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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 25, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. None of the listed Non-Patent Literature Documents are present in the IFW.
Examiner’s Amendment
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Attorney R. Drozd on Friday, September 19, 2025.
The application has been amended as follows:
For claims 8, 9, 10, and 11, change the pendency from claim 1 to claim 7.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, line 3, the article “the” is used to introduce “the delivery box” and “the access door” claim limitations. To avoid antecedent basic issues, the article “a” should be used when first introducing the limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim on line 3 to read “a delivery box” and “an access door”.
Regarding claim 15, line 1, “the electromagnet” is recited. It is US custom to maintain a consistent naming convention for limitations across claims. Claim 15 pends from claim 12 where “an electromagnet lock” is recite on line 3. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the electromagnet lock”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim directed towards the combination of a delivery box with the subcombination of an electromagnetic lock. Per the claim 12 preamble, claim 12 appears to be directed only towards the subcombination of an electromagnetic release mechanism but claims 12-17 recite delivery box limitations similar to claims 1-6. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination of an electromagnetic release mechanism and a delivery box and the claims will be rejected accordingly, in a manner similar to claims 1-6 claim set. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruth et al., US 20200387863 A1 (hereinafter Ruth), in view of Hunt, US 9151096 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Ruth teaches a home delivery box (package container 100; Fig 1) comprising:
a container (body 105; cover 110) comprising an interior (cavity 165) configured to hold an item being delivered to the delivery box by a carrier [0015];
an access door (cover 110) configured to close the container [0016];
an electromechanical lock (cover lock 115; hook 118) comprising:
a bar (118; Fig 1 depicts 118 as a straight piece longer than it is wide used for fastening thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of bar and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term);
the electromechanical lock configured to lock the delivery box when the access door is closed [0018]; and
a switch (user interface 112; 112 is a device for making, breaking, or changing the connections in an electrical circuit thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 5a of switch and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) configured to deactivate the electromagnet [0020].
Ruth does not teach an electromagnetic lock comprising: an electromagnet configured to lock the delivery box when the access door is closed; wherein when the access door is closed and the bar is depressed from an interior, the bar pushes a lip portion into an activation area to activate the switch thereby breaking current to the electromagnetic lock which releases the electromagnetic lock.
Hunt teaches it is known in the art for a door release system (electromagnet 16; striker plate 18; release system 20; Fig 1) to comprise an electromagnetic lock (16; 18) comprising: a bar (touch bar 44); an electromagnet (16) configured to lock the delivery box when the access door is closed (col 3, lines 57-67 discusses 16 and 18 forming a lock between door 12 and door frame 14); a switch (micro-switch 52) configured to deactivate the electromagnet (col 4, lines 36-41), wherein when the access door is closed and the bar is depressed from an interior (movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts 44 depressed from an interior with force 56), the bar pushes a lip portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Hunt) into an activation area (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Hunt; movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts the lip portion pushed into an activation area) to activate the switch (col 4, lines 51-67) thereby breaking current to the electromagnetic lock which releases the electromagnetic lock (col 4, lines 36-41).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Hunt
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the electromechanical lock apparatus disclosed by Ruth with the electromagnetic lock apparatus disclosed by Hunt. The prior art contains a delivery and storage system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the electromechanical lock apparatus of Ruth) with another component (the electromagnetic lock apparatus of Hunt). Instant specification paragraph [0037] discusses various lock options of the delivery and storage system to be a mechanical lock, as taught by Brunner, US 7048312 B2, an electromagnetic lock, as taught by Hunt, or any other locking system, an electromechanical lock, as taught by Ruth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Ruth’s apparatus with Hunt’s in order to provide an easy to operate emergency exit capability to the delivery and storage system. As unattended purchased item deliveries have become more common, the size of items being delivered has increased resulting in in larger delivery and storage systems to accept the items. The larger delivery and storage systems are now large enough to accommodate a human which leads to safety concerns about accidental or malicious lock-in situations. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a delivery and storage system with an electromagnetic lock apparatus and bar activated internal release.
Regarding claim 2, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the delivery box of claim 1, wherein the delivery box (Ruth, 100) is further configured to: receive a request from a user to unlock the delivery box; and in response to validating that the request is received from an authenticated device or user, sending an unlock command to the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts an unlock request 213 [0040], the authentication and validate of that request [0041], followed by the unlock command 215 [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the delivery box of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic lock (Hunt, 16; 18) further comprises: a lever (Hunt, leaf spring 54) connected to the switch (Hunt, 52; Fig 2A), wherein the lever is configured to be positioned to receive a force from the bar (Hunt, 44) such that when the lever received the force from the bar, the switch is activated (movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts 54 mounted on 52 mounted on bar 44 receiving force 56 which activates 52; col 4, lines 51-67).
Regarding claim 4, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the delivery box of claim 1, wherein the electromagnet (Hunt, 16; 18) further includes a magnet element (Hunt, 16) that is configured to attract a metal piece (Hunt, 18; col 3, lines 57-67), and wherein the magnet element is connected directly to the access door (Hunt, 12; Fig 1) and the metal piece is connected to a container (Hunt; 14; 14 is a door frame into a room which could contain a delivery) such that when the magnet element attracts the metal piece the access door and container are connected and thus locked (col 3, lines 58-67; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; the court held mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification; Hunt teaches the magnet element mounted to the container and the metal piece mounted to the access door, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention the reversal of Hunt to mounting the magnet element to the access door and the metal piece to the container would function and operate in the same manner as the instant invention).
Regarding claim 5, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the delivery box of claim 1, further comprising a server (Ruth, delivery management server 252) that is configured to:
send, to a user device (Ruth, user device 250), a request based on delivery information (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of sending a close lid comment 203 request based on order delivery info 201);
request, from the user device, authorization for a carrier to access the interior of the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of issuing delivery notification 209 which serves a request for 250 to send unlock request 213 as authorization to access to allow 100 to be opened in order for 165 to be accessed); and
only in response to receiving authorization from the user device, sending an unlock command to the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of sending unlock command 215 in response to unlock request 213; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that any alternative authorizing commands would be specified in the command and resulting actions figures depicted in Ruth).
Regarding claim 6, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the delivery box of claim 1, wherein the electromagnet (Hunt, 16), bar (Hunt, 44) and switch (Hunt, 52) are all located in the access door (Hunt; 12; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; the court held mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification; Hunt teaches the electromagnet mounted to the container and the bar and switch located in the access door in the same manner as the instant invention, where instant figure 5A depicts the electromagnet and bar positioned on the exterior of the door with the switch positioned underneath the bar; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention the reversal of Hunt to mounting the electromagnet to the access door with the other component would function and operate in the same manner as the instant invention; Hunt, Fig 1 also depicts the reverse mounted electromagnet and bar with underlying switch mounted in the circumference of the access door).
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious by the prior art, therefore Ruth discloses a method comprising:
receiving a command (unlock command 215) to unlock a delivery box (package container 100; Fig 1), the delivery box comprising:
a container (body 105; cover 110) comprising an interior (cavity 165) configured to hold an item being delivered to the delivery box by a carrier [0015];
an access door (cover 110) configured to close the container [0016]; and
an electromechanical lock (cover lock 115; hook 118) comprising: a bar (118; Fig 1 depicts 118 as a straight piece longer than it is wide used for fastening thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of bar and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term); and a switch (user interface 112; 112 is a device for making, breaking, or changing the connections in an electrical circuit thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 5a of switch and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term),
in response to receiving the request, releasing the electromechanical lock [0042].
Ruth does not teach an electromagnetic lock comprising: a bar; an electromagnet; and a switch, in response to receiving the request, when the access door is closed and the bar is depressed from an interior, releasing the electromagnetic lock by the bar pushing a lip portion into an activation area to activate the switch thereby breaking current to the electromagnetic lock.
Hunt teaches it is known in the art for a door release system (electromagnet 16; striker plate 18; release system 20; Fig 1) which receives unlock commands (col 4, lines 51-67 discusses 44 receiving signal to actuate the release system thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster noun definition 1b of command and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) to comprise an electromagnetic lock (16; 18) comprising: a bar (touch bar 44); an electromagnet (16); and a switch (micro-switch 52), in response to receiving the request (col 4, lines 51-67), when the access door is closed (door 12) and the bar is depressed from an interior (movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts 44 depressed from an interior with force 56), releasing the electromagnetic lock by the bar pushing a lip portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Hunt) into an activation area (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Hunt; movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts the lip portion pushed into an activation area) to activate the switch (col 4, lines 51-67) thereby breaking current to the electromagnetic lock (col 4, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the electromechanical lock apparatus disclosed by Ruth with the electromagnetic lock apparatus disclosed by Hunt. The prior art contains a delivery and storage system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a component (the electromechanical lock apparatus of Ruth) with another component (the electromagnetic lock apparatus of Hunt). Instant specification paragraph [0037] discusses various lock options of the delivery and storage system to be a mechanical lock, as taught by Brunner, US 7048312 B2, an electromagnetic lock, as taught by Hunt, or any other locking system, an electromechanical lock, as taught by Ruth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Ruth’s apparatus with Hunt’s in order to provide an easy to operate emergency exit capability to the delivery and storage system. As unattended purchased item deliveries have become more common, the size of items being delivered has increased resulting in in larger delivery and storage systems to accept the items. The larger delivery and storage systems are now large enough to accommodate a human which leads to safety concerns about accidental or malicious lock-in situations. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a delivery and storage system with an electromagnetic lock apparatus and bar activated internal release.
Regarding claim 8, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the method of claim 7 (see Examiner’s Amendment), further comprising: receiving the request (Ruth, unlock request 213) from a user (Ruth, user device250) to unlock the delivery box (Ruth, 100); and in response to validating that the request is received from an authenticated device or user (Ruth, Fig2 depicts an authentication and validation occurring at receiving 213 [0041]), sending an unlock command (unlock commend 215) to the delivery box (Ruth, [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the method of claim 7 (see Examiner’s Amendment), wherein the electromagnetic lock (Hunt, 16; 18) further comprises: a lever (Hunt, leaf spring 54) connected to the switch (Hunt, 52; Fig 2A), wherein the lever is configured to be positioned to receive a force (Hunt, force 56) from the bar (Hunt, 44) such that when the lever received the force from the bar, the switch is activated (movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts 54 mounted on 52 mounted on bar 44 receiving force 56 which activates 52; col 4, lines 51-67).
Regarding claim 10, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the method of claim 7 (see Examiner’s Amendment), wherein the electromagnet (Hunt, 16; 18) further includes a magnet element (Hunt, 16) that is configured to attract a metal piece (Hunt, 18; col 3, lines 57-67), and wherein the magnet element is connected directly to the access door (Hunt, 12; Fig 1) and the metal piece is connected to a container (Hunt; 14; 14 is a door frame into a room which could contain a delivery) such that when the magnet element attracts the metal piece the access door and container are connected and thus locked (col 3, lines 58-67; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; the court held mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification; Hunt teaches the magnet element mounted to the container and the metal piece mounted to the access door, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention the reversal of Hunt to mounting the magnet element to the access door and the metal piece to the container would function and operate in the same manner as the instant invention).
Regarding claim 11, Ruth in view of Hunt teaches the method of claim 7 (see Examiner’s Amendment), further comprising:
sending, to a user device (Ruth, user device 250), a request based on delivery information (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of sending a close lid comment 203 request based on order delivery info 201);
requesting, from the user device, authorization for a carrier to access the interior of the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of issuing delivery notification 209 which serves a request for 250 to send unlock request 213 as authorization to access to allow 100 to be opened in order for 165 to be accessed); and
only in response to receiving authorization from the user device, sending an unlock command to the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of sending unlock command 215 in response to unlock request 213; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that any alternative authorizing commands would be specified in the command and resulting actions figures depicted in Ruth).
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt, US 9151096 B2, in view of Ruth, US 20200387863 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Hunt teaches an electromagnetic release mechanism (electromagnet 16; striker plate 18; release system 20; Fig 1) comprising:
a bar (touch bar 44);
an electromagnet lock (16; 18) configured to lock a delivery box (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection claim 1; 16;18 are structurally capable without modification of locking a delivery box comprising door frame 14, the door frame for a room which could accept a delivery and serve as a delivery box) when an access door (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection claim 1; door 12; Fig 1) is closed (col 3, lines 57-67); and
a switch (micro-switch 52) configured to deactivate the electromagnet lock (col 4, lines 36-41),
wherein when the access door is closed and the bar is depressed from an interior (movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts 44 depressed from an interior with force 56), the bar pushes a lip portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Hunt) into an activation area (see Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Hunt; movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts the lip portion pushed into an activation area) to activate the switch (col 4, lines 51-67) thereby breaking current to the electromagnetic release mechanism which releases the electromagnet lock (col 4, lines 36-41).
Hunt does not explicitly teach a delivery box with an access door.
Ruth teaches it is known in the art for a delivery box (package container 100; see Claim Interpretation) to comprise: a container (body 105; cover 110) comprising an interior (cavity 165) configured to hold an item being delivered to the delivery box by a carrier [0015]; an access door (cover 110) configured to close the container [0016]; an electromechanical lock (cover lock 115; hook 118) configured to lock the delivery box when the access door is closed [0018]; and an electronic controller (130) comprising a communications capability (Figs 2-4, [0022-0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the lock application structure of Hunt with the lock application structure of Ruth. The prior art contains a delivery and storage system which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a structure (the building access door securing a building delivery and storage room of Hunt) with another structure (the standalone delivery box of Rich). Various locks and application structures are known in the art such as the electromagnetic lock for building door, as taught by Hunt, the electromechanical lock for a standalone delivery box, as taught by Ruth, and the mechanical lock for a walk in cooking device, as taught by Brunner, US 7048312 B2. Instant specification paragraph [0037] discusses lock equivalents for the delivery and storage system such as a mechanical lock, taught by Brunner, an electromagnetic lock, taught by Hunt, or any other locking system, an electromechanical lock, as taught by Ruth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Hunt’s application structure with Ruth’s in order to expand market opportunities for their locking devices. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely an electromagnetic lock and release mechanism mounted on a standalone delivery box rather than on a building sized delivery area or box.
Regarding claim 13, Hunt in view of Ruth teaches the electromagnetic release mechanism of claim 12, wherein the delivery box (Ruth, 100) is further configured to: receive a request from a user to unlock the delivery box; and in response to validating that the request is received from an authenticated device or user, sending an unlock command to the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts an unlock request 213 [0040], the authentication and validate of that request [0041], followed by the unlock command 215 [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Hunt in view of Ruth teaches the electromagnetic release mechanism of claim 12, wherein the electromagnetic lock (Hunt, 16; 18) further comprises: a lever (Hunt, leaf spring 54) connected to the switch (Hunt, 52; Fig 2A), wherein the lever is configured to be positioned to receive a force from the bar (Hunt, 44) such that when the lever received the force from the bar, the switch is activated (movement from Fig 2B to Fig 3 depicts 54 mounted on 52 mounted on bar 44 receiving force 56 which activates 52; col 4, lines 51-67).
Regarding claim 15, Hunt in view of Ruth teaches the electromagnetic release mechanism of claim 12, wherein the electromagnet lock (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection claim 15) further includes a magnet element (Hunt, 16) that is configured to attract a metal piece (Hunt, 18; col 3, lines 57-67), and wherein the magnet element is connected directly to the access door (Hunt, 12; Fig 1) and the metal piece is connected to a container (Hunt; 14; 14 is a door frame into a room which could contain a delivery) such that when the magnet element attracts the metal piece the access door and container are connected and thus locked (col 3, lines 58-67; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; the court held mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification; Hunt teaches the magnet element mounted to the container and the metal piece mounted to the access door, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention the reversal of Hunt to mounting the magnet element to the access door and the metal piece to the container would function and operate in the same manner as the instant invention).
Regarding claim 16, Hunt is view of Ruth teaches the electromagnetic release mechanism of claim 12, further comprising a server (Ruth, delivery management server 252) that is configured to:
send, to a user device (Ruth, user device 250), a request based on delivery information (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of sending a close lid comment 203 request based on order delivery info 201);
request, from the user device, authorization for a carrier to access the interior of the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of issuing delivery notification 209 which serves a request for 250 to send unlock request 213 as authorization to access to allow 100 to be opened in order for 165 to be accessed); and
only in response to receiving authorization from the user device, sending an unlock command to the delivery box (Ruth, Fig 2 depicts 252 structurally capable without modification of sending unlock command 215 in response to unlock request 213; it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that any alternative authorizing commands would be specified in the command and resulting actions figures depicted in Ruth).
Regarding claim 17, Hunt in view of Ruth teaches the electromagnetic release mechanism of claim 12, wherein the electromagnet (Hunt, 16), bar (Hunt, 44) and switch (Hunt, 52) are all located in the access door (Hunt; 12; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; the court held mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification; Hunt teaches the electromagnet mounted to the container and the bar and switch located in the access door in the same manner as the instant invention, where instant figure 5A depicts the electromagnet and bar positioned on the exterior of the door with the switch positioned underneath the bar; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention the reversal of Hunt to mounting the electromagnet to the access door with the other component would function and operate in the same manner as the instant invention; Hunt, Fig 1 also depicts the reverse mounted electromagnet and bar with underlying switch mounted in the circumference of the access door).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for electromagnetic lock or delivery box apparatus
Gering et al, US 5429399 A, teaches an electronic delayed egress locking system with an electromagnetic lock, a bar, and switches.
Cook et al., US 4871204 A, teaches a touch bar release locking system with an electromagnetic lock, a bar, and switches.
DE 202011108901 U1 teaches a lock for compartment module lock including a child safety lock and pressure plate.
Vilkomirski et al., teaches an electrically and manually lockable container system with access door.
Wintersteiger, DE 102007035218 A1, teaches an electrically automated unlocking lock especially for locker-like storage systems with electromagnet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675