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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0240032 to Agor et al.
Regarding claim 1, the Agor publication teaches a container for vending firewood comprising: a first compartment (see Fig. 3 left compartment) having a first door secured by a first latch and a first lock; a second compartment (see part 6 in Fig. 3 )having a second door secured by a second latch and a second lock; wherein the first compartment is larger than the second compartment. See Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 0028-0043 that explains doors 27 with locks 10.
Regarding claim 5, the first lock is an electronic lock. Paragraph 0038.
Regarding claim 14, a method of vending firewood including: receiving a request from a user to purchase firewood; receiving payment from a user for the firewood; and providing access to the firewood. See paragraph 0012.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0240032 to Agor et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,995 to Davis et al.
Regarding claim 2, the Agor publication teaches all the elements of the claim except for the teaching that that the first lock is a combination padlock.
The Davis patent teaches that the electronic lock 110 can be a padlock, which in this case is assumed to be a combination padlock. See column 7, lines 50-65.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to substitute the padlock of the Davis patent into the Agor publication as it would have been switching one prior art element for another using known methods to provide the predictable result of having a lock that is harder to break than an electronic lock.
Regarding claim 3, the first compartment has a first display 34. See paragraph 0035 of Agor.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0240032 to Agor et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,995 to Davis et al. in view of European Patent No. WO2017127035 to Morlevi.
Regarding claim 4, the Agor publication teaches all of the elements of the claim except for the explicit teaching that the first compartment includes a seal.
The Morlevi patent teaches that a door can have a seal between the door and the body. See page 2 of the patent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Agor publication to have a seal as taught in the Morlevi patent as it would be combining known prior art element using known methods to provide the predictable result of sealing each compartment from each other from leakage and also for pests from each other.
Regarding claim 6, the Agor publication teaches that there is one display, but lacks a specific teaching that the second compartment as a second display.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to have the second compartment as a second display, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, the first display is an electronic display. Paragraph 0035 of Agor.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0240032 to Agor et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,995 to Davis et al. in view of European Patent No. WO2017127035 to Morlevi in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0005313 to Wegelin.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the Agor publication teaches all the elements of claim, except for the teaching that the first display is connected to a server such that a price can be set by the server and displayed by the first display.
The Wegelin publication teaches that there is a lock that is connected to the server. See paragraph 208.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the device of the Agor publication to have the first display is connected to a server such that a price can be set by the server and displayed by the first display as taught by the Wegelin publication as it would have been combining known prior art element using known methods to provide the predictable result of being able to remotely lock and unlock the container.
Regarding claims 9, 16 and 17, the electronic lock can be unlocked by the server. See paragraph 208 of Wegelin.
Regarding claim 13, a security system. The term security system as broadly recited in the claim is interpreted as meaning the security of the lock. See paragraph 0178 of Wegelin on the security status of the lock.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0240032 to Agor et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,995 to Davis et al. in view of European Patent No. WO2017127035 to Morlevi in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0005313 to Wegelin in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0410590 to Granger et al.
Regarding claim 10, the Agor publication teaches the elements of the claim, except for the first compartment includes a first sensor detecting if the first compartment is full or empty.
The Granger publication teaches a sensor to detecting if the compartment is full or empty. Paragraph 0105.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the device of the Agor publication to have a first sensor detecting if the first compartment is full or empty as taught by the Granger publication as it would have been combining known prior art element using known methods to provide the predictable result of being able to easily assess when the compartments need to be refilled.
Regarding claim 11, the server communicates with a user device to receive payment and provide access to the electronic lock. See paragraphs 208-209 of Wegelin.
Claim(s) 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0240032 to Agor et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,010,995 to Davis et al. in view of European Patent No. WO2017127035 to Morlevi in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0005313 to Wegelin in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0410590 to Granger et al. in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0331645 to Almogy et al.
Regarding claims 12 and 18-20, the Agor publication teaches all the elements of the claims except for the explicit teaching that the pricing is dynamically set.
The Almogy publication teaches that dynamic pricing can be used when pricing goods. Paragraph 0352.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Agor publication to use dynamic pricing as taught by the Almogy publication as it would have been combining known prior art elements using known methods to provide the predictable result of having more efficient pricing based on economic conditions of supply and demand which is known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spanish Patent No. ES1266199 to De Alba teaches a self service container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
