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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior rejection of 1-20 has been withdrawn.
The prior art rejection is modified as required to teach the amended limitations, as per arguments on pages 3-6, the references as combined do not teach the amended limitations regarding “real-time images or video … to enable a user to remotely view …” etc.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). (as per page 5)
The different references applied are used to teach each distinct portion of the claimed invention, in the dependent claims, since each is drawn to a separate portion of the invention. Furthermore, KENNETT (US 11369222 B2) implicitly discloses (c.10, l.18-22) the function of “receive and display the real-time images or video from the internal camera to enable a user to remotely view the contents within the housing” – given that a PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art) would understand that the video camera 270 operates using video images/data to identify an object wherein such video can be communicated to external device 173, such that a user can view the contents within the housing remotely. A PHOSITA understands that at least implicitly, internal cameras, such as video camera 270 are not limited to only obtain video, but could also obtain other visual data to communicate for user operations.
Additionally, the amended limitation “wherein the software application provides a user interface for live viewing of the contents during transit” claims that at least another user interface is used for live viewing of the contents during transit. Also the amended limitation does not explicitly require a specific camera for live viewing of the contents.
Applicant is reminded that a BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) is applied using what a PHOSITA would know at the time of filing of the invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KENNETT (US 11369222 B2) in view of WILKINSON (US 20150102903 A1) further in view of RICHARDSON et al. (US 11759040 B2) and further in view of LI et al. (CN 222382387 U).
Re claim 1. KENNETT discloses (abstract) a smart pod system (FIG.1-10) comprising:
a housing 110/120;
a power supply (batteries or solar power) disposed within or on the exterior of the housing; (c.8, l.11-16)
an electronic locking mechanism 160/163 disposed on the housing;
at least one sensor (c.8, l.17-34) disposed on the housing, the at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a motion sensor 221, a microphone 230, and a camera 220; (FIG.5)
an internal camera 270 disposed within the housing (internal facing camera added to detect presence of object inside container), the internal camera configured to capture real-time images or video (i.e. real-time images would be capable of being obtained given that the camera is used to identify presence of a delivered object, such that real-time is interpreted to read on identifying a visual presence at the time of delivery of object) of the contents within the housing;
a wireless communication module 165 disposed within or on the exterior of the housing, the wireless communication module configured to transmit data (c.9, l.29-36), including the real-time images or video captured by the internal camera, to an external device 173;
a control unit 168 disposed within the housing (c.9, l.9-14 – i.e. a control unit such as a processor would be implicitly understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to control various elements of the system – given that the concept of controlling elements is provided disclosed); and
receive and display the real-time images or video from the internal camera to enable a user to remotely view the contents within the housing (c.10, l.18-22 – as explained above, implicitly the video camera 270 functions as an internal camera to obtain video data from interior of housing and any contents within could be viewed by an user operating an external device 173).
However, KENNETT fails to explicitly disclose:
the control unit operatively connected to the electronic locking mechanism, the at least one sensor, the internal camera, and the wireless communication module.
One of ordinary skill in the art understands the need to properly control various elements of a smart pod system, given that each element needs to operate properly in conjunction with each other.
KENNETT clearly suggests (c.2, l.61 – c.3, l.9) the use of a control circuit used to control a lockable access portal.
WILKINSON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention for a secure delivery receptacle (FIG.1) which uses a control unit 104 for controlling [0021-0025] all other elements/units, such as locking mechanism 103, RFID-tag reader 106, wireless-communication interface 107, optional video component 109, movement detector 110, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a control unit as taught by WILKINSON to control all necessary elements of the system of KENNETT in order to have a main controller unit to properly operate each unit’s functions as needed, given that this modification would yield predictable results.
Both, KENNETT (c.3, l.56 – c.4, l.12) and WILKINSON (FIG.1, [0046] – user interface 113) at least suggest a user interface on the housing for user interaction, including touch screens.
However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
a user interface disposed on the housing, the user interface comprising a touch screen and biometric authentication devices; and
a software application executable on the external device, the software application configured to interact with the smart pod system via the wireless communication module to control the electronic locking mechanism, access data from the at least one sensor and the internal camera, and manage user authentication via the biometric authentication devices.
RICHARDSON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention a storage box locking system (FIG.1), operating with various components (FIG.2) including user interface 214 which functions as a user controlling unit (c.9, l.9-30), wherein such user interface includes a touch screen and a biometric input device. Furthermore, RICHARDSON teaches (c.5, l.16-41) a software application executable on an external device 130 used to communicate directly to a wireless communication module of system (FIG.2) and perform control functions (c.9, l.9-30) by way of user interface 214, including functions such as locking control (c.7, l.41-57), accessing data from sensors (c.5, l.27-41) and user biometric authentication (c.9, l.9-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a user interface and software application executable on an external device as taught by RICHARDSON to interact with the various elements of the system of KENNETT and WILKINSON in order to obtain a means of operating the smart pod system with proper user authentication and perform remote/wireless communication with system facilitating a user operation from different locations.
However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the software application provides a user interface for live viewing of the contents during transit.
LI teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a pet delivery box capable of live monitoring of internal contents, in this case, an animal, during transit within shipping box.
PHOSITA would understand LI clearly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that a shipping box being delivered to a specific location could be equipped with an inner camera 2 installed within box walls, serves as a means to provide user interface for live viewing of contents during transit for the purpose of monitoring and protecting internal contents, in this particular case an animal such as a pet.
Abstract
The utility model claims a pet shipping box capable of monitoring pet information, relating to the technical field of shipping box, comprising a shipping box, the inner wall of the shipping box is fixedly installed with a plurality of cameras, the top part of the inner wall of the shipping box is fixedly installed with a sensor, the inner part of the shipping box corresponding to the sensor is fixedly installed with a sound box, the inner wall of the supporting box corresponding to the sensor is fixedly installed with a control, the inner wall of the supporting box is provided with a plurality of ventilation groove, the inner part of the supporting box corresponding to the ventilation groove is provided with a mounting groove, the inner wall of the mounting groove is fixedly installed with a battery, the inner wall of the supporting box is provided with a placing groove, the outer surface of the shipping box is fixedly installed with two fixing blocks, the inner parts of the two fixing blocks pass through the moving groove, the inner wall of the moving groove is provided with a connecting rod, the two ends of the connecting rod are fixedly installed with moving plates, one side of the two moving plates close to each other is fixedly installed with a handle, The host can monitor the health state of the pet in real time through the monitoring terminal, which greatly relieves the anxiety of the host.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt an internal camera to an inner wall of a delivery container as taught by LI, to operate in combination with a user interface of software application in order to obtain a means to view internal contents during transit of any delivery package/container not limited to shipment of animals.
Re claim 2. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the power supply comprises at least one solar panel disposed on the exterior of the housing.
RICHARDSON further teaches (c.16, l.44-51) using a solar panel 221, placed on an exterior of the housing (FIG.3) adapted for recharging a rechargeable battery (claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solar panel for recharging the battery as taught by RICHARDSON for the system of KENNETT in order to simplify the recharging operation.
Re claim 4. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor further comprises a 360-degree external camera disposed on the exterior of the housing.
The use of a 360-degree external camera rather than fixed camera would have been a predictable modification – since a 360-degree external camera has known advantages such as the ability the view more of an exterior area to capture more visual data, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.
Re claim 5. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the user interface further comprises an ID reader configured to scan identification credentials.
RICHARDSON further teaches (c.12, l.16-29) using an ID reader 241 to scan user credentials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ID reader as taught by RICHARDSON in order to properly authenticate a delivery person.
Re claim 6. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the biometric authentication devices are selected from the group consisting of a fingerprint scanner, a facial recognition scanner, and a retinal scanner.
RICHARDSON further teaches (c.9, l.9-20) biometric authentication devices can be selected from among a fingerprint scanner, an iris scanner, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fingerprint scanner or an iris scanner as taught by RICHARDSON in order to properly authenticate using different biometrics.
Re claim 7. KENNETT discloses (claim 1) the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the electronic locking mechanism is configured to be remotely controlled via the software application.
Re claim 8. KENNETT discloses (c.9, l.45-52) the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication module supports connectivity options selected from the group consisting of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
Re claim 10. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the control unit further comprises an audible alarm system configured to emit a sound when unauthorized access is detected.
RICHARDSON further teaches (c.10, l.15-30) wherein the control unit further comprises an audible alarm system 242 configured to emit a sound when unauthorized access is detected (i.e. audible alarms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adding an audible alarm system as taught by RICHARDSON in order to inform users/owners about a potential unauthorized access.
Re claim 11. KENNETT discloses (c.8, l.53-59) the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is operatively connected to a global positioning system (GPS) module configured to track the location of the smart pod.
Re claim 12. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, further comprising an LED alert light disposed on the exterior of the housing, the LED alert light configured to indicate the status of the electronic locking mechanism.
RICHARDSON further teaches (c.10, l.53-67) an LED alert light disposed on the smart pod configured to indicate a status of parcel box (i.e. which could include locking operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using an LED alert light as taught by RICHARDSON in order to inform users/owners about a locking or unlocking operation.
Re claim 13. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the internal camera is configured to capture high-definition images or video.
The use of configuring the camera to capture high-definition images or video for the camera instead of using normal definition, would have been a predictable modification for the purpose of obtaining clear visual data of deliveries and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.
Re claim 14. KENNETT discloses (c.9, l.4-14) the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the control unit includes a microcontroller and onboard firmware memory.
Re claim 15. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the software application is configured to provide real-time notifications to users regarding the status and security of the smart pod.
RICHARDSON further teaches (c.19, l.16-25) a configuration to provide real-time notifications to owners regarding the status and security of a parcel box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the smart pod to provide real-time notifications as taught by RICHARDSON in order to inform users/owners about a delivery.
Re claim 18. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the software application is configured to interact with the smart pod system via a cloud-based network.
The use of a cloud-based network for communication functions, would have been a predictable modification for the purpose of improving potential problems in wireless communication and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.
Re claim 20. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the software application is further configured to store and analyze historical data related to the smart pod's usage and security events.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that keeping a record of historical data and processing such data, such as analyzing historical data, would help provide the smart pod system a means of keeping track of operational status. The external device 173 would be able to provide more accurate status updates to a user, by way of using historical data.
KENNETT further suggests (c.2, l.58-60) recording data related to operation of the system.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of storing and analyzing historical data related to the smart pod's usage and security events. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to give the user more detailed information on the status of smart pod system, using such collected historical data.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KENNETT (US 11369222 B2) in view of WILKINSON (US 20150102903 A1) in view of RICHARDSON et al. (US 11759040 B2) in view of LI et al. (CN 222382387 U) and further in view of SONZA et al. (US 20230111696 A1).
Re claim 3. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON and LI fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 2, wherein the power supply further comprises an onboard battery selected from the group consisting of a lithium-ion battery and a nickel-metal hydride battery.
SONZA teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, rechargeable batteries including lithium-ion Li-ion or nickel-metal hydride NiMH [0101].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using one of the batteries taught by SONZA for the system of KENNETT. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to try using lithium-ion Li-ion or nickel-metal hydride NiMH for the rechargeable battery.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KENNETT (US 11369222 B2) in view of WILKINSON (US 20150102903 A1) in view of RICHARDSON et al. (US 11759040 B2) in view of LI et al. (CN 222382387 U) and further in view of KLEIN (US 11773624 B2).
Re claim 9. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON and LI fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the housing is constructed from a tamper-proof material selected from the group consisting of stainless steel and fiberglass-reinforced plastic.
KLEIN teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a safe material, including stainless steel and fiberglass-reinforced plastic, being among the materials selected to make the safe.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using one of these materials taught by KLEIN. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to try using either material taught for the housing of the smart pod.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KENNETT (US 11369222 B2) in view of WILKINSON (US 20150102903 A1) in view of RICHARDSON et al. (US 11759040 B2) in view of LI et al. (CN 222382387 U) and further in view of SOMERS et al. (US 11272145 B2).
Re claim 16. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON and LI fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, further comprising an anti-theft tracking chip disposed within the housing, the anti-theft tracking chip configured to provide real-time location updates.
SOMERS teaches (abstract) in a related field, using an anti-theft monitor for tracking and monitoring cargo containers during transport in order to remotely monitor the location of the container (c.1, l.12-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adding an anti-theft tracking chip as taught by SOMERS for the purpose of monitoring any theft activity of the smart pod.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KENNETT (US 11369222 B2) in view of WILKINSON (US 20150102903 A1) in view of RICHARDSON et al. (US 11759040 B2) in view of LI et al. (CN 222382387 U) and further in view of BIRIUK et al. (US 20230264833 A1).
Re claim 17. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON and LI fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, wherein the housing further comprises internal foam cushions configured to protect the contents of the smart pod during transit.
BIRIUK teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, [0038] a package system wherein foam cushion is placed inside a container to protect devices.
The use of internal foam cushions configured to protect the contents, would have been a predictable modification for the purpose of preventing damage of interior contents of a smart pod and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KENNETT (US 11369222 B2) in view of WILKINSON (US 20150102903 A1) in view of RICHARDSON et al. (US 11759040 B2) in view of LI et al. (CN 222382387 U) and further in view of MCGILL et al. (US 4688023 A).
Re claim 19. However, KENNETT as modified by WILKINSON and RICHARDSON and LI fails to explicitly disclose:
the smart pod system of claim 1, further comprising a manual override switch disposed on the exterior of the housing, the manual override switch configured to allow manual access to the contents of the smart pod.
MCGILL teaches (abstract) in a related field of invention, the concept of using a manual override switch to operate an open position of a container.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of using a manual override switch for the purpose of manually operating an unlocking function of a smart pod locking mechanism, such as during an emergency.
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 CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 2/19/2026