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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
Claim(s) 41-42, 45-52, 55-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitu (US 20150356801 A1), and further in view of Chase (US 20180322775 A1) and Zielkowski (US 20180061157 A1).
Regarding claims 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, Nitu discloses a method and system of storing personal belongings within a ride/event storage locker system installed at an entertainment venue, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving an indication that a user device has scanned a machine-readable code on a locker door of one side of a storage locker available for rental in the entertainment venue (imaging an indicia associated with a smart locker using a camera feature to access an App or website to lock or unlock a locker, Para. 28 and 52),
wherein each said storage locker has a compartment sensor installed inside the storage locker for detecting an item left therein (locker empty signal from compartment sensor, Para. 52),
wherein the scanning initiates a rental transaction of the storage locker (Para. 6, 28);
receiving an indication that the user device has scanned the machine-readable code on the rented storage locker to access the rented storage locker (imaging an indicia associated with a smart locker using a camera feature to access an App or website to lock or unlock a locker, Para. 28 and 52);
receiving an indication that the locker door has been closed and locked (via status signal may include a lock/unlock state signal, door open/close signal, Para. 52);
analyzing, via the sensor, an interior of the storage locker to determine if any items are detected in the rented storage locker (via compartment sensor, Para. 52);
and an inherent system bus to connect devices in the system (Fig. 3).
Nitu already teaches a compartment sensor to detect if the locker is empty (compartment sensor, Para. 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nitu to include in response to detecting an item inside the storage locker, sending a message to the user device identifying the detected item in the rented storage locker in order to prevent a user from losing items left behind in the locker, thereby improve convenience.
Nitu fails to disclose the compartment sensor includes a camera and an infrared sensor.
Chase teaches that sensors configured to detect left behind objects can be configured to include a camera and an infrared sensor (system 210 activates a video camera and lights in the trunk so that AVES COC 100 can assess whether any items are in the trunk. If an item is left behind in the trunk, the passenger is notified. Also, sensor(s) 270 (e.g., infrared sensors) in the trunk may be used to detect the presence of items in the trunk space, Para. 67).
From the teachings of Chase, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include the compartment sensor includes a camera and an infrared sensor in order to prevent a user from losing items left behind in the locker, thereby improve convenience.
The prior art cited fail to disclose the storage locker is a doubled sided storage locker including an ingress side and an egress side.
Zielkowski teaches a storage locker at an amusement park can be configured to be doubled sided including an ingress side and an egress side (Para. 56).
From the teachings of Zielkowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include the storage locker is a doubled sided storage locker including an ingress side and an egress side in order to improve user convenience of storing and retrieving of objects at the locker at an attraction in an amusement park.
Regarding claim 42, 52, Nitu already teaches a compartment sensor to sense if the locker is empty (Para. 52) and an end rental option (the user may select an “end” soft-button 844, Para. 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include in response to not detecting an item inside the storage locker after user selects “end” of rental, terminating the rental transaction in order to terminate the rental only after no items are detected to be left in the locker, thereby improve convenience and prevent loss of user items.
Regarding claims 45-47, 55-57, MPEP 2144.04 VI(B), which states that simply duplicating components of a device or process has no patentable significance unless the duplication leads to a new and unexpected result or solves a problem in a non-obvious way (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include more than one camera as multiple cameras or a single camera can be used to monitor the interior of a locker.
Claim(s) 43, 44, 53, 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitu in view of Chase and Zielkowski, and further in view of Rowlette (US 20160018628 A1).
Regarding claim 43, 53, the prior arts cited fail to disclose wherein the one or more infrared sensors utilize one or more sensing beams that span the interior of the storage locker.
Rowlette teaches an infrared sensor utilizes one or more sensing beams to sense objects (Para. 130).
From the teachings of Rowlette, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior arts cited to include wherein the one or more infrared sensors utilize one or more sensing beams that span the interior of the storage locker in order to scan for objects in the storage locker, thereby improve accuracy of detecting objects left behind.
Regarding claim 44, 54, the prior arts cited teach directing the one or more sensing beams in a plurality of directions within the interior of the storage locker (via illumination beam 574 to scan for objects, see Para. 130 of Rowlette).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights