DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vain (US 20200130893 A1) and further in view of Clarke (GB 2544657 A).
Regarding claims 12, 22, Vain discloses a multi-compartment storage container (container 1, Para. 191, Fig. 1A) for a vehicle, comprising:
a housing defining a main compartment (Fig. 1A);
a plurality of separation walls designed to delimit from each other internal compartments which are contained or can be contained in said main compartment (walls 16, 26, Para. 192 and Fig. 1A);
closing assemblies, each associated with an internal compartment of said internal compartments and able to be operated to switch between a locked configuration, which prevents access to said internal compartment, and an unlocked configuration, which allows access to said internal compartment (wherein upon locking of the respective roll (14, 24, 34) to the respective locking element (50, 52, 54), the respective compartment (10, 20, 30) is inaccessible until unlocking, Para. 96); and
a control device, connected to said closing assemblies, to operate said closing assemblies selectively and equipped with an interface configured to receive an identification signal from a user (inherent control device built within robot for unlocking of compartments, Para. 65); said control device being configured to receive said identification signal from said interface, to check if said identification signal is associated with a predefined access authorization and to unlock a selected internal compartment of said internal compartments when said predefined access authorization has been previously associated with said selected internal compartment (the unlocking of each compartment can be done by the recipient authorizing unlocking by entering a code into at least one of the robot and a recipient's mobile device, Para. 65).
Vain fails to disclose the vehicle is a drone comprising a seat suitable for inserting the housing which can be extracted from the seat.
Clarke teaches a delivery vehicle can be a drone comprising a seat suitable for inserting a housing which can be extracted from the seat (attaching means 114 for inserting a delivery container 2; Fig. 7A, 7B; and Page 8, line 35 to Page 9, line 5).
From the teachings of Clarke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vain to include the vehicle is a drone comprising a seat suitable for inserting the housing which can be extracted from the seat in order to reduce delivery time.
Claim(s) 13-16, 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vain and Clarke, and further in view of Fisher (US 20230084587 A1).
Regarding claim 13, 23, the cited arts fail to disclose wherein the identification signal comprises an image of a two-dimensional barcode.
Fisher teaches an identification signal for unlocking a compartment of a vehicle comprises an image of a two-dimensional barcode (the cart 4802 may include a camera for scanning a barcode, Para. 117).
From the teachings of Fisher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cited arts to include wherein the identification signal comprises an image of a two-dimensional barcode as identification codes can be configured in many forms to authenticate a delivery recipient.
Regarding claim 14, 24, Vain discloses wherein at least first separation walls of the plurality of separation walls are substantially rigid and can be fixed to the housing, directly to define the internal compartments which have a substantially fixed geometry (separating walls 16, 26, Para. 74-75); the plurality of separation walls comprising a lid each associated with each of the internal compartments (12, 24, 34, Para. 93), each of the closing assemblies being configured to lock, in the locked configuration, with the lid to the housing (each of the rolls (14, 24, 34) is configured to be locked to the locking element (50, 52, 54) in each of the extended positions, Para. 93).
Vain fails to disclose the lid is substantially rigid and where each of the lids is hinged with the housing or with one of the first separation walls to be operated in order to open and close the respective internal compartment with which it is associated.
Fisher teaches a container with a compartment, and a lid for the compartment that is substantially rigid and the lid is hinged with the housing to be operated in order to open and close the compartment with which it is associated (top door 802 hinged to the top, Para. 77).
From the teachings of Fisher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cited arts to include the lid is substantially rigid as the lid can be configured in different ways including rigid to better protect items in the compartment, and where each of the lids is hinged with the housing to allow easier opening and closing of the compartments.
Regarding claim 15, 25, the cited arts disclose the claimed invention, wherein Fisher teaches wherein the housing comprises an edge which defines a main opening for access to the main compartment, the lids being pivotably mounted on the edge and the closing assemblies being configured to lock the lids to the edge, in the locked configuration (see Fig. 8 of Fisher and rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 16, 26, the cited arts disclose the claimed invention, wherein Vain teaches each of the first separation walls is directly fixed to the housing to define the internal compartments (separating walls 16, 26), so that each of the internal compartments has a specific opening which opens out, opposite one of the lids (see rejection of claim 14).
Claim(s) 17-18, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vain in view of Fisher and Clarke, and further in view of Baitz (US 4638908 A).
Regarding claim 17, 27, Vain discloses wherein each of the first separation walls is directly fixed to the housing to define the internal compartments (16, 26, Fig. 2), so that each of the internal compartments has a specific opening which opens out opposite one of the lids (Fig. 2); wherein the first separation walls are substantially flat (Fig. 2), but the cited arts fail to disclose the housing has linear guides configured to be engaged by perimetral portions of the first separation walls in a reversible manner and to define the capacity of each of the internal compartments by means of selective installation of the first separation walls.
Baitz teaches the size of compartments within a storage device can be adjusted using separation walls (28) insertable into linear guides (grooves 29, Fig. 1; and col. 3, line 49-col. 4, line 16).
From the teachings of Baitz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cited arts to include the housing has linear guides configured to be engaged by perimetral portions of the first separation walls in a reversible manner and to define the capacity of each of the internal compartments by means of selective installation of the first separation walls in order to make the size of the compartments adjustable via insertable separation walls, thereby improve functionally of the container.
Regarding claim 18, 28, the cited arts teach wherein the first separation walls, which define a closed internal compartment, cannot be separated from the housing except after the opening of the lid (via lid of storage to insert or remove items from the storage container, see rejection of claims 14 and 17 above).
Claim(s) 19-20, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vain and Clarke and further in view of Zeh (US 9,265,319).
Regarding claim 19, 29, Vain discloses the plurality of separation walls comprise second separation walls (walls 16, 26, Para. 192 and Fig. 1A), and the closing assemblies comprising means for closing the opening (wherein upon locking of the respective roll (14, 24, 34) to the respective locking element (50, 52, 54), the respective compartment (10, 20, 30) is inaccessible until unlocking, Para. 96), but fails to disclose the second separation walls can be draped and configured to form a bag suitable for containing a product to be housed in the housing; wherein the second separation walls have an access flap defining an opening for the bag through which products can be inserted into or extracted from.
Zeh teaches a compartment in a storage device can be configured to comprise a bag suitable for containing a product to be housed in the housing; and an access flap defining an opening for the bag through which products can be inserted into or extracted from (via pouch 70, fab 54 and col. 7, lines 42-63).
From the teachings of Zeh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cited arts to include the second separation walls can be draped and configured to form a bag suitable for containing a product to be housed in the housing in order to protect items housed within; wherein the second separation walls have an access flap defining an opening for the bag through which products can be inserted into or extracted from in order to allow removal or extraction of items in the bag.
Regarding claim 20, 30, the cited arts disclose the claimed invention, wherein Vain discloses the closing assemblies comprise: means for narrowing the opening (respective roll (14, 24, 34) to the respective locking element (50, 52, 54), Para. 96).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 31 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 YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights