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 .
Priority
Application 18/760,016 was filed on July 1, 2024 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-110008, filed on July 4, 2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending. Claim 1 was amended and claims 5 and 6 were added in the reply filed May 27, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections made to claims 3 and 4 and they are withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Remarks p. 4). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited limitations do not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field nor do they use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed sensors appear to be generic sensors, used for detecting packages and described a high-level of detail. Furthermore, the sensors are only used to gather data for the “processing circuitry”, which appears to be a generic computer, also described at a high-level of detail. As such, the inclusion of sensors does not meaningfully limit the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) or provide an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)) and the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, managing a delivery box located at a predetermined receiving station,
store a package,
lock and unlock a corresponding one of the storage sections,
detect whether the package is stored in a corresponding one of the storage sections,
determining whether a replacement execution condition is satisfied, the replacement execution condition being satisfied when a number of the storage sections occupied by packages in the delivery box located at the receiving station is less than or equal to a predetermined number;
and when the replacement execution condition is satisfied, sending to an operator an instruction to replace an old delivery box, which is the delivery box located at the receiving station, with a new delivery box.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, managing replacement of delivery boxes is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes paragraph [0024] where a user is a customer receiving a package.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: processing circuitry and a terminal. These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a delivery box including storage sections, locks and sensors. These additional elements are described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., delivery receptacles for receiving and storing packages).
Additionally, the limitations of “the sensors each configured to detect whether the package is stored in a corresponding one of the storage sections” and “based on a signal received from the sensors”, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity) such as mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and (iii) and add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, such as mere data gathering) to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. With respect to the extra-solution activity of “the sensors each configured to detect whether the package is stored in a corresponding one of the storage sections” and “based on a signal received from the sensors”, the sensor is a “non-contact type” sensor recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Examiner notes that paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s specification, as well as figures 3 and 4, generically disclose the sensor at a high-level of generality demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the one sensor.
Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-6, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Examiner notes the last limitation of claim 3 is broad enough to encompass a person following received instruction (e.g., a lock information); therefore, it’s still part of an abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-6 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0190054 to Perez et al. (Perez) in view of NPL “What is the Right Size for a Residential Building Parcel Locker?” to Ranjbari et al. (Ranjbari) and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,526,838 to Sethuraman et al. (Sethuraman).
As to claim 1, Perez teaches, the delivery box including storage sections, locks and sensors, the storage sections each configured to store a package, the locks each configured to lock and unlock a corresponding one of the storage sections, the sensors each configured to detect whether the package is stored in a corresponding one of the storage sections, (“The mobile locker bank 114, according to particular embodiments, includes a plurality of lockers 124 of varying sizes (e.g., small, medium, large, etc.) …” and “… In particular embodiments, the locking mechanisms are respectively controlled by the fixed locker bank computer 108 and the mobile locker bank computer 112, which may, for example, require an access code (e.g., a PIN, an alphanumeric code, QR code, linear barcode, Maxi code, etc.) in order to unlock a particular locker …” and “… Likewise, the locker is considered unoccupied when the same locker is opened a second time or a sensor provides data that the locker is empty” [0038-0039 and 0048 and 0061-0062]),
determining, with processing circuitry, based on a signal received from the sensors, whether a replacement execution condition is satisfied (“Referring to FIG. 5, when executing the capacity determination module 500, the system (e.g., the one or more locker bank computers 112) begins, in various embodiments, at Step 510, by monitoring the number of lockers at a locker bank that is positioned at a first location and determine when/if the number of available lockers drops below a first predetermined threshold level …” [0059-0062]);
and when the replacement execution condition is satisfied, sending, with the processing circuitry, to a terminal of an operator an instruction to [extend] an old delivery box, which is the delivery box located at the receiving station, with a new delivery box (“Continuing to Step 520, in response to determining that the number of available lockers at the locker bank has dropped below a first predetermined threshold level, the system routes a mobile locker bank to the first location to accept additional items …” [0065-0066]).
While Perez teaches extending a delivery box located at the receiving station with a new delivery box, Perez does not teach, replacing a delivery box located at the receiving station with a new delivery box. However, Ranjbari teaches, replacing a delivery box located at the receiving station with a new delivery box (“Locker companies usually offer a modular system of towers. The locker system can be modified to achieve the desired configuration by (i) changing the overall size through adding or removing towers, and/or (ii) swapping towers for others with a different combination of small, medium, and large cells” [ p. 1404 (Results)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine replacing a delivery box located at the receiving station with a new delivery box, as taught by Ranjbari, with the delivery box extension of Perez. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ranjbari that doing so would meet delivery demand while minimizing costs and contributing to environmental benefits [p. 1397 (Abstract)].
Perez in view of Ranjbari does not teach, the replacement execution condition being satisfied when a number of the storage sections occupied by packages in the delivery box located at the receiving station is less than or equal to a predetermined number. However, Sethuraman teaches, the replacement execution condition being satisfied when a number of the storage sections occupied by packages in the delivery box located at the receiving station is less than or equal to a predetermined number (“… For example, if the current capacity of that portion of the delivery locker indicates that the reservation capacity has not been met (e.g., that the portion currently has less than the maximum number packages in it or the percentage of space reserved has not been filled), then the system may indicate to the user that the package delivery request can be accommodated …” [col. 3, line 58 – col. 4, line 21]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the replacement execution condition being satisfied when a number of the storage sections occupied by packages in the delivery box located at the receiving station is less than or equal to a predetermined number, as taught by Sethuraman with the delivery box extension of Perez in view of Ranjbari. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Sethuraman that doing so would result in a more efficient use of locker space and increased customer satisfaction [col. 2, lines 50-52].
As to claim 2, Perez in view of Ranjbari and in further view of Sethuraman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Perez further teaches, wherein a number of empty storage sections in the new delivery box is greater than or equal to the predetermined number (“… The system (e.g., the one or more servers 104) may then determine that there is an available locker in the mobile locker bank 114 …” [0090] Examiner notes that determining if there is an available locker, as taught by Perez, includes determining that at least one locker (i.e., a predetermined number of storage sections) is empty).
As to claim 3, Perez in view of Ranjbari and in further view of Sethuraman teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Perez further teaches, temporarily granting, with the processing circuitry, lock information of the old delivery box to the operator who replaces the old delivery box with the new delivery box (“…The personnel may be provided an access code to gain access to one or more lockers in the locker bank …” and “… providing an access code to the at least one of the driver and agent, wherein the access code enables the at least one of the driver and agent to gain access to one or more lockers in the mobile locker bank” [0021 and claim 36]),
wherein the locks are configured to be unlocked through authentication of the lock information (“The one or more lockers 120 of the fixed locker bank 110 and the one or more lockers of the mobile locker bank each comprise at least one locking mechanism for maintaining the at least one door in a closed position …” [0048]).
As to claim 4, Perez in view of Ranjbari and in further view of Sethuraman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Perez further teaches, sending, with the processing circuitry, to the terminal of the operator an instruction to move the old delivery box from the receiving station to a delivery base (“… In other embodiments, the system (e.g., the one or more servers 104) may instead determine that the items stored in a locker in the mobile locker bank should remain in the mobile locker bank and be moved to a new location …” [0085]);
and notifying, with the processing circuitry, a recipient of the package that is still stored in the old delivery box that the package is at the delivery base (“… In this case, the system may unlink the database associated with the mobile locker bank and the fixed locker bank and update information (e.g., tracking information) associated with the item to include new location information as to where the mobile locker bank will be located” [0085]).
As to claim 6, Perez in view of Ranjbari and in further view of Sethuraman teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Perez in view of Ranjbari does not teach, wherein the replacement execution condition includes that a receiving period has elapsed. However, Sethuraman teaches, wherein the replacement execution condition includes that a receiving period has elapsed (“… The historical locker data 136 may include a historical dwell time for packages delivered to the preferred delivery locker 134 and/or the additional locker(s) …” [col. 13, line 29 – col. 14, line 9]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the replacement execution condition includes that a receiving period has elapsed, as taught by Sethuraman with the delivery box extension of Perez in view of Ranjbari. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Sethuraman that doing so would result in a more efficient use of locker space and increased customer satisfaction [col. 2, lines 50-52].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Available prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach all of the claim limitations in claim 5. The following is the closest prior art:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0190054 to Perez et al. (Perez). Perez teaches, a mobile locker bank that includes a plurality of lockers of varying sizes (e.g., small, medium, large, etc.).
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0027261 to Motoyama (Motoyama). Motoyama teaches, determining a first plurality of locker compartments that are available for storing items at a first locker facility based on the measurements of the lockers and whether or not the lockers are empty.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0370744 to Fee et al. (Fee). Fee teaches, system for securely delivering packages of at least two different sizes that includes installing an array of lockers of at least two different sizes and optimizing the ratio of lockers of each size to maximize usage of lockers of appropriate size in the array.
NPL “Optimizing the changing locations of mobile parcel lockers in last-mile distribution” to Schwerdfeger et al. (Schwerdfeger). Schwerdfeger teaches, mobile parcel lockers that are able to change their locations during the day in order to optimize parcel delivery to customers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628