Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-15, 17-18, 22-26, 30-35, 37-41, 44-45, 48, 50-53 and 55 in the reply filed on November 28, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Group VI contains 3 species A, B and C, however applicant states that only species B and C must be presented in group VI. This is found persuasive because species B and C are not mutually exclusive of A. Applicant elects species V (A), which renders claim 26 as being an unelected claim. Moreover, applicant election to species III(A) states that the recall message is not elected which renders claims 17-18 as not being elected as well. Therefore, claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-15, 22-25, 30-35, 37-41, 44-45, 48, 50-53 and 55 are elected and pending examination.
The restriction is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2025, 10/29/2025, 11/30/2025, 12/30/2025 and 2/13/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the feedback information" in line1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-15, 22-25, 33-35, 37-41, 44-45, 48, 50-53 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “a deployable mobile logistics receptacle being operative to receive parcel items at a deployed location; receive event information from the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the event information indicating a demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, and send an activation message to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to a location of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle as the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle; and wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle being operative to receive the activation message, move from a current position of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to the deployed location in response to the activation message, and provide, at the deployed location, the on-demand deployable logistics capacity related to a subsequent shipping deposit.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “server” and “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “receive”, “send”, “receive”, “move” and “provide” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually determine the location of a deployable logistics and receiving shipping deposits.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “server”, “processor”, “memory” and “interface” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1 and 55 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-3, 8-11, 13-15, 22-25, 33-35, 37-41, 44-45, 48 and 50-53, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 11, 13, 15, 22-24, 37-38, 41, 45 and 50-53 define how the deployable logistics is communicating with the delivery location which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 2-3, 8-10, 14, 25, 33-35, 39-40, 44 and 48 (server) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 13-15, 33-35, 37-41, 44-45 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al referred herein as Perez (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190054), in view of Kashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0206172).
As to claim 1, Perez teaches a system comprising:
a deployable mobile logistics receptacle being operative to receive parcel items at a deployed location; and a backend server in communication with the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, (para 17 and 27, mobile locker bank is interpreted to be “deployable mobile logistics receptacle” mobile locker bank computers communicate with one or more servers)
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be operative to: receive event information from the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the event information indicating a demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, (para 20, the system determines the need (i.e. demand) of lockers in a specific area and deploys the lockers to that location)
send an activation message to a device to initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to a location of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle as the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle; (para 38, 41, 65 and 84-87, a message is sent to the driver of the mobile lockers to move the lockers to a new location)
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle being operative to receive the activation message from the backend server, (para 84-87, the driver receives information from the main server that the lockers should be placed in another location)
move from a current position of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to the deployed location in response to the activation message, (para 84-87, the driver is instructed to move the lockers from one location to the other)
provide, at the deployed location, the on-demand deployable logistics capacity related to a subsequent shipping deposit. (para 66-67)
Perez does not explicitly teach
send an activation message to “the deployable mobile logistics receptacle” to initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to a location
However, Kashi teaches sending an instruction to the mobile locker (i.e. the deployable mobile logistics receptacle) to a destination (para. 74)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to send an activation message to the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kashi that doing so would result in faster deliveries, lower cost and minimizing delays in last mile deliveries.
As to claim 2, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be operative to receive the event information from the reporting node-based logistics receptacle by being further operative to: receive a status update message from the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the status update message including at least the event information, the event information indicating at least a change in state of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle; (para 85)
determine that the demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node- based logistics receptacle based upon the event information maintained by the backend server on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle. (para 85-87)
Perez does not teach a management profile.
However, Kashi teaches a management profile with historical data (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
As to claim 3, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be operative to determine that the demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node-based logistics receptacle when the event information indicates at least a threshold number of parcels are currently maintained within the node-based logistics receptacle. (para 20 and 84-87)
As to claim 8, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be operative to receive the event information from the reporting node-based logistics receptacle by being further operative to: receive a status update message from the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the status update message including at least the event information, the event information indicating at least a change in state of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle; (para 65)
Perez does not teach:
compare the event information with a management profile maintained on the backend server, the management profile defining historic use information on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle;
determine that the demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node- based logistics receptacle based upon the comparison of the event information and the management profile maintained by the backend server on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle.
However, Kashi teaches:
compare the event information with a management profile maintained on the backend server, the management profile defining historic use information on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle; (para 63, show that the system determines the availability of mobile lockers based on historical activity associated with the locker location (para 63)
determine that the demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node- based logistics receptacle based upon the comparison of the event information and the management profile maintained by the backend server on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle. (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
As to claim 13, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the alternative deposit information related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle comprising the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 65 and 84-87)
As to claim 14, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be further operative to transmit an update message to the reporting node- based logistics receptacle, the update message causing the reporting node-based logistics receptacle to wirelessly broadcast a status update message indicating alternative deposit information related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 65 and 88)
As to claim 15, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the alternative deposit information related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle comprises the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 65 and 88)
As to claim 33, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be further operative to transmit a supplemental activation message to a replacement deployable mobile logistics receptacle to initiate deployment of the replacement deployable mobile logistics receptacle to the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 65 and 84-87)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling
date of the invention to duplicate the steps of claim 1 (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669,124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 2144.04 [R-08.2017] “Duplication of Parts”). The duplication of calculating probabilities over and over has no patentable significance. Motivation to do so comes would achieve the same end result which is sending lockers to a location.
As to claim 34, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 33 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be further operative to transmit a recall message to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to initiate a recall of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle from the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 65 and 84-87)
As to claim 35, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be further operative to transmit a supplemental activation message to a replacement deployable mobile logistics receptacle to initiate deployment of the replacement deployable mobile logistics receptacle to the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle after a predetermined time period after sending the activation message to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 65 and 84-87)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling
date of the invention to duplicate the steps of claim 1 (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669,124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 2144.04 [R-08.2017] “Duplication of Parts”). The duplication of calculating probabilities over and over has no patentable significance. Motivation to do so comes would achieve the same end result which is sending lockers to a location.
As to claim 37, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the feedback information corresponding to mobile event information related to one or more detected changes in the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (fig. 5)
As to claim 38, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the deployment location comprising a location within a predetermined distance from the location of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle. (para 21)
As to claim 39, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the deployment location comprising a location within a predetermined distance from the location of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the predetermined distance being maintained (para 21)
Perez does not teach a management profile.
However Kashi teaches a management profile with historical data (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
As to claim 40, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez does not teach:
wherein the backend server maintaining a management profile related to operations of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle.
However Kashi teaches:
wherein the backend server maintaining a management profile related to operations of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle. (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
As to claim 41, Perez in view of Kashi teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Perez does not teach:
wherein the management profile comprises information relating to a pattern of use of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle.
However, Kashi teaches:
wherein the management profile comprises information relating to a pattern of use of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle. (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
As to claim 44, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Perez does not teach:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be operative to determine that the demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node-based logistics receptacle based upon the event information and the management profile maintained by the backend server on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the management profile defining historic use information on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle.
However, Kashi teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be operative to determine that the demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node-based logistics receptacle based upon the event information and the management profile maintained by the backend server on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the management profile defining historic use information on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle. (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
As to claim 45, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 44 as discussed above.
Perez does not teach:
wherein the historic use information comprises a pattern of delivery events for the reporting node-based logistics receptacle.
However, Kashi teaches:
wherein the historic use information comprises a pattern of delivery events for the reporting node-based logistics receptacle. (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
As to claim 55, Perez teaches a server comprising:
a backend server processor; a backend server memory coupled to the backend server processors, the backend server memory maintaining on-demand management code for execution by the backend server processor, the backend server memory further maintaining a management profile related to the reporting node-based logistics receptacle; a communication interface coupled to the backend server processor; (para 17-18)
wherein the backend server processor, when executing the on-demand management code, being programmatically configured to be operative to: receive a status update message from the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, the status update message including at least event information indicating at least a change in state of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle, (para 20, the system determines the need (i.e. demand) of lockers in a specific area and deploys the lockers to that location)
determine that a demand surge condition exists relative to the reporting node-based logistics receptacle based upon the event information, (para 20)
send an activation message to a deployable mobile logistics receptacle to initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to a location of the reporting node-based logistics receptacle as the deployed location of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 84-87, the driver receives information from the main server that the lockers should be placed in another location)
Perez does not teach a management profile.
However Kashi teaches a management profile with historical data (para 63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine demand based on historical data of the locker in Perez as taught by Kashi. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Kashi that doing so would accurately predict the threshold number of available lockers in a location.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al referred herein as Perez (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190054) in view of Kashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0206172), further in view of Schmidt referred herein as Schmidt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0051515).
As to claim 10, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez and Kashi does not teach:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be further operative to transmit an update message to the reporting node- based logistics receptacle, the update message causing the reporting node-based logistics receptacle to generate a visible display message indicating alternative deposit information related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle.
However, Schmidt teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be further operative to transmit an update message to the reporting node- based logistics receptacle, the update message causing the reporting node-based logistics receptacle to generate a visible display message indicating alternative deposit information related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle.(para 121)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to send a display message in Perez in view of Kashi as taught by Schmidt. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Schmidt that doing so would enable guests to identify available lockers.
As to claim 11, Perez in view of Kashi teach, further in view of Schmidt teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Perez and Kashi do not teach:
wherein the update message causing the reporting node- based logistics to generate a change in status light on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle as the visible display message indicating the alternative deposit information related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle.
However, Schmidt teaches:
wherein the update message causing the reporting node- based logistics to generate a change in status light on the reporting node-based logistics receptacle as the visible display message indicating the alternative deposit information related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 121)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to send a display message in Perez in view of Kashi as taught by Schmidt. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Schmidt that doing so would enable guests to identify available lockers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al referred herein as Perez (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190054)in view of Kashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0206172), further in view of Kalouche (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0387808).
As to claim 22, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle comprises: a movable container housing within which the parcel items are received at the deployed location; (fig. 4A-4C)
a wireless transceiver disposed on the movable container housing, the wireless transceiver being operative to receive the activation message. (para 42)
Perez and Kashi do not teach:
an entrance opening disposed on the movable container housing, the entrance opening providing an opening through which the parcel items are received at the deployed location; a temporary storage area disposed within the movable container housing, the temporary storage area for maintaining the parcel items received at the deployed location;
However, Kalouche teaches:
an entrance opening disposed on the movable container housing, the entrance opening providing an opening through which the parcel items are received at the deployed location; (fig. 2A show that the truck comprising a storage location for storing items for delivery)
a temporary storage area disposed within the movable container housing, the temporary storage area for maintaining the parcel items received at the deployed location; (fig. 2A show that the truck comprising a storage location for storing items for delivery)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include a storage area in Perez in view of Kashi as taught by Kalouche. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that doing so would allow easier access to package retrieval.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al referred herein as Perez (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190054)in view of Kashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0206172), further in view of Kalouche (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0387808), further in view of Corder et al. referred herein as Corder (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0062601)
As to claim 23, Perez in view of Kashi, further in view of Kalouche teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as discussed above.
Perez in view of Kashi, further in view of Kalouche do not teach:
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle further comprising a sensor-enabled node disposed on the movable container housing, the sensor-enabled node being operative to: change a mode of operation from a low power mode to an active mode of operation in response to the activation message as received by the wireless transceiver; and detect a change in state of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle based upon sensor data generated by the sensor-enabled node relative to at least one of the entrance opening and the temporary storage area.
However, Corder teaches:
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle further comprising a sensor-enabled node disposed on the movable container housing, the sensor-enabled node being operative to: change a mode of operation from a low power mode to an active mode of operation in response to the activation message as received by the wireless transceiver; and detect a change in state of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle based upon sensor data generated by the sensor-enabled node relative to at least one of the entrance opening and the temporary storage area. (para 235 and 262)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to allow the locker to change a mode of operation in Perez in view of Kashi teach, further in view of Kalouche as taught by Corder. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Corder that doing so would save battery power.
As to claim 24, Perez in view of Kashi teach, further in view of Kalouche, further in view of Corder teach all the limitations of claim 23 as discussed above.
Perez and Kashi do not teach:
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle further comprising a selectively accessible retrieval door providing selective access to the temporary storage area within the mobile container housing;
wherein the sensor-enabled node being further operative to detect the change in state of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle based upon the sensor data generated by the sensor-enabled node relative to at least one of the entrance opening, the temporary storage area, and the selectively accessible retrieval door.
However, Kalouche teaches:
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle further comprising a selectively accessible retrieval door providing selective access to the temporary storage area within the mobile container housing; (fig. 2A show that the truck comprising a storage location for storing items for delivery)
wherein the sensor-enabled node being further operative to detect the change in state of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle based upon the sensor data generated by the sensor-enabled node relative to at least one of the entrance opening, the temporary storage area, and the selectively accessible retrieval door. (fig. 2A show that the truck comprising a storage location for storing items for delivery)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include a storage area in Perez in view of Kashi as taught by Kalouche. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that doing so would allow easier access to package retrieval.
As to claim 25, Perez in view of Kashi, further in view of Kalouche, further in view of Corder teach all the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above.
Perez further teach:
wherein the sensor-enabled node is programmatically configured to be further operative to transmit mobile event information to the backend server in response to a detected change in state of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (fig. 5)
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al referred herein as Perez (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190054) in view of Kashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0206172), further in view of Ferguson et al. referred hereon as Ferguson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130349).
As to claim 48, Perez in view of Kashi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Perez further teaches:
wherein the backend server being programmatically configured to be operative to send the activation message to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle by being further programmatically configured to be operative to send the activation message to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle to initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle (para 84-87)
Perez in view of Kashi do not explicitly teach:
initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle according to a smart contract based activation agreement related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle.
However, Ferguson teaches:
initiate deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle according to a smart contract based activation agreement related to the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 136)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to initiate deployment based on contract in Perez in view of Kashi as taught by Ferguson. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Ferguson that doing so would identify a specific coordinate for placing the lockers.
Claims 50-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al referred herein as Perez (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190054)in view of Kashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230206172), further in view of Ferguson et al. referred hereon as Ferguson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130349), further in view of Moeller et al. referred herein as Moeller (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0009310).
As to claim 50, Perez in view of Kashi teach, further in view of Ferguson teach all the limitations of claim 48 as discussed above.
Perez, Kashi and Ferguson do not teach:
wherein the smart contract based activation agreement comprises a protocol for an automated transaction stored on a blockchain and run in response to meeting at least a payment condition for deploying the deployable mobile logistics receptacle.
However, Moeller teaches:
wherein the smart contract based activation agreement comprises a protocol for an automated transaction stored on a blockchain and run in response to meeting at least a payment condition for deploying the deployable mobile logistics receptacle. (para 138-139)
Perez teaches a mobile locker that is deployed to a location based on demand.
The sole difference between Perez and the claimed subject matter is that
Perez does not disclose the blockchain. Moeller disclose a blockchain for pallets. Moeller shows that the blockchain contract is used to place a pallet in a location.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the pallet of Moeller for the lockers of Perez.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 51, Perez in view of Kashi teach, further in view of Ferguson, further in view of Moeller teach all the limitations of claim 50 as discussed above.
Perez, Kashi and Ferguson do not teach:
wherein the smart contract based activation agreement provides for deploying the deployable mobile logistics receptacle under predetermined pricing terms as the payment condition.
However, Moeller teaches:
wherein the smart contract based activation agreement provides for deploying the deployable mobile logistics receptacle under predetermined pricing terms as the payment condition. (para 138-139)
Perez teaches a mobile locker that is deployed to a location based on demand.
The sole difference between Perez and the claimed subject matter is that
Perez does not disclose the blockchain. Moeller disclose a blockchain for pallets. Moeller shows that the blockchain contract is used to place a pallet in a location.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the pallet of Moeller for the lockers of Perez.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 52, Perez in view of Kashi, further in view of Ferguson, further in view of Moeller teach all the limitations of claim 51 as discussed above.
Perez, Kashi and Ferguson do not teach:
wherein the predetermined pricing terms relate to a blockchain-based payment for initiating deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle in response to the activation message.
However, Moeller teaches:
wherein the predetermined pricing terms relate to a blockchain-based payment for initiating deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle in response to the activation message. (para 138-139)
Perez teaches a mobile locker that is deployed to a location based on demand.
The sole difference between Perez and the claimed subject matter is that
Perez does not disclose the blockchain. Moeller disclose a blockchain for pallets. Moeller shows that the blockchain contract is used to place a pallet in a location.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the pallet of Moeller for the lockers of Perez.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious
As to claim 53, Perez in view of Kashi teach, further in view of Ferguson, further in view of Moeller teach all the limitations of claim 51 as discussed above.
Perez, Kashi and Ferguson do not teach:
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle comprises one of a plurality of deployable mobile logistics receptacles supplied by a logistics asset; and wherein the predetermined pricing terms relate to a blockchain-based payment for initiating deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle from the deployable mobile logistics receptacles supplied by the logistics asset.
However, Moeller teaches:
wherein the deployable mobile logistics receptacle comprises one of a plurality of deployable mobile logistics receptacles supplied by a logistics asset; and wherein the predetermined pricing terms relate to a blockchain-based payment for initiating deployment of the deployable mobile logistics receptacle from the deployable mobile logistics receptacles supplied by the logistics asset. (para 138-139)
Perez teaches a mobile locker that is deployed to a location based on demand.
The sole difference between Perez and the claimed subject matter is that
Perez does not disclose the blockchain. Moeller disclose a blockchain for pallets. Moeller shows that the blockchain contract is used to place a pallet in a location.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the pallet of Moeller for the lockers of Perez.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-32 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628