DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
There are no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) or record.
Status of Application
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” and “Petition to revive after Abandonment” received on 12/18/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/28/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Abstract objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Abstract objection have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Title objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Title objection have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
With respect to the claim rejections of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With respect to Claim 1, Applicant remarks “that the combination of elements and/or steps recited in
each presently pending claim, when interpreted as a whole, is patentable” and further “Anderson discloses a "container locker" for receiving a package delivery and securely maintaining it - not delivering it. Anderson is clear that the device and method it discloses is not intended for making the delivery – just for receiving the delivery” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, its remains the Office’s stance that both cited prior arts are mobile transports that deliver food. Anderson, clearly is a mobile system that receives items, in compartments, and then as stated and mapped out previously “after the locker is opened and a delivery is made, drive to X-spot in the garage interconnectivity with a garage door opener model on-board, the locker could allow it to open the garage door, drive into a predetermined spot in the garage and to close the garage door behind it” [Anderson, ¶ 0039]. Here, the item placed in the storage compartment, is moved from one location to a final location, which is delivery. Further, Ferguson, which is analogous art and used in combination with Anderson teaches “delivery of groceries by autonomous vehicles” [Ferguson, ¶ 0004]. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
With respect to Claim 1, Applicant further remarks through many pages that “Anderson is not a delivery vehicle” and as stated previously, below, and addressed above, Anderson clearly moved items from one location to another, thus it is unclear what part of “delivery” Anderson fails. Further, the current rejection is a combination of two prior arts, where both are delivery mobile systems with compartments, therefore the Office again, respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks “Compartmentalizing the Anderson garbage bin would be neither predictable, obvious, nor desirable, and would have no expectation of success” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
Again, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Its remains the Office’s stance that both cited prior arts analogous arts, of mobile delivery systems. Both receive items, both move from one location to another to delivery the food, both have compartments for the food, and both are autonomous. Again, this is a combination of references since neither prior art clearly stated all of the claimed subject matter, yet the combination is not only practical, but would have been obvious to once skilled in the art, as stated previously. A motivation of incorporating aspects of Ferguson into the invention of Anderson would be creating a more robust system that can account for many items, see Figure 11 of Anderson. Here, where Anderson only has one compartment, the system does not account for multiple items, yet Ferguson does. Therefore it would be obvious, in the field of mobile food delivery to have multiple compartments, for multiple items, as cited previously and again here. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
With respect to Claim 1, Applicant further remarks “In the present case, as stated above, combining the compartmentalized layout of Ferguson with the garbage bin delivery receptacle of Anderson would result in an inoperable object - a garbage bin that would have to illegally drive door-to-door to make multiple deliveries” and again the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that the combination of both cited prior arts is not only proper, but obvious. Delivering items is known from one location to another, as both prior arts teach. Have multiple compartments for different items is also known, as taught by the prior art. And further, stating the vehicle must travel to different locations “illegally” is not supported in the claims, in the prior arts and just nonsense. There is no requirement for the vehicle to go to different houses, to different location, as the claims merely require “pickup location information” and “delivery location information” which can be the same house. Therefore the Office again, respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Claim 1, Applicant further remarks “Anderson teaches away from having a mobile vehicle that is capable of making deliveries” and “even if one assumes that a garbage bin could be driven on public roads to make the delivery” and again the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Its remains the Office’s stance that both cited prior arts are mobile transports that deliver food. Anderson, clearly is a mobile system that receives items, in compartments, and then as stated and mapped out previously “after the locker is opened and a delivery is made, drive to X-spot in the garage interconnectivity with a garage door opener model on-board, the locker could allow it to open the garage door, drive into a predetermined spot in the garage and to close the garage door behind it” [Anderson, ¶ 0039]. Here, the item placed in the storage compartment, is moved from one location to a final location, which is delivery. Further, Ferguson, which is analogous art and used in combination with Anderson teaches “delivery of groceries by autonomous vehicles” [Ferguson, ¶ 0004].
Further, where does driving on public roads required by the claims? Applicant appears to be adding metes and bounds to the claims that are not required, necessary, and thus is arguing intended uses, or concepts that the Office must not address. If applicants delivery system must drive on public roads, then require this feature. However, as the claims are currently presented, the rejection below remains and the Office respectfully disagrees with applicants remarks.
With respect to Claim 4, applicant remarks The identifiers disclosed in the paragraphs cited by the Examiner do not serve that function” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, what is a transaction identifier? Is this a term or art or have a specific meaning? Based on the claims, as currently presented, Anderson clearly works with merchants to grant access to the item, which is a form of transaction identified. Anderson discloses, and was cited previously as “may program the computer electronics to recognize one or more personalized identification means, such as, but limited to, voice recognition, punching numbers into a keypad bearing digits, symbols or alphabetical letters (hereinafter referred to as a “PIN #”) or other numeric, alphabetical, thumb or fingerprint for biometric identification, unlocking key or other code, iris (eye) or facial recognition or alternative identification code or other alternative security means or protocol or means wherein such user may, at will, grant access to others at his/her discretion and pursuant only to his/her permission or the granting of such rights of access to the locker to others. Some embodiments may use multiple different and/or separate recognition protocols for different deliverers, merchants, purveyors and/or purposes in order to provide the specific grant of access based on a certain specified protocol agreed to between the user/owner and such other party and where such specific party may have the right of access for a specific reason or period of time as configured by the grantor of the rights of such access to that other party” [Anderson, ¶ 0083]. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Claim 7, applicant remarks “There is no motivation or reason to combine Sato with Anderson, which receives a delivery of one particular package to one particular household” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, in the previous Office action and again below “A motivation of incorporating aspects of SATO into the invention of Anderson would be creating a more robust system that allows for distinct container display and control, which increases efficiency [SATO, ¶ 0024], therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Claim 8, applicant remarks “determine a type of the item placed in the interior space of the first compartment” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, the claims do not state how the system determines the items type, rather that the type is determined. Anderson clearly discloses, as required by the current claims, “Depending on the type of item being delivered, after protection of the delivered items from theft, an environmentally-controlled and temperature-controlled environment may be provided for perishable goods delivery and to protect all delivery(ies) from the elements, such as rain, wind, snow, freezing temperatures, overly hot temperatures, and weather in general, after their delivery from a merchant, purveyor or others desiring to make a delivery to customer” [Anderson, ¶ 0020] and “use an app on his smartphone to set the temperature of the locker to keep his pizza warmed after delivery in his absence” [Anderson, ¶ 0091], and finally “In some embodiments, the container locker may be outfitted and its system integrated with a motion, pressure or other types of sensor(s) or other gyroscopic component(s) designed to recognize an unusual or unanticipated motions, pressures, temperatures and/or movement of the device which would be integrated with and operate through computers and internal systems 19” [Anderson, ¶ 0071]. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Claim 11, applicant remarks “no disclosure in Anderson of a GPS module in the garbage bin itself” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior art still teaches the claimed subject matter, as currently presented. Anderson clearly discloses GPS inside the mobile delivery vehicle “the container locker may use GPS technologies to assist in determining its whereabouts at any given point of time. GPS may include a single GPS receiver or transceiver 16 and 19 that receives signals transmitted by GPS satellites encircling the earth in low-earth” [Anderson, ¶ 0069]. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Claim 12, applicant remarks Applicant also hereby restates the arguments made with respect to Claim 1, since the Examiner is referring to that claim for the rejection.” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It remains the Office’s stance that Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1, where each limitation was mapped out separately for clarity and understanding the Office’s interpretation. All issues have been addressed above, therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Claims 13-22, applicant remarks Applicant also hereby restates the arguments made with respect to Claims 1-11, since the Examiner is referring to those claims for the rejection” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It remains the Office’s stance that Claims 13-22 is rejected under the same rational as Claims 1-11, where each limitation was mapped out separately for clarity and understanding the Office’s interpretation. All issues have been addressed above, therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101-Double Patenting
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,472,443 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 has each and every limitation of Claim 1 for Patent 11,472,443.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0022536) in view of Ferguson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0047356).
With respect to Claim 1: While Anderson discloses “A mobile transport for delivering temperature-controlled contents” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, and 0052-0058];
“comprising: a plurality of wheels” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“a vehicle body coupled to the wheels” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“a transmission coupled to the wheels and configured to drive the wheels” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“a power source coupled to the transmission and configured to power the transmission” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“a plurality of compartments coupled to the vehicle body” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“each of the plurality of compartments including an interior space and a front panel defining a wall of the interior space” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“wherein each front panel is operable to open and reveal the interior space of its compartment in response to a predetermined condition” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“a temperature controller configured to individually control a temperature setting within at least one of the plurality of compartments” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“the temperature setting being below, at, or above an ambient temperature” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0019-0020, 0042, 0085, and 0091];
“a germicidal controller configured to provide a germicide to the interior space of each of the plurality of compartments” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0096-0098];
“circuitry coupled to the power source” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“and a memory coupled to the circuitry comprising a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the circuitry, cause the mobile transport to: receive an order signal to pick up an item from a source” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“the order signal including the pickup location information, customer identification information, and delivery location information” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, 0052-0058 and Figure 2];
“open up a front panel of a first compartment after arriving at the pickup location in response to a message received by the circuitry” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, and Figure 2];
“close the front panel of the first compartment after the item has been placed in the interior space of the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, and Figure 2];
“control the temperature controller to set the temperature setting for the first compartment according to the item” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, and Figure 2];
“after arriving at the delivery location” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, and Figure 2];
“open the front panel of the first compartment in response to receiving an open request signal satisfying the predetermined condition” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, and Figure 2];
“the open request signal including information relating to the customer identification information” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, and Figure 2];
“and close the front panel of the first compartment after the item has been removed from the interior space of the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, and Figure 2];
Anderson does not specifically state that there are multiple compartments.
Ferguson, which is also an autonomous vehicle with delivery teaches “a plurality of compartments coupled to the vehicle body” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“each of the plurality of compartments including an interior space and a front panel defining a wall of the interior space” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“wherein each front panel is operable to open and reveal the interior space of its compartment” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“and wherein each front panel includes a display screen” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“wherein the memory further comprises an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to display a first image on the front panel of the first compartment” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“and to display a second image” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“different from the first image” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“on a front panel of a second compartment” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Fig. 10b];
“different from the first compartment” [Ferguson, ¶ 0061, 0130-0133, Fig. 4, Fig. 8, Fig. 10b, and Fig. 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ferguson into the invention of Anderson to not only include delivering item in autonomous vehicle compartments as Anderson discloses but to have multiple compartments as taught by Ferguson with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating aspects of Ferguson into the invention of Anderson would be creating a more robust system that can account for many items. [Figure 11]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as cleaning transportations vehicles 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Anderson discloses “the memory further comprising an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to control the germicidal controller to provide the germicide to the interior space of the first compartment prior to allowing access to the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0037-0039, and 0052-0058, and 0098 (after a delivery has been made as a layer of germicidal sterilization)].
With respect to Claim 3: Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 1, wherein the open request signal includes a unique identifier received from a mobile device” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, and 0083];
“and the predetermined condition is satisfied when the received unique identifier matches information included in the customer identification information” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, and 0083].
With respect to Claim 4: Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 3, wherein the unique identifier is one of a transaction identifier or a QR code” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0072, and 0083].
With respect to Claim 8: Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 1, the memory further comprising instructions executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to: determine a type of the item placed in the interior space of the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0019-0020, 0042, 0085, and 0091];
“and control the temperature controller to set the temperature setting for the first compartment according to the determined type of the item” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0019-0020, 0042, 0085, and 0091].
With respect to Claim 9: Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 1, wherein the germicidal controller includes one or more UV light sources, the memory further comprising an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to control the germicidal controller to activate the one or more UV light sources at least prior to allowing access to the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, 0096-0098, and Figure 2].
With respect to Claim 11: Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 1, wherein the circuitry includes a GPS circuit configured to receive location information for the mobile transport” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, and 0083];
“the memory further comprising instructions executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to: access the location information received by the GPS circuit” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, and 0083];
“determine a route between a current location of the mobile transport based on the location information and the pickup location information” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, and 0083];
“and control the mobile transport to move from the current location to the pickup location according to the determined route” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, and 0083].
With respect to Claim 21: Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 1, wherein the power source includes at least one of a solar panel, a wind turbine, a hydrogen fuel cell, or a hydrogen electrolyzer” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0020, 0032, and 0058-0060];
“wherein the mobile transport further includes at least one battery for storing power generated by the power source” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0020, 0032, and 0058-0060];
“and wherein the mobile transport further includes a power outlet for providing power from the at least one battery” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0020, 0032, and 0058-0060].
With respect to Claims 12-16, 19-20, and 22: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 1-4, 8-9, and 11. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 12-16, 19-20, and 22 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claims 1-4, 8-9, and 11. Therefore Claims 12, 14-16, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0022536) in view of Ferguson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0047356), and in view of Manka et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0346556).
With respect to Claim 5: While Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 1, the memory further comprising an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to control the germicidal controller to provide the germicide to the interior space of the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, 0096-0098, and Figure 2];
Anderson does not specifically state that the germicide is after the order.
Manka, which is also a transport service of goods teaches “to provide the germicide to the interior space of the first compartment after receiving the order signal and prior to opening the front panel of the first compartment at the pickup location” [Manka, ¶ 0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Manka into the invention of Anderson to not only include using germicides to clean vehicle compartments as Anderson discloses but to also clean the compartments on the way to orders as taught by Manka with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating aspects of Manka into the invention of Anderson would be creating a more robust system that has little impact on transportations based on cleaning [Manka, ¶ 0085]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as cleaning transportations vehicles 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 6: Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 5, the memory further comprising an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to control the germicidal controller to provide the germicide to the interior space of the first compartment after closing the front panel of the first compartment with the item inside the first compartment and prior to arriving at the delivery location” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0052-0058, 0083, 0096-0098, and Figure 2].
With respect to Claims 17: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 5-6. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 17 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claims 5-6. Therefore Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0022536) in view SATO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0051185).
With respect to Claim 7: While Anderson discloses “The mobile transport of claim 1, wherein the compartment includes a display screen” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0072, and 0083];
“the memory further comprising an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to display an image relating to the item stored in the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0072, and 0083];
Anderson does not specifically state that the display is on the front panel.
SATO, which is also a delivery system, teaches “The mobile transport of claim 1, wherein the front panel of the first compartment includes a display screen” [SATO, ¶ 0020, 0024, 0026, and 0034 and Fig. 1];
“the memory further comprising an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to display an image relating to the item stored in the first compartment” [SATO, ¶ 0020, 0024, 0026, and 0034 and Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of SATO into the invention of Anderson to not only include having a display to help deliver items as Andersons discloses but to also have separate displays per container as taught by SATO with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating aspects of SATO into the invention of Anderson would be creating a more robust system that allows for distinct container display and control, which increases efficiency [SATO, ¶ 0024]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as delivery compartments 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 18: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 7. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 18 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 7. Therefore Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0022536) in view SATO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0051185) and in further view of Diaz Garcia et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0176768).
With respect to Claim 10: While Anderson discloses “the memory further comprising an instruction executed by the circuitry to cause the mobile transport to control the germicidal controller to use germicide from the germicidal source at least prior to allowing access to the first compartment” [Anderson, ¶ 0005-0006, 0022, 0032, 0037-0039, 0072, 0083, and 0097-0098];
Anderson does not specifically state what other types of sterilization are possible.
Diaz Garcia, that system within autonomous vehicles that uses germicide, teaches “wherein the germicidal controller includes a germicidal spray source,” [Diaz Garcia, ¶ 0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Diaz Garcia into the invention of Anderson to not only include different types of germicide with UV as an example as Andersons discloses but use spray germicide in autonomous vehicles as taught by Diaz Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating aspects of Diaz Garcia into the invention of Anderson would be with a motivation of creating a more robust system that allows for different types or ways of disinfecting an area. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as delivery compartments 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights