DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 18/966691 filed on 12/03/2024.
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 . 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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 11-34 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows. Claim 10 is currently pending and has been objected to as follows.
Priority
Examiner has noted that the Applicant has claimed priority from the foreign application DE102023133858.7 filed on 12/04/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 and 05/13/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 3, 6, and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein for example the authentication of the second apparatus by the first apparatus is further based on the third piece of information”.
Claim 6 recites “obtaining, for example from the second apparatus, a seventh piece of information that is encrypted with the key”.
Claim 16 recites “wherein for example a piece of status information concerning an occupancy of one or more compartments of the compartment system is updated based on the eighth piece of information in the second apparatus”.
Regarding Claims 3, 6, and 16, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of applying art, Examiner interprets the limitations as not reciting “for example” and thus, the phrase following “for example” would be considered part of the claimed 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 1-9 and 11-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are directed to a first apparatus, Claims 13-21 are directed to a second apparatus, Claims 22-27 are directed to a third apparatus, and Claims 28-34 are directed to a compartment system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites “obtaining a first piece of information [from a second apparatus], wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus; authenticating the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information; generating a second piece of information, wherein a third apparatus different from the second apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information; and outputting the second piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information”
Independent claim 13 recites “obtaining a third piece of information [from a third apparatus]; generating a first piece of information, wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus; and outputting the first piece of information [to a first apparatus] in order to allow [the first apparatus] to authenticate the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication is a necessary condition for outputting a second piece of information [from the first apparatus], wherein a third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information, and wherein obtaining the third piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information”
Independent claim 22 recites “obtaining a third piece of information [from a compartment system] or generating a third piece of information; and outputting the third piece of information [to a second apparatus], wherein obtaining the third piece of information [by the second apparatus] is a necessary condition for outputting a first piece of information [to a first apparatus by the second apparatus], wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus [by the first apparatus] based at least on the first piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting a second piece of information [by the first apparatus], wherein the third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information”
Independent claim 28 recites “obtaining a first piece of information [from a second apparatus], wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus; - authenticating the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information; - generating a second piece of information, wherein a third apparatus different from the second apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information; and - outputting the second piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information, … - obtaining a third piece of information [from the third apparatus]; - generating the first piece of information, wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus; and - outputting the first piece of information [to the first apparatus] in order to allow [the first apparatus] to authenticate the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information [from the first apparatus], wherein a third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information, and wherein obtaining the third piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information, and … - obtaining the third piece of information [from a compartment system] or generating the third piece of information; and - outputting the third piece of information [to the second apparatus], wherein obtaining the third piece of information [by the second apparatus] is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information [to the first apparatus by the second apparatus], wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus [by the first apparatus] based at least on the first piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information [by the first apparatus], wherein the third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information, …obtaining the second piece of information; and determining whether access to the one or more compartments of the compartment system can be granted based on the second piece of information”
Organizing Human Activity
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions, specifically sales activities or behaviors and business relations). Specifically, commercial interactions between users/systems which manage access to compartments for delivery services through authentication and users/systems which request access to the compartments in light of paragraph 2 of Applicant’s specification “Exemplary embodiments of the invention relate to methods, apparatuses, systems and computer programs for authenticating a user of a compartment system, wherein the compartment system is in particular a compartment system for sending and/or receiving shipments and/or for depositing and/or removing objects, and wherein the compartment system is used and/or managed in particular by multiple companies on a pro-rata basis”.
See also para. 5-6 of Applicant’s specification “flexible use of a compartment system is desirable, so that not only the operator, who manages a plurality of compartment systems, but also partner companies with different apparatuses or systems, e.g. different delivery services, online dealers or local service providers (e.g. tradesmen), can allow access to compartments of a compartment system. For example, compartments can be rented over the long term to the partner company, which then decides independently on the use of the compartments … it is particularly relevant to prevent unauthorized access to compartments of the compartment system. In the event that unauthorized access to a compartment of the compartment system has nevertheless occurred, it is also relevant to determine at which point in the system, i.e. in whose area of responsibility, for example, there was a security leak. If, for example, compromised access data were used during unauthorized access, it is relevant to determine in which system or part of a system the access data could be spied on. This is especially true if different apparatuses or systems can generate access data for compartments of a compartment system”.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the following additional elements – a first apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, a second apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, a third apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, and a compartment system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory.
The additional elements (first, second, and third apparatus and compartment system each comprising at least one processor and at least one memory) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements are merely confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions relates to activities that are executed in a computer environment because this requirement merely limits the claims to execution by generic apparatuses and a compartment system. Thus, the additional elements fail to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, the claims as a whole, looking at additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and/or field of use which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Step 2B
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 elements used to perform the abstract idea limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The first apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, second apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, third apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, and compartment system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components
Again, the additional elements are merely confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by specifying that the abstract idea of commercial interactions relates to activities that are executed in a computer environment because this requirement merely limits the claims to execution by generic apparatuses and a compartment system. Thus, the additional elements fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
None of the steps/functions of Claim 1, Claim 13, Claim 22, and Claim 28 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Accordingly, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim and Claims 1, 13, 22, and 28 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, 14-21, 23-27, and 29-34 merely add additional limitations that narrow down the abstract idea identified above.
Dependent Claim 2 merely specifies the second piece of information is output to the second apparatus by the first apparatus which is further organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 3 and Claim 21 merely specifies pieces of information transmitted between the first and second apparatus which is further organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 4, 15, 24, and 31 further specifies extra-solution activity and field of use limitations. “Wherein the key is stored in the compartment system” is insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage which is a computer function that the courts have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional – storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
“Encrypted with a key…wherein the key is not known to the second and to the third apparatus” is merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key.
Dependent Claims 5, 6, and 7 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “obtaining”, “obtaining”, “generating”, “outputting”, “obtaining”. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“for encrypted communication”, “encrypted with a key”, “decrypted with the key”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted/decrypted with a key and further, data which contains the key.
Dependent Claims 8 -9 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity and field of use. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (i.e., “decrypting the encrypted key”) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted/decrypted.
Dependent Claims 11-12 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “obtaining”, “wherein”, “wherein the compartment system”, “wherein the new key”, “wherein the first apparatus”. Dependent Claims 19-20 similarly recite organizing human activity limitations such as “generating”, “wherein”, “outputting”, “wherein the compartment system”, “wherein the new key”, “wherein the first apparatus”.
Dependent Claim 14 merely specifies the second piece of information transmitted between the first, second, and third apparatus which is further organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 16, 17, and 18 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “obtaining”, “outputting”, “obtaining”, “wherein”, etc. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“encrypted with the key”, “decrypted by the first apparatus”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key, data which is decrypted, and further, data which contains the key.
Dependent Claim 23 merely specifies the second piece of information transmitted between the compartment system and second, and third apparatus which is further organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 25, 26, and 27 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “obtaining”, “outputting”, “wherein”, etc. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“encrypted with the key”, “decrypted seventh piece”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key, data which is decrypted, and further, data which contains the key.
Dependent Claim 29 and Claim 30 merely specifies the second piece of information and third piece of information transmitted between the compartment system and the third apparatus which is further organizing human activity.
Dependent Claims 32, 33, and 34 specify limitations which are further organizing human activity – “generating”, “outputting”, “wherein”, etc. Limitations reciting encryption concepts (“encrypted with the key”, “decrypted seventh piece”, etc.) are merely indicating a field of use (i.e., encryption) in which to apply a judicial exception – specifically, limiting the abstract idea to data which is encrypted with a key, data which is decrypted, and further, data which contains the key.
Nothing in dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, 14-21, 23-27, and 29-34 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Claims 1-9 and 11-34 are ineligible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 13, 21-23, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US2022/0335760) in view of Kashi et al. (US2021/0074100).
As per independent Claim 1,
Low teaches the first apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory comprising program code, wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the first apparatus having the at least one processor to perform and/or control: (figure 10 and para. 86-93 where “one or more devices described above may include one or more devices (1000)” where device (1000) includes processor and memory; figure 2A or figure 4 where the smart locker system is the compartment system and the authentication relay system is the first apparatus)
obtaining a first piece of information from a second apparatus, wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus (para. 20-25 where in para. 20 fulfillment system may generate a fulfillment tag with a package identifier (PKG_ID); para. 23 fulfillment system may further indicate an MDN of UE; figure 2A and para. 23 step 206 fulfillment system outputs identifier associated with the UE and the PKG_ID to the authentication relay system; see also figure 4 and para. 45)
generating a second piece of information (para. 31-33 where in para. 33 authentication relay system identifies the UE based on the information associating the PKG_ID and UE and outputs the key and a notification that package and/or fulfillment tag associated with PKG_ID has been received by the smart locker system to the UE; see also figure 2B and para. 39-44 where in para. 39 operations that may be performed in addition to operations shown in 2A and para. 43 where the authentication relay system may generate and/or select a KEY; figure 4 and para. 46 authentication relay system may generate a key)
wherein a third apparatus different from the second apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34 UE may subsequently provide the key to smart locker system in order to unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also figure 4 and para. 48)
outputting the second piece of information (figure 2A step 216 and para. 33 authentication relay system identifies the UE based on the information associating the PKG_ID and UE and outputs the key and a notification that package and/or fulfillment tag associated with PKG_ID has been received by the smart locker system to the UE; para. 43 provide KEY to UE; see also figure 4 and para. 46)
Low does not teach, but Kashi teaches:
authenticating the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information; wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information (Examiner interpreting the first device as the second apparatus and the third device as the first apparatus; Para. 33 First device transmits data to third device to authenticate first device and/or access storage data representing information related to presence/absence of packages – for example, input data is generated at first device and received by third device (“first piece of information”); para. 34 third device employs authentication tech to determine whether first device is valid or invalid device (“authentication of second apparatus”); para. 35-36 third device sends storage data to first device (“second piece of information”); Para. 37 first device receives the transmitted storage data; see also Para. 41-42 and Figure 4C and para. 66-69)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Low invention with Kashi with the motivation of improving data security. See para. 34 “third device 124 can determine whether the first device 122 is a valid device or invalid device” and thus, authentication of the device is performed prior to data transmission.
As per independent Claim 13,
Low teaches a second apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory comprising program code, wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the second apparatus having the at least one processor to perform and/or control: (figure 10 and para. 86-93 where “one or more devices described above may include one or more devices (1000)” where device (1000) includes processor and memory; figure 2A or figure 4 where the fulfillment system is the second apparatus)
obtaining a third piece of information from a third apparatus (figure 2A and para. 18 UE outputs fulfillment request to fulfillment system; para. 19 fulfillment request includes an identifier associated with the UE; figure 4 and para. 45 UE output a fulfillment request to fulfillment system)
generating a first piece of information, wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus (para. 20-25 where in para. 20 fulfillment system may generate a fulfillment tag with a package identifier (PKG_ID); para. 23 fulfillment system may further indicate an MDN of UE; see also figure 4 and para. 45)
outputting the first piece of information to a first apparatus (figure 2A and para. 23 step 206 fulfillment system outputs identifier associated with the UE and the PKG_ID to the authentication relay system)
wherein a third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34 UE may subsequently provide the key to smart locker system in order to unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also figure 4 and para. 48)
wherein obtaining the third piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information (para. 23 the fulfillment system may output an indication that UE is associated with the PKG_ID generated “in response to the fulfillment request”; para. 20 where the PKG_ID may be unique to the fulfillment request; see also para. 14-15, 45)
Low does not teach, but Kashi teaches:
outputting the first piece of information to a first apparatus in order to allow the first apparatus to authenticate the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication is a necessary condition for outputting a second piece of information from the first apparatus (Examiner interpreting the first device as the second apparatus and the third device as the first apparatus; Para. 33 First device transmits data to third device to authenticate first device and/or access storage data representing information related to presence/absence of packages – for example, input data is generated at first device and received by third device (“first piece of information”); para. 34 third device employs authentication tech to determine whether first device is valid or invalid device (“authentication of second apparatus”); para. 35-36 third device sends storage data to first device (“second piece of information”); Para. 37 first device receives the transmitted storage data; see also Para. 41-42 and Figure 4C and para. 66-69)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Low invention with Kashi with the motivation of improving data security. See para. 34 “third device 124 can determine whether the first device 122 is a valid device or invalid device” and thus, authentication of the device is performed prior to data transmission.
As per independent Claim 22,
Low teaches a third apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory comprising program code, wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the third apparatus having the at least one processor to perform and/or control: (figure 10 and para. 86-93 where “one or more devices described above may include one or more devices (1000)” where device (1000) includes processor and memory; figure 2A or figure 4 where UE is the third apparatus)
obtaining a third piece of information from a compartment system or generating a third piece of information (para. 12 user equipment (UE) that initiated the fulfillment request; see also figure 4 and para. 45)
outputting the third piece of information to a second apparatus, (figure 2 and para. 18 UE outputs fulfillment request to fulfillment system; para. 19 fulfillment request includes an identifier associated with the UE; figure 4 and para. 45 UE output a fulfillment request to fulfillment system)
wherein obtaining the third piece of information by the second apparatus is a necessary condition for outputting a first piece of information to a first apparatus by the second apparatus (para. 23 the fulfillment system may output an indication that UE is associated with the PKG_ID generated “in response to the fulfillment request”; para. 20 where the PKG_ID may be unique to the fulfillment request; see also para. 14-15, 45)
wherein the third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of a compartment system using the second piece of information (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34 UE may subsequently provide the key to smart locker system in order to unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also figure 4 and para. 48)
Low does not teach, but Kashi teaches:
wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus by the first apparatus based at least on the first piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting a second piece of information by the first apparatus (Examiner interpreting the first device as the second apparatus and the third device as the first apparatus; Para. 33 First device transmits data to third device to authenticate first device and/or access storage data representing information related to presence/absence of packages – for example, input data is generated at first device and received by third device (“first piece of information”); para. 34 third device employs authentication tech to determine whether first device is valid or invalid device (“authentication of second apparatus”); para. 35-36 third device sends storage data to first device (“second piece of information”); Para. 37 first device receives the transmitted storage data; see also Para. 41-42 and Figure 4C and para. 66-69)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Low invention with Kashi with the motivation of improving data security. See para. 34 “third device 124 can determine whether the first device 122 is a valid device or invalid device” and thus, authentication of the device is performed prior to data transmission.
As per independent Claim 28,
Low teaches a compartment system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory comprising program code, wherein the compartment system is in a system having a first apparatus, comprising at least one first processor and at least one first memory comprising a first program code, wherein the first memory and the first program code are configured to cause the first apparatus having the at least one first processor to perform and/or control: (figure 10 and para. 86-93 where “one or more devices described above may include one or more devices (1000)” where device (1000) includes processor and memory; figure 2A or figure 4 where the smart locker system is the compartment system and the authentication relay system is the first apparatus)
obtaining a first piece of information from a second apparatus, wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus (para. 20-25 where in para. 20 fulfillment system may generate a fulfillment tag with a package identifier (PKG_ID); para. 23 fulfillment system may further indicate an MDN of UE; figure 2A and para. 23 step 206 fulfillment system outputs identifier associated with the UE and the PKG_ID to the authentication relay system; see also figure 4 and para. 45)
generating a second piece of information (para. 31-33 where in para. 33 authentication relay system identifies the UE based on the information associating the PKG_ID and UE and outputs the key and a notification that package and/or fulfillment tag associated with PKG_ID has been received by the smart locker system to the UE; see also figure 2B and para. 39-44 where in para. 39 operations that may be performed in addition to operations shown in 2A and para. 43 where the authentication relay system may generate and/or select a KEY; figure 4 and para. 46 authentication relay system may generate a key)
wherein a third apparatus different from the second apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to one or more compartments of the compartment system using the second piece of information (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34 UE may subsequently provide the key to smart locker system in order to unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also figure 4 and para. 48)
outputting the second piece of information (figure 2A step 216 and para. 33 authentication relay system identifies the UE based on the information associating the PKG_ID and UE and outputs the key and a notification that package and/or fulfillment tag associated with PKG_ID has been received by the smart locker system to the UE; para. 43 provide KEY to UE; see also figure 4 and para. 46)
wherein the second apparatus comprises at least one second processor and at least one second memory comprising a second program code, wherein the second memory and the second program code are configured to cause the second apparatus having the at least one second processor to perform and/or control: (figure 10 and para. 86-93 where “one or more devices described above may include one or more devices (1000)” where device (1000) includes processor and memory; figure 2A or figure 4 where the fulfillment system is the second apparatus)
obtaining a third piece of information from the third apparatus (figure 2A and para. 18 UE outputs fulfillment request to fulfillment system; para. 19 fulfillment request includes an identifier associated with the UE; figure 4 and para. 45 UE output a fulfillment request to fulfillment system)
generating the first piece of information, wherein the first piece of information is associated with the second apparatus (para. 20-25 where in para. 20 fulfillment system may generate a fulfillment tag with a package identifier (PKG_ID); para. 23 fulfillment system may further indicate an MDN of UE; see also figure 4 and para. 45)
outputting the first piece of information to the first apparatus (figure 2A and para. 23 step 206 fulfillment system outputs identifier associated with the UE and the PKG_ID to the authentication relay system)
wherein the third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to the one or more compartments of the compartment system using the second piece of information (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34 UE may subsequently provide the key to smart locker system in order to unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also figure 4 and para. 48)
wherein obtaining the third piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information (para. 23 the fulfillment system may output an indication that UE is associated with the PKG_ID generated “in response to the fulfillment request”; para. 20 where the PKG_ID may be unique to the fulfillment request; see also para. 14-15, 45)
wherein the third apparatus comprises at least one third processor and at least one third memory comprising a third program code, wherein the third memory and the third program code are configured to cause the third apparatus having the at least one third processor to perform and/or control: (figure 10 and para. 86-93 where “one or more devices described above may include one or more devices (1000)” where device (1000) includes processor and memory; figure 2A or figure 4 where UE is the third apparatus)
obtaining the third piece of information from a compartment system or generating the third piece of information (para. 12 user equipment (UE) that initiated the fulfillment request; see also figure 4 and para. 45)
outputting the third piece of information to the second apparatus (figure 2 and para. 18 UE outputs fulfillment request to fulfillment system; para. 19 fulfillment request includes an identifier associated with the UE; figure 4 and para. 45 UE output a fulfillment request to fulfillment system)
wherein obtaining the third piece of information by the second apparatus is a necessary condition for outputting the first piece of information to the first apparatus by the second apparatus (para. 23 the fulfillment system may output an indication that UE is associated with the PKG_ID generated “in response to the fulfillment request”; para. 20 where the PKG_ID may be unique to the fulfillment request; see also para. 14-15, 45)
wherein the third apparatus or a user of the third apparatus can gain access to the one or more compartments of the compartment system using the second piece of information (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34 UE may subsequently provide the key to smart locker system in order to unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also figure 4 and para. 48)
wherein the memory and the program code of the compartment system are configured to cause the compartment system having the at least one processor to perform and/or control: (figure 10 and para. 86-93 where “one or more devices described above may include one or more devices (1000)” where device (1000) includes processor and memory; figure 3 and para. 26-29; figure 2A or figure 4 where the smart locker system is the compartment system)
obtaining the second piece of information (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34-35 UE provides the KEY to smart locker system; figure 4 and para. 48 UE provides KEY to smart locker system; see also para. 12 and 17)
determining whether access to the one or more compartments of the compartment system can be granted based on the second piece of information (para. 35 smart locker system may validate the KEY, identify the LKR_ID based on the key, and unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also para. 36-37 and figure 4 and para. 48)
Examiner noting that the four limitations below are essentially reciting the same concept so Examiner provided one citation to improve clarity/readability of the Office Action.
Low does not teach, but Kashi teaches:
authenticating the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information
wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information
in order to allow the first apparatus to authenticate the second apparatus based on at least the first piece of information, wherein a positive result of the authentication is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information from the first apparatus
wherein a positive result of the authentication of the second apparatus by the first apparatus based at least on the first piece of information is a necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information by the first apparatus,
(Examiner interpreting the first device as the second apparatus and the third device as the first apparatus; Para. 33 First device transmits data to third device to authenticate first device and/or access storage data representing information related to presence/absence of packages – for example, input data is generated at first device and received by third device (“first piece of information”); para. 34 third device employs authentication tech to determine whether first device is valid or invalid device (“authentication of second apparatus”); para. 35-36 third device sends storage data to first device (“second piece of information”); Para. 37 first device receives the transmitted storage data; see also Para. 41-42 and Figure 4C and para. 66-69)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Low invention with Kashi with the motivation of improving data security. See para. 34 “third device 124 can determine whether the first device 122 is a valid device or invalid device” and thus, authentication of the device is performed prior to data transmission.
As per dependent Claim 2,
Low/Kashi teaches the first apparatus according to Claim 1.
Low teaches:
wherein the second piece of information is output (figure 2A step 216 and para. 33 authentication relay system identifies the UE based on the information associating the PKG_ID and UE and outputs the key and a notification that package and/or fulfillment tag associated with PKG_ID has been received by the smart locker system to the UE; para. 43 provide KEY to UE; see also figure 4 and para. 46)
Low does not teach, but Kashi teaches:
wherein the second piece of information is output to the second apparatus (Examiner interpreting the first device as the second apparatus and the third device as the first apparatus; para. 35-36 third device sends storage data to first device (“second piece of information”); Para. 37 first device receives the transmitted storage data; see also Para. 41-42 and Figure 4C and para. 66-69)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Low invention with Kashi with the motivation of improving data security. See para. 34 “third device 124 can determine whether the first device 122 is a valid device or invalid device” and thus, authentication of the device is performed prior to data transmission.
As per dependent Claim 3,
Low/Kashi teaches the first apparatus according to Claim 1.
Low does not teach, but Kashi teaches:
wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the first apparatus to perform and/or control at least one of the following: obtaining a third piece of information from the second apparatus, wherein the third piece of information is associated with the compartment system, and wherein for example the authentication of the second apparatus by the first apparatus is further based on the third piece of information; or obtaining a fourth piece of information from the second apparatus, wherein the fourth piece of information is associated with the third apparatus, and wherein, after obtaining the fourth piece of information, at least a piece of information that is transmitted between the first apparatus and the second apparatus is based at least on the fourth piece of information; or obtaining a fifth piece of information from the second apparatus, wherein obtaining the fifth piece of information is a further necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information; or generating a sixth piece of information, wherein the sixth piece of information is based on a result of the authentication of the second apparatus, and outputting the sixth piece of information to the second apparatus (Examiner providing citation for the underlined limitation: Examiner interpreting the first device as the second apparatus and the third device as the first apparatus; para. 34 third device determines whether first device is valid or invalid device by analyzing device authentication token data, BLE token data, identification information, signal data (“fifth piece of information”); para. 35-36 third device sends storage data to first device (“second piece of information”); Para. 37 first device receives the transmitted storage data; see also Para. 41-42 and Figure 4C and para. 66-69)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Low invention with Kashi with the motivation of improving data security. See para. 34 “third device 124 can determine whether the first device 122 is a valid device or invalid device” and thus, authentication of the device is performed prior to data transmission.
As per dependent Claim 21,
Low/Kashi teaches the second apparatus according to Claim 13.
Low further teaches:
wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the second apparatus to perform and/or control at least one of the following: outputting the third piece of information to the first apparatus, wherein the third piece of information is associated with the compartment system; or generating a fourth piece of information, wherein the fourth piece of information is associated with the third apparatus, and wherein, after obtaining the fourth piece of information by the first apparatus, at least a piece of information that is transmitted between the first apparatus and the second apparatus is based at least on the fourth piece of information, and outputting the fourth piece of information to the first apparatus; or generating a fifth piece of information, and outputting the fifth piece of information to the first apparatus, wherein obtaining the fifth piece of information by the first apparatus is a further necessary condition for outputting the second piece of information by the first apparatus; or obtaining a sixth piece of information from the first apparatus, wherein the sixth piece of information is based on the result of the authentication of the second apparatus, and wherein a positive result of the authentication is a necessary condition for outputting the fifth piece of information (Examiner providing citation for the first limitation: (para. 20-25 where in para. 20 fulfillment system may generate a fulfillment tag with a package identifier (PKG_ID); figure 2A and para. 23 step 206 fulfillment system outputs “indication that UE is associated with the PKG_ID generated in response to the fulfillment request” – for example, outputting the identifier associated with the UE and the PKG_ID to the authentication relay system; see also figure 4 and para. 45)
As per dependent Claim 23,
Low/Kashi teaches the third apparatus according to Claim 22.
Low teaches:
wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the third apparatus to perform and/or control: obtaining the second piece of information from the first apparatus; and outputting the second piece of information to the compartment system (figure 2A step 216 and 218 and para. 33-34 authentication relay system outputs the key to the UE which may subsequently provide the key to smart locker system in order to unlock the particular locker in which package is located; see also figure 4 and para. 47-48)
Low additionally teaches:
obtaining the second piece of information from the second apparatus (para. 24 where authentication relay system (“first apparatus”) and fulfillment system (“second apparatus”) may communicate with each other and may be implemented as the same device/system or different device/systems; figure 5 and para. 50 where the fulfillment system may output the KEY to UE; see also figure 6 and para. 54)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of which element is transmitting the second piece of information to the third apparatus. Both the second and the third apparatus are capable of transmitting the second piece of information to the third apparatus and further, Low teaches that the first and second apparatus may be the same apparatus and/or different apparatuses which communicate with each other. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per dependent Claim 29,
Low/Kashi teaches the compartment system according to Claim 28.
Low further teaches:
wherein the second piece of information is obtained from the third apparatus (figure 2A step 218 and para. 34-35 UE provides the KEY to smart locker system; figure 4 and para. 48 UE provides KEY to smart locker system; see also para. 12 and 17)
Claims 4-5, 8, 15, 17, 24, 26, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US2022/0335760) in view of Kashi et al. (US2021/0074100) as applied to Claims 1, 13, 23, and 28 above, further in view of Helferich et al. (US2022/0343708).
As per dependent Claim 4, Claim 15, Claim 24, Claim 31,
Low/Kashi teaches the first apparatus according to Claim 1, second apparatus according to Claim 13, the third apparatus according to Claim 23, and the compartment system according to Claim 28.
Low teaches:
wherein the second piece of information is encrypted with a key, wherein the key is stored in the compartment system (para. 31 where the smart locker system may generate the KEY which includes a LKR_ID (which is encrypted by a public key) and the smart locker system may store information indicating the KEY is associated with the particular LKR_ID; see also para. 32, 35-36, and para. 60-61 smart locker system may maintain the keys)
Low/Kashi does not teach, but Helferich teaches:
wherein the key is not known to the second and to the third apparatus (para. 30 the key may be generated by the apparatus that performs the method and the key is then not known and/or accessible to any other apparatus; para. 37 and para. 47 encrypting access information (“second piece of information”) with the key; para. 117 compartment installation encrypts using the key; figure 7 and para. 164-166 payload data memory of compartment installation stores keys)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Low invention with Helferich with the motivation of increasing efficiency and security. See para. 41 “By virtue of at least the access information contained in the first data being encrypted with the key, at least the access information is protected for example against being spied out by unauthorized persons who cannot or at least in practice cannot decrypt the access information encrypted with the key” and para. 47 “For security purposes, decryption by the same apparatus that generated the key for decrypting is advantageous since the fewest devices possible thus have to acquire, process and/or store the key. Furthermore, an asymmetric encryption is particularly advantageous since the private key required for decrypting need not leave the apparatus that generates it.”
As per dependent Claim 5,
Low/Kashi/Helferich teaches the first apparatus according to Claim 4.
Low further teaches:
wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the first apparatus to perform and/or control: obtaining the key for encrypted communication with the compartment system (figure 2A and para. 31 the smart locker system (compartment system) provides the KEY to the authentication relay system and where the KEY may be any suitable authentication mechanism and further includes a code, passphrase or the like; see also para. 32)
As per dependent Claim 8, Claim 17, Claim 26, Claim 33,
Low/Kashi/Helferich teaches the first apparatus according to Claim 4, the second apparatus according to Claim 15, the third apparatus according to Claim 24, and the compartment system according to Claim 31.
Low teaches:
wherein the key is generated by the compartment system and/or wherein the key is only temporarily valid (para. 31-32 where the smart locker system may generate the KEY which includes a LKR_ID, “a code, passphrase, or the like”, a private key, etc.; para. 51 smart locker system may generate a KEY when package is received)
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US2022/0335760) in view of Kashi et al. (US2021/0074100) as applied to Claim 28 above, further in view of Zhu (US2018/0365641).
As per dependent Claim 30,
Low/Kashi teaches the compartment system according to Claim 28.
Low further teaches:
the third apparatus generating the third piece of information (para. 12 UE initiates the fulfillment request; para. 18 fulfillment request may be an order for product or goods and may specify location, address, etc. associated with particular smart locker system to which the goods should be sent; Para. 19 fulfillment request includes an identifier associated with the UE (MDN, OP address, device name, or device identifier) and may also include a user identifier, email address, and/or some other sort of identifier of a user associated with the fulfillment request
Low/Kashi does not teach, but Zhu teaches:
wherein the memory and the program code are configured to cause the compartment system to perform and/or control: generating the third piece of information; and outputting the third piece of information to the third apparatus (figure 20 and para. 220 where the logistics management system (“compartment system”) generates a locker identifier which indicates that an item is to be delivered to an electronic locker arrangement positioned at a particular location; para. 221 the logistics management system sends the locker identifier and location of electronic locker arrangement to the first user device (“third apparatus”))
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the compartment system generating and transmitting the third piece of information to the third apparatus as taught by Zhu for the third apparatus generating the third piece of information. Both are apparatuses which generate and transmit information associated with a locker system for the purpose of instructing an item to be delivered to the locker system. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Closest Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art:
Examiner did not provide art for Claims 6-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 18-20, 25, 27, 32, and 34. Examiner noting that most of the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the exception of Claim 10 which is objected to.
Regarding Claims 6, 9-12, 16, 19-20, 25, and 32, Examiner is unaware of any combination of available prior art which teaches or suggests the limitations.
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 18, 27, and 34, Examiner is unaware of any combination of available prior art which teaches or suggests the limitations in a manner in which it is obvious to combine the references.
For example, regarding “wherein the third piece of information contains at least the key” of Claims 7, 18, 27, and 34 Examiner relied upon Low to teach the fulfillment request as the third piece of information which is utilized to obtain a key. Thus, there would not be a motivation to modify Low to teach using a key to obtain the key.
Regarding Claim 14, Low teaches the third apparatus obtaining the second piece of information directly from the first apparatus. Further, Low does not teach the first apparatus transmitting any information to the second apparatus and while Kashi does teach the first apparatus transmitting information to the second apparatus, Kashi does not teach the second apparatus transmitting it again to the third apparatus.
The following are the closest prior art:
Carstens et al. (US2016/0269168) teaches a third apparatus transmitting access authorization parameters and a key to a second apparatus who transmits the information along with temporal information to a first apparatus. Carstens also teaches the first apparatus checking the authenticity of the second apparatus.
Felsher et al. (US Patent No. 9,419,951) teaches asymmetric key exchange for encryption of the communication between a first, second, and third party.
Tang (US2020/0028672) teaches a key exchange process between a smart door lock and a mobile terminal where identity authentication is performed on encrypted data.
Shibutani et al. (US2017/0084100) teaches a locker, mobile device, wearable device, and authentication server sending data to each other in order to perform authentication and unlocking a locker based on the authentication result.
Simms et al. (US2021/0304539) teaches a backend server communicating with a retailer server, authenticating a request, and sending an unlock signal to a delivery box in response to the request being authenticated.
Pientka et al. (US2018/0315015) teaches a providing apparatus transmitting delivery information to a first, second, and third apparatus wherein the information may be encrypted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628