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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by EXCOFFIER have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art due to claim amendments.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s remarks regarding EXCOFFIER on pages 4-5, that the functions, such as, “specific conditional behavior in which the control device refuses to re-lock the door because the luggage sensor has detected luggage remaining in the box after the door closes following a take-out operation”, nowhere in the claims is this language recited clearly. The claims do not require that an actual unlocked state or condition is maintained. The claims as amended still do not explicitly indicate that door unlocked state is maintained throughout detected luggage remaining, by any specific device or element of control.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EXCOFFIER et al. (US 11989996 B2) in view of OSADA et al. (TW 574676 B).
Re claim 1. EXCOFFIER discloses (abstract) a locker apparatus (FIG.1-2) comprising:
a box (FIG.1) (CAS) capable of accommodating luggage (under broadest reasonable interpretation this is an intended use, such that luggage could read on any package capable of being luggage) therein; (c.5, l.53-54)
a door F configured to open and close the box; (c.7, l.64-65)
a locking device (c.7, l.54-57) configured to unlockably lock the door;
an operation unit (c.8, l.15-17 – human-machine interface IHM by way of PROC) configured to receive an operation by a user; and
a control device (control module PIL operates actuators ACT – to control locking functions) configured to control the locking device in response to an operation on the operation unit by the user, (c.8, l.25-29)
wherein the control device is configured to lock the locking device in order to lock (i.e. door can be locked as needed and unlocked for opening the door) the door into a closed state except when the luggage is deposited in the box and when the luggage is taken out from the box, (c.17, l.9-12, l.36-41)
the box is provided with a luggage sensor Cn for detecting luggage in the box, (FIG.3)
the operation unit includes a take-out button (c.13, l.52-55) that is operated by the user in order to take out the luggage from the box in which the user has deposited the luggage (implicitly a digital button could be used by a user operating the IHM to request unlocking function so as to open door), and
when the take-out button is operated by the user (c.13, l.52-55),
the control device unlocks the locking device in order to open the door of the box in which the luggage has been deposited (c.18, l.33-36), and the door is closed thereafter,
in response to determining that there is the luggage in the box based on a detection result of the luggage sensor (by way of sensors Cn), the control device maintains unlocking of the locking device (under broadest reasonable interpretation – control module PIL maintains control of unlocking and locking functions during all operations, particularly unlocking operations by user requests after door is closed with luggage placed in the box – limitation should be changed to indicate that the control device maintains locking device in an unlocked state, if this broadest reasonable interpretation is not the intended reading of the claimed invention).
However, EXCOFFIER fails to explicitly disclose:
the control device executes a luggage take-out mode in which:
in response to determining that there is no luggage in the box based on the detection result of the luggage sensor, the control device locks the locking device.
OSADA teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a temporary hosted mailbox system, wherein an item delivery is detected (by use of infrared sensor 3d) to determine when an automatic locking should be used after a predetermined time for instance, after an item is removed.
the central computing processing device 6 drives the lock mechanism 8 after a predetermined time (for example, about one minute) has elapsed since the detection of the item being taken out, and performs automatic locking of the mailbox. Lock (step S 2 3).
The use of automatic locking after the removal of an item, such as luggage, after a certain time from the box, rather than leaving the box unlocked would have been a predictable modification – since automatic locking has known advantages such as protecting misuse of a mailbox after it is emptied, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EXCOFFIER et al. (US 11989996 B2) in view of OSADA et al. (TW 574676 B) further in view of SANTANGELI et al. (US 11832743 B2).
Re claim 2. However, EXCOFFIER and OSADA fails to explicitly disclose:
the locker apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a luggage lamp configured to operate in order to indicate whether or not there is the luggage in the box, wherein
the control device causes the luggage lamp to light up or flash while the locking device is maintained in the unlocked state and while determining that there is the luggage in the box as a target based on the detection result of the luggage sensor after the take-out button is operated by the user.
SANTANGELI teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention (FIG.1), a parcel locker system with clusters of compartments, including sensors for determining whether a compartment is empty or full (c.11, l.21-31) and visual indicators such as lamps (LED) to indicate which compartment is being used and which is not available for use by user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adding a lamp function as taught by SANTANGELI in order to provide a visual means to indicate to any user which locker is available.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EXCOFFIER et al. (US 11989996 B2) in view of OSADA et al. (TW 574676 B) further in view of YOSHIKURA et al. (JP 2017041097 A).
Re claim 3. EXCOFFIER discloses the locker apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising reservation acceptance member (server SER by way of COM) configured to accept a use reservation for the box (c.12, l.38-43), wherein the control device is configured to record and manage a current status of each box that is in use and each box that is not in use (c.12, l.52-67), to manage acceptance and recording of a use reservation from the reservation acceptance member for each box that is not in use (c.19, l.17-27).
However, EXCOFFIER and OSADA fails to explicitly disclose:
the control device stops accepting a use reservation from the reservation acceptance member for the box in which it is determined that there is the luggage based on the detection result of the luggage sensor.
YOSHIKURA teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention (FIG.1) a locker device, wherein a reservation unit processes reservation functions, including reserving a locker for specific user by way of determining empty and occupied locker data from article sensors (L01c, L02c, etc.) to detect stored articles inside lockers.
The state of the storage section includes “empty”, “delivery waiting (empty)”, “delivered (stored)”, “preliminary allocation (empty)”, and “preliminary allocation (storage)”. “Empty” is a state that can be selected as a new delivery destination because no article is stored in the storage unit and there is no plan to deliver the article. “Delivery waiting (empty)” is selected as a delivery destination, but does not contain an article. “Delivery completed (stored)” is selected as a delivery destination and the article is stored.
“Preliminary allocation (empty)” is allocated so that the specified storage unit can be used as an alternative storage destination when it cannot be used due to a failure, etc., and the item is not stored but cannot be selected as a new delivery destination It is. “Preliminary allocation (during storage)” is a state in which the designated storage unit is selected as an alternative storage destination when the storage unit cannot be used due to a failure or the like, and the article is stored.
“Delivery completed (during storage)” and “Preliminary allocation (during storage)” indicate that an article exists in the storage unit and is waiting for receipt by the purchaser or collection by the delivery company 50. If receipt or collection is performed, the state of the storage unit is changed to “empty”. In addition, other states such as “failing” are provided.
If the state of the storage unit is “delivery waiting (empty)”, “delivered (stored)” or “preliminary allocation (storage)”, the storage unit is associated with key data, and the key data It functions as information that uniquely identifies a delivery request.
The reservation processing unit 16b is a processing unit that receives and manages delivery reservations from the server. If the reservation processing unit 16b receives the delivery key data, the reception key data, the collection key data, the delivery destination storage unit, and the receipt time limit as information related to the delivery reservation from the server 20, each key data is stored in the designated storage unit. The storage management data 15a is updated in association with the receipt deadline. By this update, the state of the storage unit is changed from “empty” to “delivery waiting (empty)”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the reservation functions as taught by YOSHIKURA in order to obtain a locker system to properly reserve available lockers for storing luggage.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EXCOFFIER et al. (US 11989996 B2) in view of OSADA et al. (TW 574676 B) further in view of SANTANGELI et al. (US 11832743 B2) further in view of YOSHIKURA et al. (JP 2017041097 A).
Re claim 4. EXCOFFIER discloses the locker apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising reservation acceptance member (server SER by way of COM) configured to accept a use reservation for the box (c.12, l.38-43), wherein the control device is configured to record and manage a current status of each box that is in use and each box that is not in use (c.12, l.52-67), to manage acceptance and recording of a use reservation from the reservation acceptance member for each box that is not in use (c.19, l.17-27).
However, EXCOFFIER and OSADA and SANTANGELI fails to explicitly disclose:
the control device stops accepting a use reservation from the reservation acceptance member for the box in which it is determined that there is the luggage based on the detection result of the luggage sensor.
YOSHIKURA teaches (as discussed above) in a similar field of invention (FIG.1) a locker device, wherein a reservation unit processes reservation functions, including reserving a locker for specific user by way of determining empty and occupied locker data from article sensors to detect stored articles inside lockers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the reservation functions as taught by YOSHIKURA in order to obtain a locker system to properly reserve available lockers for storing luggage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other cited art teaches the concepts of detecting an object to determine if a door should be maintained open once the object is detected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 4/27/2026
Prosecution Insights