ 0746 showing “The receptacle has an entrance opening (such as opening 8205) through which the package is received and a temporary storage area (such as region 8230) where the package is temporarily and securely maintained until an authorized pickup”),
a temporary storage area for temporarily maintaining the delivery item once the delivery item has been deposited within the storage receptacle through the entrance opening (Skaaksrud: at least ¶ 0746 showing “The receptacle has an entrance opening (such as opening 8205) through which the package is received and a temporary storage area (such as region 8230) where the package is temporarily and securely maintained until an authorized pickup”), and
a selectively accessible retrieval door providing access to the temporary storage area of the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: Figs. 82A-82B elements 8210 and 8215, with ¶ 0713 showing “Typically, a shipping entity's courier personnel may arrive and pickup any deposited packages using payload access door 8210 and security lock 8215”; also see ¶ 0716);
a bridge node mounted to the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0739, ¶ 0740, 0745, ¶ 0747, ¶ 0753, ¶ 0763 showing a node mounted to the receptacle, which is a master node in direct communication with server over a network),
the bridge node comprising a bridge node processor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0722 “a node processing unit…” and ¶ 0747 “The node assembled with the receptacle…comprises a node processing unit, a node memory storage, and at least one communication interface. The node memory storage is coupled to the node processing unit, and maintains code for execution by the node processing unit”),
a bridge node memory coupled to the bridge node processor, the bridge node memory maintaining monitoring and management code for execution by the bridge node processor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0722 showing “the node assembled with the logistics receptacle further comprises…a node memory storage,” ¶ 0747 “The node assembled with the receptacle (such as node 8220, master node 8505, or ID node 8605) comprises …a node memory storage…The node memory storage is coupled to the node processing unit, and maintains code for execution by the node processing unit,” and ¶ 0748 “The node processing unit, when executing the code maintained on the node memory storage, is operative to perform various functions when proactively reporting a content status of the node-enabled logistics receptacle”),
a communication interface coupled to the bridge node processor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0747 showing the node includes a communication interface),
a communication interface coupled to the bridge node processor, the communication interface being operative to communicate with at least the backend server over a first communication path (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0753 “the node assembled with the receptacle in the apparatus may comprise a master node (such as master node 8505) operative to communicate directly to a server in the wireless node network. As such, the node processing unit may be further operative to broadcasting the status information over the at least one communication interface directly to the server in the wireless node network”);
a wireless accessory sensor node coupled to a plurality of sensors (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0637-0639, ¶ 0646 showing one or more separate sensors/sensor nodes operating within the wireless node network and integrated into the node-enabled logistics receptacle or drop-box), wherein each of the sensors respectively monitors for a change in state of the storage receptacle ((Skaaksrud: ¶ 0789 “the node processing unit may be further operative to detect the second type of package by being operative to sense the deposit of the second package within the node-enabled logistics receptacle based upon a sensor signal provided by the sensor to the node processing unit”; and see ¶ 0774-0776, ¶ 0790-0791 sensors for detecting when a new package is inserted into the receptacle),
wherein the wireless accessory sensor node being further operative to detect the change in state of the storage receptacle based upon sensor data generated by the at least one sensor (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0789-0792 showing sensor signal generated by the coupled sensor(s) and transmitted to the node; also ¶ 0780, ¶ 0783, ¶ 0789 showing at least a first sensor, such as a door sensor, for detecting a package inserted through the entrance of the receptacle);
Note: Upon further consideration of additional portions of Skaaksrud, Skaaksrud clearly also teaches a plurality of sensors (separate from the node processor) mounted to the storage receptacle and in connection with a drop-node, which reads on a wireless accessory sensor node coupled to a plurality of sensors.
With respect to the following limitations, while Skaaksrud teaches detecting a change is state of the logistics receptacle as per above (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0780, ¶ 0783, ¶ 089-0792), Skaaksrud does not explicitly teach the following for recording and reporting time stamped information about the detected change. However, Czachor teaches:
record timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0047 showing “At some point, items 12 are in fact deposited within the receiving box 10 and the system 14 senses same by way of the detector 16 (305). Note here that the deposit of an item 12 in the receiving box as at 305 may or may not cause a triggering event, depending on how a triggering event is defined and how the detector 16 and controller 18 are arranged and/or programmed to perceive such triggering event”; and ¶ 0048 showing “Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”); and
broadcast the updated advertising signal having a data available flag set within the updated advertising signal, the data available flag indicating the wireless accessory sensor node has the event information available for upload by the bridge node (Czachor: ¶ 0044-0049 showing a sensor broadcasts a signal indicating detection of a package, which may be received as a triggering event by the processor that indicates to the processor that it should be reported by the reporter as a triggering event),
the event information including at least the timestamped information reflecting the detected change in state of the storage receptacle (Czachor: ¶ 0048 “the reporter 20 in fact reports the triggering event and perhaps associated details to a person or service associated with the enterprise (311). Such associated details may include most any details, and for example may include a date and time of the triggering event”)
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect, using the communication interface, the updated advertising signal having the data available flag set (Czachor: ¶ 0044-0049 showing a sensor broadcasts a signal indicating detection of a package, which may be received with the signal and indicating a triggering event by the processor that indicates to the processor that it should be reported by the reporter as a triggering event),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the detection and reporting of a triggering event, including a date and time, associated with deposit of a package of Czachor in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a need exists for such a system and method that detects when the receiving box is occupied by a predetermined amount of deposited items and sends a notification regarding same. Even more particularly, a need exists for such a system and method that sends the notification remotely by way of a wireless communications system” (Czachor: ¶ 0005).
Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
detect a wireless communication signal broadcast from a mobile user device associated with the parcel customer after detecting the updated advertising signal (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83, ¶ 0724-0727 showing broadcast signals from user access devices of customers received by the receptacle; also see ¶ 0551 showing “As the shipping customer physically places ID node 120 a into drop node 110 a, device 200 may hand-off ID node 120 a to drop node 110 a, update server 100 with this association information, and disassociate from ID node 120 a”),
With respect to the limitations:
transmit a validation message over the communication interface to the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer in response to the detected wireless communication signal and the detected updated advertising signal,
after transmitting the validation message, receive a validation confirmation message over the communication interface from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer,
Skaaksrud teaches detecting the parcel customer mobile device (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83, ¶ 0724-0727 showing broadcast signals from user access devices of customers received by the receptacle; also see ¶ 0551 showing “As the shipping customer physically places ID node 120 a into drop node 110 a, device 200 may hand-off ID node 120 a to drop node 110 a, update server 100 with this association information, and disassociate from ID node 120 a”) and detecting an updated advertising signal indicating a package detected by the receptacle (Skaaskrud: ¶ 0774-0775, ¶ 0789-0792 showing sensor signal generated by the coupled sensor(s) and transmitted to the node; also see ¶ 0637 showing “identify items being shipped that have related advertising nodes with the item as the items are left near or deposited in the receptacle (such as a drop box type of container). The node assembled with the receptacle operates to detect signals from nodes related to items being shipped. When detected, the receptacle's node associates with the node related to the item being shipped and based upon the location of the that node relative to the receptacle, the receptacle's node may alter a current inventory related to the receptacle that is stored in that node's memory storage”), and further initiating a payment process over a communication interface to the mobile user device between the mobile user device and a master node in response to detecting the package (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0609-0616, ¶ 0696), but Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach the payment being verified via transmitting a validation message to the mobile device and in response, receiving a validation confirmation message.
However, Parameswaran teaches verifying/authorizing payment for a package being deposited at a kiosk by transmitting a validation request message displayed on a mobile device and then receiving a response including a validation code for validating payment (Parameswaran: ¶ 0061-0063; alternatively, also see ¶ 0069 “in one embodiment, in response to a determination that the account is valid, the kiosk 120 may automatically initiate communication with a mobile device 110 associated with the account for wireless services. Thus, in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device” which requires at least a message sent to the mobile device and subsequent response from the mobile device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the verification communications between a kiosk and mobile device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “With an ever-increasing desire for customer-friendly shipping options, a need exits for a solution that allows customers to pay for shipping services using a mobile device” (Parameswaran: ¶ 0002).
With respect to the remaining limitation:
transmit, using the communication interface, the event information to the backend server when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer
Skaaksrud teaches transmitting, using the communication interface, event information to the backend server (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0771-0781 showing the node processor of the node-enabled logistics receptacle detecting package deposited in receptacle, and ¶ 0786, ¶¶ 0806-0807 sending communications to the server that notifies the server of event information regarding the detected package, i.e. change in state), but Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran merely lack an explicit teaching of transmitting the event information when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer.
However, Lundahl teaches transmitting event information indicating the status/presence of a package in a kiosk, by the kiosk to a server, following the previous authentication of a customer using a mobile device (Lundahl: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0065, ¶ 0082; ¶ 0018, ¶ 0023, ¶ 0063 see customer authentication). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transmitting the event information when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer of Lundahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to enhance convenience for their customers. The shippers obtain necessary security information about the identity of the sender and the mail piece, and receive additional benefits from electronic access to the customer at the point of sale in the form of opportunities to offer up-sell services and sell location-sensitive advertising” (Lundahl: ¶ 0021). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 27: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 26. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to detect the wireless communication signal broadcast by being operative to receive the wireless communication signal broadcast from the mobile user device associated with the parcel customer over the communication interface (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83 and ¶ 0719, ¶ 0724-0728 showing detecting signals broadcast by one or more customer mobile devices; also see ¶ 0551 “As the shipping customer physically places ID node 120 a into drop node 110 a, device 200 may hand-off ID node 120 a to drop node 110 a”); and
With respect to the following limitation, while Skaaksrud teaches a node processor of the node-enabled logistics receptacle detecting a wireless signal of a customer mobile device (Skaaksrud: Fig. 83, ¶ 0724-0728 and also ¶ 0551), and further teaches a separate example where a mobile user device is recognized as an authorized mobile user device based on a wireless communication signal (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0860, ¶ 0902, ¶ 0906-0909, ¶ 0915). To the extent that Skaaskrud/Czachor/Parameswaran do not specifically describe the master node of the logistics receptacle performing the recognizing, Lundahl teaches:
recognize the mobile user device as an authorized mobile user device based upon authorization data within the wireless communication signal (Lundahl: ¶ 0014 “If the user is authorized by the shipper, the web-based server may send a command back to the smartphone that communicates with the mailbox system to unlock it for the user”; also see ¶ 0035, ¶ 0065, ¶ 0082)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transmitting a signal indicating authorization of the customer smartphone to connect with the mailbox of Lundahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 29: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 26. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran do not explicitly teach the following, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the validation message requests confirmation that the parcel customer has deposited the delivery item in the storage receptacle (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 showing “the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lindahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 30: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 26. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation message requests authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 31: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 30. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 32: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 30. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran do not explicitly teach the following, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting image confirmation of a deposited delivery item to the customer of Lindahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 33: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 30. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 34: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 26. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the validation confirmation message includes authentication information from the parcel customer related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 35: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 34. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises shipping information related to the delivery item (Parameswaran: ¶ 0062 showing “cause display of a request for input of the authorization code transmitted to the user device” wherein as per at least ¶ 0045 is an authorization code for shipment of the parcel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a message requesting an authorization code for a delivery item to the customer device of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 36: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 34. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran do not explicitly teach the following, however, Lundahl teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the delivery item (Lundahl: ¶ 0074 “As an added security measure, the system may request the user to photograph the mail piece with the printed label (2800) with his smartphone. This image may be sent to the shipper's web-based server and used to further validate the package when received at the processing facility”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included requesting and receiving an image confirmation of a deposited delivery item from the customer as taught by Lindahl in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 37: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 34. With respect to the following limitation, Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach the following, however, Parameswaran teaches:
wherein the authentication information identifies the parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0045, ¶ 0061 showing the authorization code is correlated with shipping information provided by the customer/user, which as per ¶ 0039 “The shipping information may include information such as (a) the consignor's name, address, phone number, and charge card number (or a portion thereof),” i.e. the authorization code can be used to identify the customer; alternatively see ¶ 0069 showing “in lieu of sending a message with an authorization code to the user device (e.g., mobile device 110), the kiosk 120 can communicate via a communication standard/protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to confirm that the customer/user is currently in possession of the user device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request for authentication information that identifies the customer of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 38: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 26. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is further operative to update custodial control information maintained within the bridge node memory related to custody of the delivery item when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer
Skaaksrud teaches wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is further operative to update custodial control information maintained within the bridge node memory related to custody of the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0551, and ¶ 0748, ¶ 0752, ¶ 0758 showing updated the memory of the node-enabled logistics receptacle with the status/event information indicating packages that have been deposited), but Skaaksrud/Czachor do not explicitly teach doing so when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer.
However, Parameswaran teaches updating stored information pertaining to a package/item deposited in a drop box after verification of an authorization code received from a parcel customer (Parameswaran: ¶ 0050-0051, with ¶ 0051 showing “in response to a determination that the parcel is approved for shipment, the carrier system 100 can store the shipment information in association with the tracking identifier, the authorization code, and/or the account identifier (Block 435). In one embodiment, this may include automatically creating a parcel level detail (“PLD”) record. The PLD record may include shipping information, such as the consignor's address, the consignor's mobile phone number, the authorization code, the tracking number, the consignee's address, the class of service, and/or the method of payment” and ¶ 0065 “the kiosk 120/carrier system 100 may create a PLD record to store the shipping information, such as the consignor's address, the consignor's mobile phone number, the authorization code, the consignee's address, tracking number, class of service, and/or method of payment”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included updating stored information about the parcel being shipped of Parameswaran in the package receptacle system of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Claim 39: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 38. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising the updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services; also see ¶ 0551 transferring custody to drop node and updating service with the custody information)
Claim 40: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 26. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to transmit the event information to the backend server by being operative to transmit, using the communication interface, the event information to the backend server when the validation confirmation message authenticates the parcel customer to cause the backend server to initiate a dispatched logistics operation related to the storage receptacle (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 showing “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may be presented with options for other alternative shipping solutions (e.g., other locations with other logistics receptacles or shipping facilities). Additionally, in an embodiment, the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services”; also see ¶ 0745, ¶ 0751-0753, ¶ 0759-0761 showing node processor reports status/event information regarding one or more detected packages directly to the server)
Claim 41: Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl teach claim 40. Skaaksrud, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the event information transmitted to the backend server further comprising an identification of the delivery item and updated custodial control information related to the delivery item (Skaaksrud: ¶ 0696 “the shipping customer using smartphone 200 may elect to go to node-enabled logistics receptacle 8110 b and pay to have pickup prioritized at that particular unit. For example, such a payment may cause the receptacle 8110 b to quickly report the pending package in its custody to server 100 for a quicker pickup than normally provided with standard shipping services; also see ¶ 0551 transferring custody to drop node and updating service with the custody information)
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claim 28 is novel and nonobvious over the prior art for the following reasons:
Claim 28: Parent claim 27 is rejected under § 103 as being obvious over the combination of US 20150349917 A1 to Skaaksrud et al. (Skaaksrud) in view of US 20160335594 A1 to Czachor, Jr. et al. (Czachor), further in view of US 20180330463 A1 to Parameswaran et al. (Parameswaran), and further in view of US 20200311671 A1 to Lundahl et al. (Lundahl). It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have reasonably combined the prior art known to the examiner and arrived at the claimed invention of claim 28 for: wherein the bridge node processor, when executing the monitoring and management code maintained on the bridge node memory, is operative to recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device by being operative to: identify the authorization data within the wireless communication signal; compare the authorization data to information on a plurality of pre-authorized mobile user devices, the information on the pre-authorized mobile user devices being maintained on the bridge node memory; and recognize the mobile user device as the authorized mobile user device based upon the results of comparing the authorization data to the information on the pre-authorized mobile user devices.
While US 20150178677 A1 to Strand et al. (Strand) teaches that “The seller may then operate the compartment identified with the compartment identifier using a lock code that may include a revocable authentication token of the seller…the revocable authentication token may include a wireless identifier of a mobile device of the seller so that the locker can operate the compartment by waving his mobile device in front of the corresponding compartment. The kiosk may then communicate with the kiosk application 122 to verify the identity of the seller and validate the authentication token” (Strand: ¶ 0090), one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to further modify the previous 4+ reference combination of Skaaksrud/Czachor/Parameswaran/Lundahl in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (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 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628