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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are independent written in a dependent form. 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the service point according to claim 5" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets that claim 5 is dependent on claim 1.
Claims 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “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 displaying instructions; 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; 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; a service point for wired or wireless communication, send instructions about refilling the parcel locker as a function of the service point parcel distribution.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “receiving”, “storing” and “refilling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually determine an availability of a locker for storing a parcel and refilling the locker with parcel.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “processor”, “server”, “communication unit”, “third party device”, “service point controller”, “instruction unit” and a “computer readable storage” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 9 and 14 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, the claims recite “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 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" are considered as additional elements that are adding insiginificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 4, 6, 10-11 and 13 define how a parcel is being handled in lockers which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 12 (server, controller, instruction unit, clock unit, computer readable storage and third-party device) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
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 1-3, 6-11 and 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 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)
As to claim 2, Brook teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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)
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 one of the following steps is 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 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 Robinson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0190062).
As to claim 4, Brook teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook 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 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 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Brook does 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 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 teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Brook does 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 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 teaches 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 does 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 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