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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 9/16/2025. Amendments received on 9/16/2025 have been entered. As per applicant claims 22-23 are canceled and claim 46 is newly added claim. Accordingly claims 21 and 24-46 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As of claim 31, limitation “the internal mobile network” should be --an internal mobile network--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “at least one authentication means” in claim 46, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to because conventional features illustrated in the drawing as rectangular boxes must be labeled.
The drawings are objected to because the drawing in a non-provisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. MPEP 1.83 states that conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation ( e.g., a labeled rectangular box), however in this case that rectangular box 3 (state monitoring operation ), box 6 (opening request operation) etc. in fig. 1 and , 4 (state sensor), 14 (transceiver unit), 12 (authentication device) are essential for a proper understanding of the invention and should be labeled as such. See 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 21 and 24-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahilly et al. (US Pub 2020/0410801) in view of Shoenfeld et al. (US Pub 2010/0300130).
As of claim 21, Rahilly discloses a method for controlling a closure device for closing and opening a container for receiving goods (via access control assembly 100/smart latch 1130 connected to a cabinet see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0069]), the method comprising:
detecting in one condition monitoring process, by at least one condition sensor, a time course comprising a plurality of times of measurements (Rahilly discloses that the non-volatile data store 1137 records periodic sensor (temperature, light, humidity) data, so the sensor will record the data periodically hence a plurality of times of measurements; see paragraphs [0105]-[0107]) and a plurality of condition measurement values acting on an interior of the container (via recording environmental conditions acting on an interior of the container; see paragraph [0084]), wherein each condition measurement value of the plurality of condition measurement values is associated with a time of measurement from among the plurality of times of measurements (in the system of Rahilly when a sensor data is recorded periodically and stored in the memory, it will be associated with a time of reading as well, for example, temperature value V1measured at time t1, value V2 measured at time t2 etc….;
checking, in an opening request process, opening requirements for a transfer of the closure device from a closed position to an open position for opening of the container (via performing authentication of a user; see paragraph [0082]),
wherein the opening request process has an authentication step and a status checking step;
checking, in the authentication step, the validity of an authentication key stored on at least one authentication means (via performing user’s authentication; see paragraph [0079]),
comparing, in the condition testing step, (i) the time course of the plurality of condition measurement values recorded during the condition monitoring process or at least one condition calculation value determined from the time course of the plurality of condition measurement values with (ii) a predetermined condition value range assigned to the condition sensor (via comparing sensor (temperature) data with a safe threshold range; see paragraph [0149]. As disclosed above, periodically storing sensor data indicates that the data is recorded at intervals, Rahilly further discloses that the system uses this data to determine potentially unsafe environmental conditions of the contents of refrigerator 120, such as temperature outside of a safety range (see paragraph [0109]);
moving, the closure device into the open position to enable the container to be opened to release the goods, if (a) the time course of the plurality of condition measurement values is within a respective, predetermined status value range and (b) the validity of the authentication key is confirmed (via opening the smart latch to access the cabinet if the sensor data is within a threshold range/safety range and the user credentials are valid; see paragraph [0149]. Rahilly discloses that the if an environmental sensor determines that the temperature or humidity to which an item was exposed is outside an expected range, the system prevent dispensing of exposed items (see paragraph [0189]) and as disclosed above the sensor data is recorded periodically (time course) so the system can determine if the plurality of temperature/humidity values are within a predetermined status value range (expected/threshold/safety range of temperature/humidity).
Based on the explanation given above it is the Examiner’s position that Rahilly discloses the invention as claimed, however in order to further support the Examiner’s assertion, Shoenfeld discloses a controlled access pharmaceutical storage case, wherein temperature is monitored minute-by-minute and temperature value is recorded (see paragraph [0013]). Shoenfeld discloses that the storage control electronics store at least predetermined temperature limit, or upper and lower limits. Shoenfeld further discloses that the sensed temperature is compared with the stored temperature limits and if the temperature has been beyond the acceptable range for longer than some maximum time the unlocking of the refrigerator is denied (see paragraph [0018]). So, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed that the unlocking of a container is depended on the time course/series of condition measurement values (temperature values) being within an acceptable range.
As of claim 38, Rahilly discloses a closure device for closing a container suitable for holding goods (via smart latch 1130; see fig. 9a), the closure device having:
at least one status sensor for determining condition measurement values acting on an interior of the container (via sensors 1150/smart device 1290; see paragraph [0107] and [0141]); and
an authentication device configured to control opening of the closure device, wherein a locking device can be moved from a closed position to an open position, so that the container is opened and the goods are released (via identity access management interface 1168 and communication interface; see fig. 9a; also see paragraphs [0106] and [0112]-[0113]), wherein the authentication device comprises a telecommunication device to receive an authentication key via a network connection to remotely instruct moving of the locking device from the closed position to the open position (via using a mobile device to present credentials (authentication key) to unlock the smart latch; see paragraphs [0111]-[0112] and [0125]).
However, Rahilly does not explicitly disclose that the locking device denies the moving of the locking device from the closed position to the open position in response to the condition measurement values being of an excessive magnitude for longer than a first duration of time.
Based on the explanation given above it is the Examiner’s position that Rahilly discloses the invention as claimed, however in order to further support the Examiner’s assertion, Shoenfeld discloses a controlled access pharmaceutical storage case, wherein temperature is monitored minute-by-minute and temperature value is recorded (see paragraph [0013]). Shoenfeld discloses that the storage control electronics store at least predetermined temperature limit, or upper and lower limits. Shoenfeld further discloses that the sensed temperature is compared with the stored temperature limits and if the temperature has been beyond the acceptable range for longer than some maximum time the unlocking of the refrigerator is denied (see paragraph [0018]).
From the teaching of Shoenfeld, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention filed that the unlocking of a container is depended on the time course/series of condition measurement values (temperature values) being within an acceptable range so that the staff is denied normal access if the temperature has been beyond the acceptable range for longer than some maximum time (see paragraph [0018]).
As of claims 24 and 39, Rahilly discloses that condition sensor comprises an acceleration sensor, and wherein the condition measurement values comprise measured vibrations or measured shocks measured by the acceleration sensor (via measuring vibration or shock and acceleration over time; see paragraphs [0172], [0218] and [0246]).
As of claims 25 and 40, Rahilly discloses that the condition sensor comprises a sensor that measures a tilt of the container (via disclosing vibration, shock, orientation, acceleration sensors, and it is well known that the vibration/acceleration/orientation sensors can detect tilt of the device that are associated with; see paragraph [0352]).
As of claims 26 and 43, Rahilly discloses that the condition sensor is at least one of an acceleration sensor, gyroscope, global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor, mobile radio receiver, temperature sensor, light, pressure sensor, carbon dioxide sensor, or humidity sensor (via acceleration, GPS, temperature or humidity sensor; see paragraph [0084]).
As of claim 27, Rahilly discloses a status value range is defined for the condition sensor (via defining a threshold range; see paragraphs [0109] and [0149]).
As of claim 28, Rahilly discloses that the condition monitoring process is triggered at a predeterminable time or by a predeterminable trigger event (via periodically logging the sensor data (see paragraph [0105]) or recording sensor data by a shock/vibration/tamper event; see paragraph [0107]).
As of claim 29, Rahilly discloses that the condition measurement values determined by the condition sensor are stored as stored condition measurement values on a storage unit of the closure device or on a storage unit of the condition sensor (via storing the sensor data on memory 1136; see paragraph [0105]).
As of claim 30, Rahilly discloses that the condition measurement values lying outside the status value range associated with the condition measurement value are stored on a storage unit of the condition sensor or on a storage unit of the closure device (via storing the sensor data on memory 1136; see paragraph [0105]). With regards to limitation of storing “only… value lying outside the status value”, in the system of Rahilly the data that is not required to the user of the system can be deleted from the memory.
As of claim 31, Rahilly discloses that an authorization code is used as the authentication key, wherein the authorization code is remotely transmitted via the internal mobile network communication unit to the closure device (via using a mobile device to provide user’s credentials/password to the smart latch; see paragraph [0079] and [0112]).
As of claim 32, Rahilly discloses that the authentication key is transmitted via a near-field communication device using BLE, RFID, or WLAN (via using Bluetooth or other short range wireless communication protocol; see paragraph [0079].
As of claim 33, Rahilly discloses that the authentication key is transmitted by a telecommunications device via a mobile radio network or via a WLAN (via using mobile phone to present credentials; see paragraph [0079] and [0112] and [0124]).
As of claim 34, Rahilly discloses that the condition measurement values are transmitted between the at least one condition sensor (smart device 1290) and the closure device (smart latch) by BLE, RFID, LPWAN, LORWAN, WLAN, or a cable (via wireless network; see paragraph [0141] and [0146])).
As of claim 35, Rahilly discloses that the stored condition measurement values are transferred to a service provider network by at least one of (i) a cellular modem, (ii) a mobile radio modem, and (iii) WLAN (via transmitting sensor data to server using network 1218; see fig. 10A; also see paragraphs [0128] and [0139]).
As of claim 36, Rahilly discloses that the condition sensor is a component of the closure device (via sensor 150 being a component of the smart latch 1130; see fig. 9A).
As of claim 37, Rahilly discloses that the condition sensor is physically separate from and electronically connected to the closure device (via smart sensor device 1290 physically separate from the smart latch; see paragraph [0129]).
As of claim 41, Rahilly discloses that the condition sensor is on a housing wall of the container (via attaching smart latch to housing wall of the container; see fig. 9D; see paragraph [0122]).
As of claim 42, Rahilly discloses that the condition sensor has at least one measuring probe arranged in an interior of the container (via smart latch reading temperature readings from smart device (sensor); see paragraph [0141]).
As of claim 44, Rahilly discloses that the closure device has a transceiver unit with which the condition measurement values determined by the at least one condition sensor can be transferred to the closure device (via communication interface 1140 used to wirelessly receive temperature readings from the smart devices 1290; see paragraph [0141]).
As of claim 45, Rahilly the closure device has a transmission module with which the condition measurement values can be transmitted to a service provider network (via smart latches transmitting environment data to server 1214, hence comprising a transmission module; see paragraphs [0010], [0128] and [0152]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rahilly et al. (US Pub 2020/0410801).
As of claim 46, Rahilly discloses a method for controlling a closure device for closing and opening a container for receiving goods (via access control assembly 100/smart latch 1130 connected to a cabinet see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0069]), the method comprising:
detecting in one condition monitoring process, by at least one condition sensor, a time course comprising a plurality of times of measurements (Rahilly discloses that the non-volatile data store 1137 records periodic sensor (temperature, light, humidity) data, so the sensor will record the data periodically hence a plurality of times of measurements; see paragraphs [0105]-[0107]) and a plurality of condition measurement values acting on an interior of the container (via recording environmental conditions acting on an interior of the container; see paragraph [0084]), wherein each condition measurement value of the plurality of condition measurement values is associated with a time of measurement from among the plurality of times of measurements (in the system of Rahilly when a sensor data is recorded periodically and stored in the memory, it will be associated with a time of reading as well, for example, temperature value V1measured at time t1, value V2 measured at time t2 etc….;
checking, in an opening request process, opening requirements for a transfer of the closure device from a closed position to an open position for opening of the container (via performing authentication of a user; see paragraph [0082]),
wherein the opening request process has an authentication step and a status checking step;
checking, in the authentication step, the validity of an authentication key stored on at least one authentication means (via performing user’s authentication; see paragraph [0079]),
comparing, in the condition testing step, (i) the time course of the plurality of condition measurement values recorded during the condition monitoring process or at least one condition calculation value determined from the time course of the plurality of condition measurement values with (ii) a predetermined condition value range assigned to the condition sensor (via comparing sensor (temperature) data with a safe threshold range; see paragraph [0149]. As disclosed above, periodically storing sensor data indicates that the data is recorded at intervals, Rahilly further discloses that the system uses this data to determine potentially unsafe environmental conditions of the contents of refrigerator 120, such as temperature outside of a safety range (see paragraph [0109]);
moving, the closure device into the open position to enable the container to be opened to release the goods, if (a) the time course of the plurality of condition measurement values is within a respective, predetermined status value range and (b) the validity of the authentication key is confirmed (via opening the smart latch to access the cabinet if the sensor data is within a threshold range/safety range and the user credentials are valid; see paragraph [0149]. Rahilly discloses that the if an environmental sensor determines that the temperature or humidity to which an item was exposed is outside an expected range, the system prevent dispensing of exposed items (see paragraph [0189]) and as disclosed above the sensor data is recorded periodically (time course) so the system can determine if the plurality of temperature/humidity values are within a predetermined status value range (expected/threshold/safety range of temperature/humidity).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 with respect to newly added claim 46 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the rejection of claim 46.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stotter et al. (US Pub 2022/0084341) discloses that a temperature sensor, inside a container, output(s) temperature values that are storable in a memory unit together with time data and/or access data (see paragraph [0012]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686