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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group A, claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 13 and 21 in the reply filed on May 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for improper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 recite the limitation "its". There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Further regarding claim 1, the language “functions of a sensor (the sensing device) and/or a lock (the locking device) and/or a lock-sensor” is unclear. For example, the claims already describe that the “access-management device” comprises functions of a sensor and/or a lock, thus it is unclear what further scope is being defined by the additional “lock-sensor” language. Further, dependent claims 9 and 10 describe “said locking devices”, but only a single “lock” has previously been defined. Examiner advises applicant to clearly define the access-management device, e.g., by clearly establishing proper antecedent basis that does not use parenthetical language.
Further regarding claim 1, line 9, the language should read “at least one of said partitions” to be consistent and have proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, second line from end, the language should read “the vending apparatus” to be consistent and have proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 2, the scope of “its medium” is unclear even in light of the specification as this limitation—as best understood--appears to refer to the volume/space within the vending apparatus that has already been defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "said storage partitions". There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hodge et al. (“Hodge”)(US 2020/0361356).
Hodge teaches a vending apparatus, capable of being placed onto an interior of a vehicle cabin comprising a realization of the vending apparatus as a portable and/or transformable device for storage and sales of items, where said vending apparatus comprising:
(re: base claim 1) a flat base, where elements of said apparatus can be mounted to; a plurality of storage partitions, mounted to the front side of said flat base, where each of said partitions can contain at least one item of goods, that can be purchased, and possesses possibility of individual access by a user (fig. 1 showing vending device 100 mounted between two car seats; fig. 2, 5 showing vending device comprising base with side walls and a lid 204; para. 31, 32, 38-40 teaching that vending device may comprise multiple lids to allow access to only a portion of the items stored within the interior storage portion 203—wherein partitions are regarded as inherent in separating interior storage portion to correspond with multiple lids);
a closure element (204) that secures at least one said partition by reversible fastening of an edge of the said partition to said flat base (para. 38-40, 49, 52-53 teaching an electromechanical locking element 514 that engages a portion of lid 204);
an access-management device associated with said closure element and comprising functions of a sensing device and of a locking device which are able to control fastening of at least one said partition and capable of exchanging signals or data with external devices (para. 49-53 teaching multiple sensing devices, such as a weight sensor or cameras, and a lock 514 that are in signal communication with a controller 205, wherein controller sends signals to lock and unlock respective lids to control access to products within vending device);
a controller board connected to at least one said access-management device and able to manage vending apparatus directly or via a computing device associated with a user (fig. 8 showing access-management controller 205 linked with sensors and locking element; para. 53, 57-61 teaching that controller may comprise any electronic circuitry, such as one or more processors, state machines, CPU chips, logic units, cores, FPGAs, ASICs, or DSPs, wherein Examiner regards the electronic circuity as controller boards, i.e., board-mounted);
(re: claim 2) a medium for storage and sales of items that can be placed on the back of at least one seat or between adjacent seats of a vehicle (fig. 1 showing vending apparatus with medium, i.e., space or volume, placed between adjacent seats of a vehicle; para. 5);
(re: claim 7) additionally mounted tools comprising an electric charger for external devices and/or backlight and/or interactive modules, an information display screen, microphone or speaker (fig. 8; para. 65);
(re: claim 9) the locking device comprising locking devices, that are made as electromechanical or magnetic or combination locks (para. 6-7, 38-40, 52 teaching an electromechanical locking element that engages a portion of lid 204, wherein each of the multiple lids is regarded as having an individual locking element);
(re: claim 13) said access-management devices made as sensors capable of registering moment of opening/closing of said storage partitions and/or the presence/absence of items in the storage partition, and/or the integrity/authenticity of the item in the storage partition, and are connected to the controller associated with the said partition (para. 50-51);
(re: claim 21) the flat base used as a part of the seat cover or other elements of the vehicle interior (fig. 1 showing flat base as element of vehicle interior).
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge et al. (“Hodge”)(US 2020/0361356) in view of Baren et al. (“Baren”)(US 2019/0205961), Wang et al. (“Wang”)(US 2021/0383637 A1) and legal precedent.
Hodge as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 10) wherein the locking device comprises
(re: claim 11) said access-management devices made as autonomous sliding locks, associated with their own micro controllers, that are able to provide access to several said storage partitions independently.
Here, it is noted that Hodge already teaches a locking element for a closure element, i.e., lid, and also teaches that the vending device can have multiple lids (para. 39 teaching that “In FIG. 2, the vending machine 100 comprises a single lid 204, however, in other examples, the vending machine 100 may comprise multiple lids 204.”) and that an access-management device for the closure element may comprise a sensor and locking element (supra). Thus, Hodge can be viewed as teaching multiple locking elements, i.e, a locking element for each closure/lid, that are inherently movable and is merely silent on the specific locking element configuration.
Baren further teaches that it is well-known in the vending arts to configure an access element as a user movable lock that is only movable when a user completes an action to limit access to the vending device (fig. 6A, 6B showing latch 610 providing a controlled access to multiple partitions; para. 39-42, 58 teaching latch that facilitates opening and closing of the vending device and that is associated with an additional locking feature, e.g., user authentication or connection with a mobile application for connection to a user account, before being movable by user).
Wang also teaches that it is well-known to configure an access-management device as an automated sliding lock to ensure that the vending machine has been secured after dispensing a product (fig. 5-6 near 1004; para. 87 teaching controlling actuator that opens and closes the product access window based on sensed customer activity; para. 93, 100-103 teaching actuator configured to open close sliding door based on control signals).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the type and number of locks, e.g., how many partitions a lock provides access, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic consideration in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the vending arts as taught above. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above, in legal precedent as described above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., movable or automated sliding locking elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hodge for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
May 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights