DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12, change “slidably” to --slidable--;
Claim 1, line 15, change “process” to --system--;
Claim 1, line 16, change second recitation of “a” to --the--; and
Claim 4, line 5, change “magnet” to --magnetic--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 18, the phrase “at least one of an ultraviolet light source, a chemical, or both” is contradictory with respect to the quantity of decontamination systems being claimed.
The following changes would receive favorable consideration:
claim 1, line 18, after “of” insert --the following:--, change first recitation of “,” to --and-- and delete “, or both”.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
In claim 9, line 2, the phrase “at least one” contradicts the phrase “a combination thereof” later recited in claim 9, line 7, thereby rendering the claim unclear as to quantity of the status being sent to the remote user.
The following changes would receive favorable consideration:
Claim 9, line 2, after “of” insert --the following:--;
Claim 9, line 5, after “;” insert --and--; and
Claim 9, lines 6-7, delete “; or a combination thereof”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatschet (US#12256859) in view of Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753).
Regarding claim 1, Gatschet discloses A secure box 10 for receiving packages through a wall 65 comprising: enclosure 15 including a top-side, a bottom-side, a front-side, a back-side, a right-side and a left-side, positioned together to define an interior space 85, wherein the top-side is substantially parallel to the bottom-side, the right-side and is sustainably parallel to the left-side, the front-side is substantially perpendicular to the top-side and to the bottom-side; a front door 40, in a closed position, forms part of the front-side, the front door having at least one hinge 45 allowing it to move to an open position by swinging outward to access the interior space; a back door 75 forming part of the back-side, the back door 75 having at least one hinge 45 allowing it to move between a first position, which is closed, and a second position, which is open, allowing access to the interior space; a package sensor 55 to sense a package placed through the front door to initiate a decontamination process (col. 6, lines 40-52); and a controller 150 communicatively coupled to the package sensor to control a decontamination system for decontaminating the package which has been sensed, the decontamination system includes an ultraviolet light source 105 (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 1, although Gatschet fails to disclose the top-side is shorter in length than the bottom-side, and the back-side is slanted from the bottom-side to the top-side with a first acute angle between the top-side and a second acute angle at the bottom-side, the specific shape of the box is not disclosed as a critical features of the applicant’s invention. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the Gatschet box such the top-side was shorter in length than the bottom-side, and the back-side was slanted from the bottom-side to the top-side with a first acute angle between the top-side and a second acute angle at the bottom-side to reduce overall dimensions and weight thereof as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 1, Gatschet discloses the back door 75 is hingeably 45 movable between a first closed position and a second open position as opposed to being horizontally slidable therebetween. However, as evidenced by Eveloff, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see secure box 102 having a door 104 which can be hinged or slidable between closed and open positions ([0034]). Therefore, as evidenced by Eveloff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gatschet by replacing its hinged back door with a slidable back door. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the slidable back door would reduce the interior building space consumed by the back door during operation. Further, Eveloff explicitly teaches a hinged door and horizontally sliding door as art recognized equivalents, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 3, although Gatschet discloses a front door release (i.e. lock) is communicatively coupled to the controller to unlock the front door (col. 6, lines 40-52), Gatschet fails to disclose the door release being a magnetic door release. However, as evidenced by Eveloff, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see secure box 102 with a magnetic door release 304 ([0037], electro-magnetic) which is communicatively coupled to the controller 302 to unlock the door 104. Therefore, as evidence by Eveloff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gatschet by replacing its door release (i.e. lock) with a magnetic door release. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the magnetic door release would provide an effective, automated locking means.
Regarding claim 4, Gatschet as modified by Eveloff discloses the controller is communicatively coupled to the magnet front door release (see claim 3 analysis above). Gatschet fails to disclose the following: a camera disposed on the front-side and communicatively coupled to the controller for capturing photographs and live video; a bar code software module for reading a bar code from the photograph captured by the camera; a package delivery confirmation software module for comparing the bar code read from the photograph with a list of packages scheduled to be delivered; and in response to the bar code matching a package in the list of packages scheduled to be delivered, the magnetic front door release is unlocked.
However, as evidenced by Eveloff, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0070]-[0074] and Fig. 5 wherein secure box 102 includes a camera 314 disposed on the front-side and communicatively coupled to the controller 302 for capturing photographs and live video; a bar code software module for reading a bar code from the photograph captured by the camera (STEP 502, [0070], “The DP may enter the package identifier or present a barcode on the package for scanning by the exterior-facing user interface camera 314”); a package delivery confirmation software module for comparing the bar code read from the photograph with a list of packages scheduled to be delivered (STEP 504, [0070], “The access control system then validates the provided identifier information against the information provided by Carrier X”); and in response to the bar code matching a package in the list of packages scheduled to be delivered, the magnetic front door release is unlocked (STEP 506, [0074], “If the entered/presented identification information indicates that the delivery is valid (STEP 506), then the SR opens the lockable access panel (AP)”.
Therefore, as evidenced by Eveloff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gatschet by including: a camera disposed on the front-side and communicatively coupled to the controller for capturing photographs and live video; a bar code software module for reading a bar code from the photograph captured by the camera; a package delivery confirmation software module for comparing the bar code read from the photograph with a list of packages scheduled to be delivered; and in response to the bar code matching a package in the list of packages scheduled to be delivered, the magnetic front door release is unlocked. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a cooperating camera, controller, bar code software module, and package delivery confirmation software module to operate the magnetic front door release would enhance the security of the secure box.
Regarding claim 8, Gatschet discloses at least one auxiliary camera 115 (video camera) communicatively coupled to the controller 150 over a wired interface (Fig. 6) for capturing photographs and live video.
Regarding claim 9, Gatschet discloses wherein the controller further comprising: an Internet port (outputs, col. 5, line 66, to col. 6, line 9) for sending status to a remote user via transmitters 155 and/or 160 for at least one of the front-door open; the rear-door open; a package sensed within the interior space; a status of the decontamination system; or a combination thereof (col. 6, lines 49-52, “the authorized user is notified of the delivery via the main controller 150 through the Wi-Fi transmitter 155 or the cellular transmitter 160”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatschet (US#12256859) in view of Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753), and further in view of O’Rourke et al. (US#2022/0028192).
Regarding claim 2, Gatschet discloses wherein each of the bottom-side, the front-side, the back-side, the right-side, and the left-side include an interior surface forming the interior space. Gatschet fails to disclose at least a portion of the interior surfaces include a reflective surface for reflecting ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source into the interior space. However, as evidenced by O’Rourke, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see secure box 2 wherein the interior surfaces thereof include a reflective surface for reflecting ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source 7 into the interior space ([0058]). Therefore, as evidenced by O’Rourke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gatschet such that the interior surfaces included a reflective surface for reflecting ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source into the interior space. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a reflective surface on the interior surfaces for reflecting ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source into the interior space would enhance coverage of the UV light and thus improve decontamination.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatschet (US#12256859) in view of Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753), and further in view of Mihaylov et al. (US#2004/0140347).
Regarding claim 5, Gatschet fails to disclose a bottom grate disposed above and substantially parallel to the bottom-side inside the interior space, the bottom grate including a plurality of openings to enable ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source to illuminate a bottom portion of a package resting on the bottom grate. However, as evidenced by Mihaylov, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see secure box 20 having a bottom grate 60 disposed above (grate bottom disposed above via corner feet shown in Figs. 2A-B) and substantially parallel (grate bottom substantially parallel) to the bottom-side 28 inside the interior space, the bottom grate including a plurality of openings (see open voids, Figs. 2A-B) to enable ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source 50 to illuminate a bottom portion of a package resting on the bottom grate. Therefore, as evidenced by Mihaylov, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gatschet to include a bottom grate disposed above and substantially parallel to the bottom-side inside the interior space, the bottom grate including a plurality of openings to enable ultraviolet light from the ultraviolet light source to illuminate a bottom portion of a package resting on the bottom grate. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the bottom grate would enhance coverage of the UV light and thus improve decontamination.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatschet (US#12256859) in view of Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753), and further in view of Porter (US#5774053).
Regarding claim 6, Gatschet fails to disclose a closet rod disposed parallel to the top-side between the right-side and the left-side within the interior space to hold clothing on a hanger. However, as evidenced by Porter, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Figs. 3-4, col. 5, lines 5-14, and secure box 10 including a closet rod 42 disposed parallel to the top-side between the right-side and the left-side within the interior space to hold clothing on a hanger. Therefore, as evidenced by Porter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gatschet by including a closet rod disposed parallel to the top-side between the right-side and the left-side within the interior space to hold clothing on a hanger. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the closet rod would facilitate the storage of clothes or the hanging of other items within the secure box thereby enhancing the operational capabilities thereof.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatschet (US#12256859) in view of Eveloff et al. (US#2018/0070753), in view of Porter (US#5774053), and further in view of Sham (US#2003/0152480).
Regarding claim 7, Gatschet fails to disclose a button accessible on an exterior portion of the back-side, whereby upon a user's activation of the button, the decontamination system begins a decontamination cycle. However, as evidenced by Sham, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see secure box 10 including a button accessible on an exterior portion of the secure box, whereby upon a user's activation of the button, the decontamination system begins a decontamination cycle ([0049], “Although operation of the mailbox 10 is preferably automatic through the use of the micro-switch 106 or other sensor responsive to the open or closed state of the door 70, the mailbox 10 can instead can be controlled (e.g., stopped and started) by user manipulation of a button…preferably located on the mailbox 10.”). Therefore, as evidenced by Sham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gatschet by including a button accessible on an exterior portion of the back-side, whereby upon a user's activation of the button, the decontamination system begins a decontamination cycle. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the button could provide an override for decontamination initiation or a redundant, alternative means to initiate decontamination to ensure operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677