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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed April 23, 2026. Claims 1, 9 and 14 were amended and claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15 were left as previously presented. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 15, 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 112 has been fully considered and persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant arguments concerning the 35 USC 102 rejection has been fully considered and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Applicant argues that Rosenthal does not teach the parcel locker capacity or percentage of empty parcel lockers. In response, examiner states that these limitation(s) are not found in the claims. Claimed subject matter not the specification is the measure of the invention. Disclosure contained in the specification cannot be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding prior art. In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F .2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1986); In re Self, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982); In re Priest, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978).
Applicant argues that Brook does not teach autonomously transmitting instructions to a locker to be used for storing parcel. In response, examiner states that the claim states that the service point autonomously transmits instructions for collection, handing over or storing a parcel, however, it does not state that there isn’t any request from the user received. In other words, under BRI the claim recites the system automatically transmits instructions for a parcel to be stored, handed over or collected without any explicitly stating what triggers the system to transmit such instructions. Therefore, the step prior to transmittal of the action is not recited, and Brook teaches the limitations of claim 14.
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 (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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brooks et al. referred herein as Brook (U.S. Patent No. 10,482,420).
As to claim 14, Brook teaches a method of a parcel with a parcel ID comprising:
wherein the method comprises transmitting a collection request of a parcel with a parcel ID to the service point controller; (col 9 lines 41-67 and fig 3 items 102-106)
receiving from the service point controller a parcel position of the parcel with a parcel ID; (col 9 lines 41-67, the packages are scanned using the identification label (i.e. parcel ID) in order to be stored and tracked throughout the facility)
wherein the service point controller autonomously selects one of the following steps to be performed as a function of the parcel position -transmitting instructions to the locker communication unit, which instructions causes the lock of the compartment holding the parcel with the parcel ID to unlock: or transmitting instructions to the shop instruction unit for collection and handing over the parcel with the parcel ID; and -collecting the parcel with the parcel ID. (col 10-11 lines 59-52, after the facility receives the item, the user initiates a pick-up for the package, the package is placed in a locker in order to be handed to the user including the package identification)
As to claim 15, Brook teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Brook further teaches:
wherein the step of transmitting a collection request is performed by a third-party device, wherein the third-party device is a smart phone or laptop or tablet or a local parcel shop unit. (col 14 lines 27-55, show that the user device is a smart phone that facilitates the request of placing an item in a locker facility)
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. referred herein as Brook (U.S. Patent No. 10,482,420) in view of Rosenthal et al. referred herein as Rosenthal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0391840).
As to claims 1 and 9, Brook teaches a service point and a method comprising:
a parcel shop being a manned parcel shop for manually handing over parcels, the parcel shop comprising a storage room for storing the plurality of parcels, and a shop instruction unit comprising a display for displaying instructions;(col 9 lines 31-51 and col 10 lines 12-16 and 38-51, the system comprises of storage facility for storing packages to be placed in lockers, the facility includes a display for displaying instructions for retrieving or storing a package)
a parcel locker positioned inside the parcel shop or positioned in a near vicinity of the parcel shop, the parcel locker comprising a plurality of compartments for storing parcels and the plurality of compartments comprise a compartment door provided with a lock;(col 3 lines 10-22 and col. 5 lines 18-21, the system comprises of a lockers inside the storage facility that has a plurality of lockers wherein each locker has a door which requires an access code to open)
a locker communication unit; (col 8 lines 41-52)
a service point controller comprising a computer readable storage for storing thereon a parcel ID of each of the plurality of parcels and for storing a service point parcel distribution including a parcel position of each of the plurality of parcels within the service point; (col 9 lines 41-67, the packages are scanned using the identification label (i.e. parcel ID) in order to be stored and tracked throughout the facility, tag is also used to identify storage location of the package)
a service point communication unit for wired or wireless communication with the shop instruction unit, the locker communication unit, third- party devices and optionally, a distribution server;(col 8 lines 41-61 and col 14 lines 27-55, the system communicates between the scanner, the client device and the server using wireless communication)
a service point processor configured to send instructions to the shop instruction unit about refilling the parcel locker as a function of the service point parcel distribution. (col 5-6 lines 57-5, the system determines if the time for package pick-up has been elapsed or the package is picked up the system instructs users to replace the existing package with a new one)
Brook does not teach:
a service point processor configured to generate and send instructions to the shop instruction unit about refilling the parcel locker for the purpose of optimizing the service point parcel distribution between the storage room and the parcel locker, wherein said instructions are generated as a function of the service point parcel distribution, when the service point parcel distribution is indicative that a parcel locker capacity is above a predetermined threshold at a particular point in time
However, Rosenthal teaches:
a service point processor configured to generate and send instructions to the shop instruction unit about refilling the parcel locker for the purpose of optimizing the service point parcel distribution between the storage room and the parcel locker, wherein said instructions are generated as a function of the service point parcel distribution, when the service point parcel distribution is indicative that a parcel locker capacity is above a predetermined threshold at a particular point in time (para 28)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to fill a locker after reaching a capacity in Brook as taught by Rosenthal. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Rosenthal that doing so would redirect packages into other lockers.
As to claim 2, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook further teaches:
wherein the service point controller, upon a collection request of a parcel with a parcel ID from a third-party device, is configured to perform the following steps as a function of the parcel position; transmitting instructions to the locker communication unit, which instructions causes the lock of the compartment holding the parcel with the parcel ID to unlock; or transmitting instructions to the shop instruction unit for collecting and handing over the parcel with the parcel ID. (col 10-11 lines 59-52, after the facility receives the item, the user initiates a pick-up for the package, the package is placed in a locker in order to be handed to the user including the package identification)
As to claims 3 and 10, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above.
Brook further teaches:
wherein the service point controller comprises a clock unit and the service point controller is configured for storing a collection event and time of the collection event on the computer readable storage, thereby generating local historical event data; (col. 5-6 lines 58-12, the system keeps a timer of how long the user has to pickup the package, if the user does not pickup the package, then the package is removed and a new package is placed in the locker and a new timer is created, i.e. creating a historical event)
wherein the service point processor is further configured to send instructions to the shop instruction unit about refilling the parcel locker as a function of the local historical event data and the service point parcel distribution. (col. 5-6 lines 58-12, based on the time expiring, an instruction is sent to remove the package and place a different package in the locker)
As to claim 6, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook further teaches:
wherein the service point is an autonomous service point and the decision whether a parcel is stored in the storage room or in the parcel locker is decided by the autonomous service point. (col 9 lines 41-67 and col 11-12 lines 66-53, upon arrival of the package to the facility, the package is scanned and the system instructs the user onto either storing the item in a temporary storing area or placing the item in a locker)
As to claim 7, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook further teaches:
wherein the storage room comprises a plurality of marked parcel positions, wherein the service point controller is configured to send instructions to the shop instruction unit about storing a parcel with a specific parcel ID at a specific marked parcel position and/or is configured to receive information of a parcel with specific parcel ID being stored at a marked parcel position. (col 12 lines 23-52 and fig. 10, show that after the user submits a retrieval request, the package including the package identification is placed in a specific locker and information is sent to the user for retrieval)
As to claim 8, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook further teaches:
wherein the service point controller tracks a parcel locker storage time for each parcel stored in the parcel locker, wherein the service point controller is further configured to send instructions to the shop instruction unit about replacing one or more parcels stored in the parcel locker as a function of the parcel locker storage time. (col 4 lines 6-27 and col 13 lines 4-28)
As to claim 11, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises steps of removing a parcel stored from the parcel locker and storing the parcel in the storage room, while storing a parcel from the storage room in the parcel locker; wherein the step of removing is performed as a function of a parcel locker storage time of the parcels stored in the parcel locker (col 5-6 lines 57-6 and claim 17, after the storage of the package time has been elapsed, the package is removed from the locker in order to replace the package with another package for retrieval)
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. referred herein as Brook (U.S. Patent No. 10,482,420) in view of Rosenthal et al. referred herein as Rosenthal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0391840), further in view of Robinson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190062).
As to claim 4, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook in view of Rosenthal does not explicitly teach:
wherein the service point is part of a convenience store or a supermarket or a retail store
However, Robinson teaches:
wherein the service point is part of a convenience store or a supermarket or a retail store. (para 42, show that the lockers can be located at a retail store)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to place the lockers in a retail store in Brook in view of Rosenthal as taught by Robinson. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Robinson that doing so would allow the user to conveniently use the locker as a designated alternate delivery location which makes the picking up of the package easier and less time consuming.
As to claim 5, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook and Rosenthal do not teach:
wherein the service point controller receives historical store data of the convenience store or the supermarket or the retail store, the historical store data including time-sequenced busyness data, and wherein the service point controller is further configured to send instructions to the shop instruction unit about refilling the parcel locker as a function of the historical store data and the service point parcel distribution.
However, Robinson teaches:
wherein the service point controller receives historical store data of the convenience store or the supermarket or the retail store, the historical store data including time-sequenced busyness data, and wherein the service point controller is further configured to send instructions to the shop instruction unit about refilling the parcel locker as a function of the historical store data and the service point parcel distribution. (para 10, 72 and 74, the system looks at the historical data for retrieval of packages and determines is the package should be placed or replaced in a specified locker)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to retrieve historical data for package retrieval in Brook in view of Rosenthal as taught by Robinson. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Robinson that doing so would allow the system to analyze and determine the probability that a particular parcel will be retrieved from the locker bank for each day of the week based on pickup information for parcels that were previously retrieved from the locker bank and therefore increases the probability that the user picks up the package from the locker, thus making the pickup more efficient.
As to claim 12, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Brook and Rosenthal do not teach:
wherein the method
However, Robinson teaches:
wherein the method
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to retrieve historical data for package retrieval in Brook in view of Rosenthal as taught by Robinson. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Robinson that doing so would allow the system to analyze and determine the probability that a particular parcel will be retrieved from the locker bank for each day of the week based on pickup information for parcels that were previously retrieved from the locker bank
As to claim 13, Brook in view of Rosenthal teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Brook teaches wherein the method comprises receiving a preferred collection time slot provided by a receiver of a parcel, wherein the step of storing, the step of refilling and/or a step of removing is performed as a function of the preferred collection time slot. (fig. 7)
Brook in view of Rosenthal do not explicitly teach a preferred collection time slot.
However, Robinson teaches preferred collection time slot. (para 75)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to retrieve historical data for package retrieval in Brook in view of Rosenthal as taught by Robinson. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Robinson that doing so would allow the system to analyze and determine the probability that a particular parcel will be retrieved from the locker bank for each day of the week based on pickup information for parcels that were previously retrieved from the locker bank and therefore increases the probability that the user picks up the package from the locker, thus making the pickup more efficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights