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
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 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753) in view of Dehner et al. (US#11666167).
Regarding claim 1, Eveloff discloses a parcel delivery security container comprising: a bottom panel and side panels (left, right, front, rear) transverse to said bottom panel (receptacle 102) to form an open-ended (open top) compartment; a lid 104 pivotably connected ([0034]) to one (rear) of said side panels to selectively open and close said compartment; an electromagnetic lock assembly 304 ([0037]) to releasably lock said lid when closed; an input device 308 disposed on an outer surface of the security container to permit a user to enter information: a barcode scanner 316 disposed on an outer surface of the security container to scan barcodes on parcels 410; a microprocessor 302 operatively connected to said input device, said barcode scanner, and said electromagnetic lock assembly to control locking and unlocking of said electromagnetic lock assembly; and a power source ([0050], internal batteries) operatively connected to said input device, said barcode scanner, said electromagnetic lock assembly, and said microprocessor; and a camera 314 operatively connected to said microprocessor and said power source and disposed on an outer surface of the security container to obtain video of an area adjacent the security container ([0043]).
Regarding claim 1, although Eveloff discloses wherein said camera is mounted on one of said side panels ([0043]), Eveloff fails to disclose the camera comprises a wide angle or fish-eye camera. However, as evidenced by Dehner, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2, col. 15, lines 31-42, and parcel delivery container comprising a wide angle camera 124. Therefore, as evidenced by Dehner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eveloff by replacing its camera with a wide angle camera. 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 wide angle camera would enhance the monitoring and security of the container.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, herein the security container further comprises a transceiver 322 operatively connected to said power source and said microprocessor to wirelessly connect to a remote device 412 (smartphone) to receive and transmit data.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, wherein said microprocessor comprises a memory ([0036]) to store information comprising at least a command to unlock the security container and barcode information for parcels to be received by a user.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, wherein said input device 308 comprises an alphanumeric keypad ([0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Eveloff fails to disclose a tamper-proof housing for the camera. However, again as evidenced by Dehner, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2, col. 15, lines 31-42, and parcel delivery container comprising a tamper-proof housing 120,126 for wide angle camera 124. Therefore, as evidenced by Dehner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eveloff by including a tamper-proof housing for the camera. 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 a tamper-proof housing for the camera would enhance protection of said camera.
Claims 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753) in view of Dehner et al. (US#11666167), and further in view of Logan (US#11172776).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Eveloff fails to specifically disclose wherein its electromagnetic lock assembly comprises an electromagnet mounted on an inner surface of one of said side panels and an armature mounted on an inner surface of said lid. However, as evidenced by Logan, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 35-42, and parcel delivery container comprising an electromagnetic lock assembly having an electromagnet 72 mounted on an inner surface of one 14 of the side panels of the container 12 and an armature 70 mounted on an inner surface of the lid 34. Therefore, as evidenced by Logan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eveloff by replacing its electromagnetic lock assembly with an assembly comprising an electromagnet mounted on an inner surface of one of said side panels and an armature mounted on an inner surface of said lid. 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 electromagnetic lock assembly comprising an electromagnet mounted on an inner surface of one of said side panels and an armature mounted on an inner surface of said lid would ensure and strengthen the locking mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, Eveloff fails to disclose a tamper-proof housing for the camera. However, again as evidenced by Dehner, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2, col. 15, lines 31-42, and parcel delivery container comprising a tamper-proof housing 120,126 for wide angle camera 124. Therefore, as evidenced by Dehner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eveloff by including a tamper-proof housing for the camera. 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 a tamper-proof housing for the camera would enhance protection of said camera.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753) in view of Dehner et al. (US#11666167), in view of Logan (US#11172776), and further in view of Soderberg (US#2022/0338658).
Regarding claim 9, although Eveloff discloses the power source as an internal batteries ([0050]), Eveloff fails to disclose wherein said power source comprises batteries stored in said bottom panel and an access cover integral with an inner surface of said bottom panel. However, as evidenced by Soderberg, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2, [0048], and parcel delivery container comprising a replaceable internal battery 108 stored in the bottom panel of container 100, the battery having an access cover (battery housing shown in Fig. 2) integral with (attached to) the inner surface of the bottom panel. Therefore, as evidenced by Soderberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eveloff by replacing its internal arrangement of batteries with batteries stored in the bottom panel and an access cover integral with an inner surface of the bottom panel. 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 batteries stored in said bottom panel and an access cover integral with an inner surface of said bottom panel would provide battery isolation and protection within the container.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753) in view of Dehner et al. (US#11666167), and further in view of Soderberg (US#2022/0338658).
Regarding claim 16, although Eveloff discloses the power source as an internal batteries ([0050]), Eveloff fails to disclose the batteries stored in said bottom panel and an access cover integral with an inner surface of said bottom panel. However, as evidenced by Soderberg, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Fig. 2, [0048], and parcel delivery container comprising a replaceable internal battery 108 stored in the bottom panel of container 100, the battery having an access cover (battery housing shown in Fig. 2) integral with (attached to) the inner surface of the bottom panel. Therefore, as evidenced by Soderberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eveloff by replacing its internal arrangement of batteries with batteries stored in the bottom panel and an access cover integral with an inner surface of the bottom panel. 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 batteries stored in said bottom panel and an access cover integral with an inner surface of said bottom panel would provide battery isolation and protection within the container.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues the following:
“The rejection relies exclusively on Eveloff, particularly paragraph [0043] as teaching placement of a camera on a side of a housing. However, this is an improperly broad and simply inaccurate interpretation of the disclosure of that paragraph. Simply nowhere is there any mention of positioning of a camera on a side of a housing. The limitation is not disclosed, taught, suggested, or contemplated such that claim 1 is not obvious and should be allowed.”
The examiner disagrees as paragraph [0043] of Eveloff states, “The user-interface camera(s) 314 may be positioned to image a delivery person for identity validation, or to detect presence of a person near the receptacle 102,…”. The camera is thus clearly mounted to the exterior of the receptacle to allow for detection of a person near the receptacle, and this exterior mounting location on the receptacle is being viewed as a “side panel” thereof. Paragraph [0070] of Eveloff later confirms the camera is mounted to an exterior of the receptacle by stating, “The DP may enter the package identifier or present a barcode on the package for scanning by the exterior-facing user interface camera 314,…”. Claim 1 of the instant application recites “side panels transverse to said bottom panel to form an open- ended compartment” and the camera being mounted to “one of said side panels”. Therefore, a specific side panel, or location thereof, to which the camera is mounted is not being claimed. The mounting of an exterior facing camera on the receptacle to detect the presence of a person near the receptacle, and thus mounted on a “side panel” thereof, is well known in the parcel delivery security container art as evidenced by Eveloff above, and further per the following examples: Muniz (US#2021/0148157) see Fig. 1 and camera 54; Bowman (US#2021/0059455) see Fig. 1 and camera 110; and Malcolm (US#2023/0074283) see Fig. 1 and camera 194.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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