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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25, 29-32, 34, 37, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corder et al. (US Pub No. 2014/0330603).
Regarding claim 25, Corder teaches method comprising:
receiving, at a lock interface of at least one electronic lock, a first signal associated with a delivery and requesting access by unlocking a door, at least one electronic lock for locking a door of a storage room that is stationary and part of a building, the storage room being large enough to accommodate packages that are small, medium, and oversized, the lock interface being communicatively coupled to the at least one electronic lock, the lock interface having at least one processor that implements one or more machine instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (See [0012] which teaches that the storage locker is part of a building; [0064] teaches the processor; and [0060] teaches that the locker size is configurable to a desired size to fit packages. Abstract, [0065], and [0077] teach a software application.);
in response to receiving the first signal, generating a request for the at least one electronic lock to unlock the door; and opening the at least one electronic lock, based on the request, and allowing the access through the door, regardless of whether a storage area associated with the door is in use and regardless of whether the package is small, medium, or oversized (See abstract and [0065] which teach an application that a user uses to authenticate and open the locker);
wherein the request includes at least a user identity and a code, wherein the method further includes, after receiving the first signal: verifying, through the lock interface, the request by authenticating the user identity and the code received; approving the request, through the lock interface, after the user identity and the code are successfully authenticated; and in response to the approving of the request, controlling the at least one electronic lock to automatically unlock, and wherein: in response to the receiving of signals from the lock interface, the lock circuit causes electric current to flow through the at least one electronic lock; the step of verifying, through the lock interface, the request further including at least comparing, through the lock interface, the user identity and the code received with stored data; approving the request, through the lock interface, when the user identity and the code received match the stored data, and rejecting the request, through the lock interface, when at least one of the user identity and the code received does not match the stored data (See [0065] which teaches a user application that the user accesses through a mobile device. The application allows the user to connect to the locker through a wireless connection where the locker authenticates the user’s identity and access code before unlocking the locker and allowing access.).
Regarding claim 29, Corder teaches wherein usage of the storage room is shared by multiple users, and wherein only one storage space is available for all packages delivered to the multiple users, and wherein the storage space that is available is the storage room (See abstract and [0058] which teach a bank of many storage compartments in a building.)
Regarding claim 30, Corder teaches storage receptacles are located within the storage room (See abstract and [0058] which teach a bank of many storage compartments in a building.).
Regarding claim 31, Corder teaches storage receptacles of different sizes are located within the storage room (See abstract and [0021] which teach storage compartments that are configurable to different sizes.).
Regarding claim 32, Corder teaches the door being an outer door (See [0105]).
Regarding claim 34, Corder teaches usage of the storage room is shared by multiple users, wherein there is only one storage space, and wherein the storage space is the storage room (See abstract and [0021] which teach that the storage areas are configurable for any application in any building room.)
Regarding claim 37, Corder teaches a system comprising:
a lock interface of at least one electronic lock for locking a door of a storage room that is stationary and part of a building, the storage room being large enough to accommodate packages that are small, medium, and oversized, the lock interface having at least one processor that implements one or more machine instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (See [0012] which teaches that the storage locker is part of a building; [0064] teaches the processor; and [0060] teaches that the locker size is configurable to a desired size to fit packages. Abstract, [0065], and [0077] teach a software application.);
wherein the one or more machine instructions, when implemented, cause the processor of the lock interface to implement a method including at least: receiving from a terminal, at the lock interface, a first signal, the first signal being associated with a delivery, requesting access by unlocking the door; in response to receiving the first signal, generating a request for the at least one electronic lock to unlock the door; and opening the at least one electronic lock, based on the request, and allowing the access through the door, regardless of whether a storage area associated with the door is in use and regardless of whether the package is small, medium, or oversized (See abstract and [0065] which teach an application that a user uses to authenticate and open the locker);
wherein the request includes at least a user identity and a code, wherein the method further includes, after receiving the first signal: verifying, through the lock interface, the request by authenticating the user identity and the code received; approving the request, through the lock interface, after the user identity and the code are successfully authenticated; and in response to the approving of the request, controlling the at least one electronic lock to automatically unlock, and wherein: in response to the receiving of signals from the lock interface, the lock circuit causes electric current to flow through the at least one electronic lock; the step of verifying, through the lock interface, the request further including at least comparing, through the lock interface, the user identity and the code received with stored data; approving the request, through the lock interface, when the user identity and the code received match the stored data, and rejecting the request, through the lock interface, when at least one of the user identity and the code received does not match the stored data (See [0065] which teaches a user application that the user accesses through a mobile device. The application allows the user to connect to the locker through a wireless connection where the locker authenticates the user’s identity and access code before unlocking the locker and allowing access. The locker system does not approve the request when the identity and access code are not correct.).
Regarding claim 40, Corder teaches the electronic lock is associated with an identifier, wherein the request further includes at least the identifier of the electronic lock, the code received at the lock interface being associated with the identifier, and the comparing of the user identity and the code received being performed by comparing the identifier to the code (See [0065] and [0065] teaches authenticating the customer for a specific locker, which requires identification of the specific locker.).
Regarding claim 41, Corder teaches at least one electronic lock (See abstract).
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 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corder and Raines et al. (US Pub No. 2010/0311480).
Regarding claim 22, Corder teaches a system comprising:
a lock interface that is communicatively coupled to at least one electronic lock, the lock interface having at least one processor that implements one or more machine instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer readable media; and wherein the one or more machine instructions, when implemented, cause the processor of the lock interface to implement a method including at least: receiving, at the at least one electronic lock, a signal including at least a request to open the at least one door; and opening the at least one electronic lock, based on the request, and allowing access through the at least one door; (See [0012] which teaches that the storage locker is part of a building; [0064] teaches the processor; and [0060] teaches that the locker size is configurable to a desired size to fit packages. Abstract, [0065], and [0077] which teach a user application that the user accesses through a mobile device. The application allows the user to connect to the locker through a wireless connection where the locker authenticates the user’s identity and access code before unlocking the locker and allowing access.); and
the lock interface further including a circuit that includes at least: a power source that provides electric power to the lock interface; and a receiver that receives wireless signals, the wireless signals include at least the request, the receiver transmitting signals to the at least one processor (See [0023] and [0065]).
Corder does not teach one or more capacitors that filter the signals that are transmitted to the at least one processor.
Raines teaches a capacitor to filter signals transmitted to the processor (See [0074]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Corder’s system to include Raines’s teachings in order to remove noise from the signal and better ensure a clear signal is received by the processor. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 27, Corder teaches the request being received from a terminal, the request further includes a request to deliver an item, the terminal being used by a delivery person, the method further comprising, after opening the at least one electronic lock: receiving, in the storage room, the item delivered by the delivery person; and automatically locking the at least one electronic lock after the item is delivered and the door is closed (See [0136] which teaches automatically locking aster a time period.).
Claims 23, 24, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corder and Raines as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Washburn et al. (US Pat No. 4,494,805).
Regarding claim 23, Corder teaches the at least one electronic lock being one of a plurality of electronic locks including the circuit, the circuit further including: a signal input port that is communicatively connected to at least one signal output port of the lock interface and the circuit implementing one or more machine instructions, which when implemented cause the circuit to determine which of the plurality of electronic locks to unlock, based on input received at the signal input port from the lock interface (See [0065]); but does not teach an electronic switch.
Washburn teaches an electronic switch that, in response to the circuit determining which of the plurality of electronic locks to unlock, causes electric current to flow through at least one electronic lock of the plurality of electronic locks (See Col. 1 line 51 to Col. 2 line 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Corder, as modified, to include Washburn’s teachings in order to better secure against theft and maintain the equipment and permit convenient and expeditious use. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 24, Corder does not teach a solenoid that is communicatively coupled to the electronic switch, wherein when the electronic switch is activated, a current flows to the solenoid, which causes the at least one door to open.
Washburn teaches a solenoid that is communicatively coupled to the electronic switch, wherein when the electronic switch is activated, a current flows to the solenoid, which causes the at least one door to open (See abstract and Col. 1 line 51 to Col. 2 line 8).
Regarding claim 39, Corder does not teach one electronic lock including a circuit that includes at least an electronic switch that, in response to the receiving of the first signal and the controlling by the lock interface, causes electric current to flow through the at least one electronic lock.
Washburn teaches one electronic lock including a circuit that includes at least an electronic switch that, in response to the receiving of the first signal and the controlling by the lock interface, causes electric current to flow through the at least one electronic lock (See abstract and Col. 1 line 51 to Col. 2 line 8).
Claims 26 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corder and Raines as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Zaniker (US Pub No. 2015/0102711).
Regarding claim 26, Corder does not teach the at least one electronic lock includes an electric striker, the step of opening the at least one electronic lock further comprising automatically unlocking the electric striker based on the request, the request coming from a terminal.
Zaniker teaches one electronic lock includes an electric striker, the step of opening the at least one electronic lock further comprising automatically unlocking the electric striker based on the request (See [0021]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Corder, as modified, to include Zaniker’s teachings in order to better ensure proper securing of items in the locked space. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 38, Corder does not teach the at least one electronic lock includes an electric striker, the electric striker being communicatively connected to the lock interface, the controlling by the lock interface causing the electric striker to unlock.
Zaniker teaches the at least one electronic lock includes an electric striker, the electric striker being communicatively connected to the lock interface, the controlling by the lock interface causing the electric striker to unlock (See [0021]).
Claims 28 and 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corder and Raines as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Motoyama (US Pub No. 2016/0027261).
Regarding claim 28, Corder does not teach method further comprising receiving a pickup request from a terminal, the pickup request further includes a request to pick up an item in the storage room, the terminal being used by a recipient of the item, the pickup request including at least one recipient-code, the method further comprising, prior to opening the at least one electronic lock: comparing, by the at least one electronic lock, the recipient-code with a predetermined code; approving the pickup request, by the at least one electronic lock, when the recipient-code received matches the predetermined code, and rejecting the pickup request when the recipient-code received does not match the predetermined code; and in response to the approving of the pickup request, automatically unlocking the at least one electronic lock (See abstract and [0065] which teach an application that a user uses to authenticate and open the locker) but does not teach a delivery request and a code being a deliver’s code.
Motoyama teaches a delivery request and a code being a deliver’s code (See [0198]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Corder, as modified, to include Motoyama’s teachings to provide a convenient and secure method for delivery of items to the storage space. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 36, Corder does not teach authenticating a delivery, the authenticating occurring prior to opening the door of the storage room, and the authenticating occurring via equipment that is used while the delivery is outside of the storage room.
Motoyama teaches authenticating a delivery, the authenticating occurring prior to opening the door of the storage room, and the authenticating occurring via equipment that is used while the delivery is outside of the storage room (See [0198]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corder and Raines as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Cash et al. (US Pub No. 2007/0278910).
Regarding claim 33, Corder does not teach the door being opaque.
Cash teaches an opaque door (See [0105])
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Corder, as modified, to include Cash’s teachings in order to better conceal storage container’s contents. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corder and Raines as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Frisch al. (US Pat No. 5,212,644).
Regarding claim 35, Corder teaches comparing, through the lock interface, of the user identity and of the code received with the stored data, includes, sending by the lock interface, the user identity and the code received to a server for comparison with the stored data; the approving of the request, through the lock interface, when the user identity and the code received match the stored data being based on receiving an indication from the server that the user identity and the code received match the stored data but does not teach the rejecting the request, through the lock interface, being based on receiving from the server an indication that the at least one of the user identity and the code received does not match the stored data.
Frisch teaches rejecting the request, through the lock interface, being based on receiving from an indication that the at least one of the user identity and the code received does not match the stored data (See Col. 9 lines 17-21).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Corder, as modified, to include Frisch’s teachings in order to better inform the user. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights