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 5, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 8, change “and” to --or--;
Claim 6, line 1, change “the” to --a--;
Claim 6, line 17, change “a” to --the--; and
Claim 10, line 8, change “and” to --or--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US#2019/0362579) in view of Richardson et al. (US#10817824), and further in view of Lee (US#2018/0114256).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Phillips discloses a system 100 for non-face-to-face storing a commodity, comprising: a server ([0045], online server); a freezer 102-1 with an openable door ([0014]), configured to maintain the inside at a first temperature; a refrigerator 102-2 with an openable door ([0014]), configured to maintain the inside at a second temperature; a storage box 102-3 with an openable a door ([0014]), the storage box being different from the freezer and the refrigerator; an identifier ([0036], keypad 106 and/or other authentication mechanism) configured to verify that at least one of a delivery person identification code of the delivery person and a user identification code of the user has been identified; a communicator 120 configured to communicate with the server; and a controller 110 configured to control the opening and closing (unlocking and locking) of the door of the freezer, the door of the refrigerator, and the door of the storage box ([0046]); based at least in part on the verification by the identifier that at least one of the delivery person identification code and the user identification code has been identified, the controller opens the door of at least one of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box ([0035], e.g. keypad 106 opens door when authorized code entered); the controller transmits, to the server, information on the opening and closing of the door of at least one of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box, by means of the communicator (e.g. see [0047], information on delivery, and thus opening and closing of the door(s), transmitted to app on user device).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, although Phillips discloses the commodity may include a code to be manually entered via the keypad ([0035]), Phillips fails to disclose a scanner configured to identify a commodity that a delivery person delivers to a user, wherein when the scanner identifies the commodity, the communicator transmits information on the commodity to the server. However, as evidenced by Richardson, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see claim 16, and an optical barcode scanner 241 accessible at an exterior at the delivery box 210, wherein the optical barcode scanner is configured for scanning a barcode on the package to read shipping information and configured for transmitting the shipping information to a server 140 for validation before unlocking the lockable door thereby permitting the package to be placed in the storage area. Therefore, as evidenced by Richardson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips by including a scanner configured to identify a commodity that a delivery person delivers to a user, wherein when the scanner identifies the commodity, the communicator transmits information on the commodity to the server. 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 scanner configured to identify a commodity that a delivery person delivers to a user, wherein when the scanner identifies the commodity, the communicator transmits information on the commodity to the server, would enhance delivery accuracy and security.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Phillips fails to disclose wherein the server calculates cost information on at least one of the delivery person and the user, based at least in part on the opening and closing information. However, as evidenced by Lee, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0060] and [0106]-[0107], wherein server 200 calculates cost information on at least one of the delivery person and the user, based at least in part on the opening and closing information of the receptacle 100 (i.e. delivery to the receptacle requiring opening/closing of a door thereof). Therefore, as evidenced by Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips to include delivery cost calculation wherein the server calculates cost information on at least one of the delivery person and the user, based at least in part on the opening and closing information. 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 delivery cost calculation wherein the server calculates cost information on at least one of the delivery person and the user, based at least in part on the opening and closing information, would enhance operational capabilities of the system by allowing at-site payment.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, as previously discussed with respect to claims 1 and 6, Richardson teaches wherein the optical barcode scanner 241 is configured for scanning a barcode on the package to read shipping information and configured for transmitting the shipping information to a server 140 for validation before unlocking the lockable door thereby permitting the package to be placed in the storage area. Therefore, Phillips when modified by Richardson discloses wherein the controller may open the door of at least one of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box, further based on whether the information of the commodity identified by the scanner matches the given commodity information.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, although Phillips discloses a camera 126 which transmits data to the server ([0048]), Phillips fails to disclose a first camera configured to photograph the exterior of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box, and a second camera configured to photograph the interior of at least one of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box, wherein the communicator transmits, to the server, data photographed by the first camera and the second camera. However, as evidenced by Richardson, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see col. 10, line 62, to col. 11, line 11, and first exterior facing camera 235 and second interior facing camera 235, wherein a communicator 212 transmits, to a server, data photographed by the first camera and the second camera. Therefore, as evidenced by Richardson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips by including a first camera configured to photograph the exterior of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box, and a second camera configured to photograph the interior of at least one of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box, wherein the communicator transmits, to the server, data photographed by the first camera and the second camera. 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 exterior facing first camera and the interior facing second camera would enhance the security and remote monitoring capabilities of the system.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 6, Phillips discloses based at least in part on the verification by the identifier that an identification code of a person has been identified, the controller 110 opens the door of at least one of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box ([0035] and [0046], e.g. keypad 106 opens door when authorized code entered). Further, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 6, Richardson teaches an optical barcode scanner 241 accessible at an exterior at the delivery box 210, wherein the optical barcode scanner is configured for scanning a barcode on the package (commodity) to read shipping information and configured for transmitting the shipping information to a server 140 for validation before unlocking (i.e. opening) the lockable door. Therefore, Phillips as modified by Richardson discloses all the structure required by claims 5 and 10, and a person which retrieves/collects a commodity from at least one of the freezer, the refrigerator and the storage box is being viewed and labeled as a “collector” and the retrieved/collected commodity is being viewed and labeled as a “returned commodity”.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US#2019/0362579) in view of Richardson et al. (US#10817824), in view of Lee (US#2018/0114256), and further in view of Markarian (US#2017/0352122).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Phillips fails to disclose wherein when its identifier verifies that the delivery person identification code has been identified, the communicator transmits, to the server, the time (i.e. time stamp) when the delivery person identification code is identified (i.e. when (time) the freezer, refrigerator, or storage box is opened/accessed). However, as evidenced by Markarian, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0030] and communicator 25/18 which transmits, to the server 12, time stamp(s), including when the delivery receptacle 111 is accessed. Therefore, as evidenced by Markarian, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips such that when its identifier verifies that the delivery person identification code has been identified, the communicator transmits, to the server, the time when the delivery person identification code is identified (i.e. when (time) the freezer, refrigerator, or storage box is opened/accessed). 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 time stamp(s) would enhance delivery tracking information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted Cartwright (US#2021/0293465) discloses depositing, retrieving, and returning items ([0025]).
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