DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-24 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-19, drawn to a mailbox, classified in A47G29/12.
Claims 20-24, drawn to a method of delivering a parcel, classified in G06Q10/083.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of group I and group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the process as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product such as a secured area of the house including a gated backyard or a garage.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Nicholas Kocent on 07/07/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richardson et al. [US 20170286905].
As to claim 1. Richardson discloses An electronic mailbox for receiving parcels comprising a rigid structure wherein said mailbox comprises:
a visual recognition and identification code of the electronic mailbox, [fig. 2, 0052] identifier 215 in the form of visible machine readable code;
an internal cavity for storing parcels, [0032] storage compartment;
a first door of the internal cavity, configured to open and close, by means of electronic opening and closing means, [0033];
a communication module comprising a signal receiver, configured to receive wireless signals, [figs. 1, 2, 0018, 0030] communication module 112, 212;
a geolocation device configured to detect the location of the mailbox, [fig. 2, 0040] location system 224; and
an electronic control processor, [fig. 2, 0031] electronic circuitry 254, connected to the opening and closing means of the first door and to the communication module, [0031, 0045] performs functions of the box 210;
wherein the control processor is configured to activate the electronic opening means of the first door when the signal receiver receives an activation signal, [0049, 0070, 0071].
As to claim 4. Richardson discloses The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels, according to claim 1, wherein the signal receiver is configured to receive wireless signals selected from laser, radio frequency, Bluetooth, WIFI signals, and a combination of the above, [0030, 0056].
As to claim 6. Richardson discloses The electronic mailbox-for receiving parcels, according to claim 1, wherein the communication module comprises a signal emitter configured to emit wireless signals, selected from laser, radio frequency, Bluetooth, WIFI signals, and a combination of the above, [0030, 0056].
As to claim 8. Richardson discloses The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels according to claim 1, wherein the rigid structure of the mailbox is fixed, [0057], said rigid structure being rigidly attached to an external support, [0057]; wherein the external support is the façade and/or the rooftop of a building, [0057] a wall.
As to claim 16. Richardson discloses The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of individual internal cavities for storing parcels, [0032] the box includes one or more compartments; wherein each cavity comprises a third door for individual access to said internal cavity, [0032] each compartment includes a locking feature, [0033] with one or more doors.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Sagalovich [US 20210364632].
As to claim 7. Richardson fails to disclose The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels according to claim 1, wherein the geolocation device comprises a location system using RTK technology.
Sagalovich teaches a system and method that implements RTK in a mailbox, [0039].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Richardson with that of Sagalovich so that the system can provide a reliable location data.
Claim(s) 10-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Hejazi [US 9990684].
As to claim 10. Richardson fails to disclose The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels according to claim 1, wherein the rigid structure of the mailbox is moveable; and the mailbox comprises movement means connected to said rigid structure, wherein said means are configured to physically move the rigid structure upon being activated.
Hejazi teaches a mailbox for automated parcel carriers comprising a receptacle 5 that is an enclosed box, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 33-36], and is attached to a building, [fig. 7]; wherein the receptacle is attached to rails and is movable using the rails, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 44-50], when initiated, [fig. 11].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Richardson with that of Hejazi so that the system can implement the parcel box of Richardson to deliver parcel to a plurality of user boxes.
As to claim 11. Richardson fails to disclose The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels, according to claim 10, wherein the mailbox comprises a moveable frame comprising the internal cavity of the mailbox, and movement means connected to said moveable frame, wherein said means are configured to physically move the moveable frame with respect to the rigid structure of the mailbox upon being activated.
Hejazi teaches a mailbox for automated parcel carriers comprising a receptacle 5 that is an enclosed box, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 33-36], and is attached to a building, [fig. 7]; wherein the receptacle is attached to and is movable using transport means, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 34-50], when initiated, [fig. 11].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Richardson with that of Hejazi so that the system can implement the parcel box of Richardson to deliver parcel to a plurality of user boxes.
As to claim 12. Richardson fails to disclose The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels according to claim 11, wherein the mailbox comprises a second door; and wherein the moveable frame is configured to be extracted and inserted into an interior of the rigid, fixed structure through said second door.
Hejazi teaches a mail port for automated parcel carriers comprising a receptacle 5 that is an enclosed box, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 33-36], and is attached to a building, [fig. 7]; wherein the receptacle is attached to and is movable using transport means, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 34-50], when initiated, [fig. 11]; wherein the receptacle is moved between a designated collection location 3 integrated within the mail port and having an access door 7, [figs. 7, 8, col. 6, lines 44-64].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Richardson with that of Hejazi so that the system can implement the parcel box of Richardson to deliver parcel to a plurality of user boxes using available and widely used moving mechanisms.
As to claim 13. Richardson fails to disclose The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels according to claim 11, wherein the movement means comprise at least one rail and rolling elements connected to the internal cavity, moveable along said rail.
Hejazi teaches a mailbox for automated parcel carriers comprising a receptacle 5 that is an enclosed box, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 33-36], and is attached to a building, [fig. 7]; wherein the receptacle is attached to and is movable using transport means, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 34-50], when initiated, [fig. 11].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Richardson with that of Hejazi so that the system can implement available parcel boxes as the movement receptacle.
As to claim 14. Richardson fails to disclose The electronic mailbox4 for receiving parcels, according to claim 11, wherein the electronic control processor is configured to activate the movement means when the signal receiver receives an activation signal of said means.
Hejazi teaches a mailbox for automated parcel carriers comprising a receptacle 5 that is an enclosed box, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 33-36], and is attached to a building, [fig. 7]; wherein the receptacle is attached to and is movable using transport means, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 34-50], when initiated, [fig. 11]; wherein the control and operation of the system is performed by a controller [col. 8, lines 16-47].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Richardson with that of Hejazi so that the system can automate and adjust the control of the system for any changes that might be needed in the future by modifying the control algorithms.
As to claim 17. Richardson discloses The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels, according to claim 16, wherein the mailbox comprises a single first door for access to the plurality of internal cavities comprised in said mailbox, [0032].
Richardson fails to disclose wherein the plurality of internal cavities are communicated by a movement system configured to move parcels between said plurality of individual cavities.
Hejazi teaches a mailbox for automated parcel carriers comprising a receptacle 5 that is an enclosed box, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 33-36], and is attached to a building, [fig. 7]; wherein the receptacle is attached to and is movable using transport means, [fig. 3, col. 6, lines 34-50], when initiated, [fig. 11]; wherein the receptacle 5 moves packages though a plurality of receptacles 3, 4, [fig. 3; col. 6, lines 33-36].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Richardson with that of Hejazi so that packages can be received at a fixed location and transported to the specific user’s receptacle.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Hejazi as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Siewert [US 10501205].
As to claim 15. The combination of Richardson and Hejazi fails to disclose The electronic mailbox for receiving parcels, according to claim 11, wherein the movement means are configured to move the internal cavity of the mailbox along a facade of a building.
Siewert teaches a drone delivery interface to receive a package P from drones and transport the package carrying locker 70 to a required location using a movement mechanism 50 attached to the side of a house H, [figs. 1, 5; col. 7, line 51- col. 8, line 10].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Richardson and Hejazi with that of Seiwert so that the system can be added to an already built buildings without requiring significant modification to the building.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688