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 with traverse of Species II, Figs. 8-11, and claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-30 (with claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 being generic to all species) in the reply filed on 09-25-2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species share overlapping features. This is not found persuasive as although some features overlap, some patentably distinct features do not overlap. For example, Species III, Figs. 12-14, requires a rearward storage compartment 504 behind the locker compartment 304, see claim 22 and paragraph [0049]. This feature is not present in Species I and II. The applicant also argues there is no search burden. The examiner disagrees as, for example, the search strategy for Species I and II does not include/require specifically searching for a rearward storage compartment behind the locker compartment as required in Species III.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The listing of claims indicated by the applicant which read on elected Species II is inaccurate as claims 22-30 do not read on elected Species II, but rather are exclusive to non-elected Species III as discussed above. Consequently, claim 5 (applicant indicated), claim 10, (applicant indicated), and claims 22-30 (examiner indicated) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cantrell et al. (US#2019/0343317).
Regarding claim 1, Cantrell discloses a package locker 100 for receiving a medication package 190 ([0015], last sentence) from a flying vehicle 180, comprising: a locker bay 120 including a first locker compartment 124 and a second locker compartment 126, the first locker compartment overlying the second locker compartment, the first and second locker compartments each having an interior sized and shaped to hold a package, the first locker compartment including a floor 155, the floor being arrangeable in a first position (Fig. 2) where the floor is arranged to support the package in the interior of the first locker compartment and in a second position (Fig. 3) where the floor is arranged to permit the package to fall, under the influence of gravity, from the interior of the first locker compartment into the interior of the second locker compartment.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the package locker includes a prime mover operatively connected to the floor and configured to move the floor between the first and second positions ([0056], control unit 150 moves the floor 155).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the floor comprises a trap door arranged to pivot into the interior of the second locker compartment when the prime mover moves the floor toward the second position (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a releasable latch 150 ([0056], control unit 150 for securing and releasing the floor) arranged to secure the floor in the first position.
Regarding claim 7, further comprising a package sensor 153 ([0043]) arranged to detect the presence of a package in the interior of the first package compartment.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the first locker compartment includes a package entry door 128 at a top 130 of the interior of the first locker compartment, the package entry door being arrangeable in a closed position (Fig. 1) where package entry door inhibits access to the interior of the first locker compartment and in an open position (Fig. 2) where the package entry door is arranged to permit the package to fall, under the influence of gravity, into the interior of the first locker compartment.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the package locker includes a prime mover operatively connected to the package entry door and configured to move the package entry door between the open and closed positions ([0044], control unit 150 moves the door 128).
Regarding claim 11, per [0015], there can three, four, or more compartments, such that wherein the floor is a first floor, and wherein the locker bay includes a third locker compartment underlying the second locker compartment, the third locker compartment having an interior sized and shaped to hold the package, the second locker compartment including a second floor, the second floor being arrangeable in a first position where the second floor is arranged to support the package in the interior of the second locker compartment and in a second position where the second floor is arranged to permit the package to fall, under the influence of gravity, from the interior of the second locker compartment into the interior of the third locker compartment
Regarding claim 13, Cantrell discloses a package locker 100 comprising: a first locker compartment 124 having an interior sized and shaped to hold a package 190; a second locker compartment 126 underlying the first locker compartment, the second locker compartment having an interior sized and shaped to hold the package; a third locker compartment ([0017], additional compartment side-by-side with second compartment 126 via vertical partition panel in second locker compartment 126) having an interior sized and shaped to hold the package, the third locker compartment disposed side-by-side with the second locker compartment such that the interior of the third locker compartment is horizontally and vertically offset from the interior of the first locker compartment; and a package mover (movable floor 155) and configured to move the package from the interior of the first locker compartment to the interior of the third locker compartment.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the package mover is a passive package mover configured to move the package under the influence of gravity from the interior of the first locker compartment to the interior of the third locker compartment (package slides downward from the opened floor 155 via gravity).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the package mover is configured to move the package from the interior of the first locker compartment to the interior of the third locker compartment solely under the influence of gravity (package slides downward from the opened floor 155 via gravity).
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, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell et al. (US#2019/0343317) in view of Dudley (US#7854374).
Regarding claim 4, Cantrell discloses a single door design for the floor 155 arranged to pivot into the interior of the second locker compartment when the prime mover moves the floor toward the second position, as opposed to first and second bomb-bay doors arranged to pivot into the interior of the second locker compartment when the prime mover moves the floor toward the second position. However, as evidenced by Dudley, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2 and package locker 100 wherein the floor 105 comprises first and second bomb-bay doors arranged to pivot into the interior of the second (lower) locker compartment 205 when the prime mover 106 moves the floor toward the second (open) position. Therefore, as evidenced by Dudley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cantrell by replacing its single door design for the floor with first and second bomb-bay doors. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the first and second bomb-bay doors would facilitate a slower, funneled drop of the package into the second locker compartment.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantrell et al. (US#2019/0343317) in Ritchie (US#10028606).
Regarding claim 12, although Cantrell discloses a controller (CPU) of the prime mover 150 to move the floor 155 to the second position to permit the package to fall into the interior of the second (lower) locker compartment, Cantrell fails to disclose the controller configured to determine if the interior of the second locker compartment is empty and, after said determination, to control the prime mover to move the floor to the second position to permit the package to fall into the interior of the second locker compartment. However, as evidenced by Ritchie, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 5D, col. 14, lines 50-59, and package locker 550 including a controller 230 configured to determine via a light sensor if the interior of the second (lower) locker compartment 517 is empty (i.e. not full) to allow additional package delivery and prevent jamming of the locker. Therefore, as evidenced by Ritchie, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cantrell by including the controller capability of determining if the interior of the second locker compartment is empty (i.e. not full) and, after said determination, to control the prime mover to move the floor to the second position to permit the package to fall into the interior of the second locker compartment. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the controller capability of determining if the interior of the second locker compartment is empty (i.e. not full) and, after said determination, to control the prime mover to move the floor to the second position to permit the package to fall into the interior of the second locker compartment, would prevent jamming of the locker.
Regarding claim 21, although Cantrell discloses a controller (CPU) of the prime mover 150 to move the floor 155 to the second position to permit the package to fall into the interior of the third (lower) locker compartment, Cantrell fails to disclose the controller configured to determine if the interior of the third locker compartment is empty and, after said determination, to control the package mover to move the package from the interior of the first locker compartment to the interior of the third locker compartment. However, as evidenced by Ritchie, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 5D, col. 14, lines 50-59, and package locker 550 including a controller 230 configured to determine via a light sensor if the interior of the lower locker compartment 517 is empty (i.e. not full) to allow additional package delivery and prevent jamming of the locker. Therefore, as evidenced by Ritchie, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cantrell by including the controller capability of determining if the interior of the third locker compartment is empty (i.e. not full) and, after said determination, to control the prime mover to move the floor to the second position to permit the package to fall into the interior of the third locker compartment. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the controller capability of determining if the interior of the third locker compartment is empty (i.e. not full) and, after said determination, to control the prime mover to move the floor to the second position to permit the package to fall into the interior of the third locker compartment, would prevent jamming of the locker.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 16 and 17, Cantrell fails to disclose or suggest the movable side wall as claimed in detail. Regarding claim 19, Cantrell fails to disclose or suggest the package mover comprises an active package mover configured to move the package from the interior of the second locker compartment to the interior of the third locker compartment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677