Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 10 (2nd claim 10) – 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
There are two claim 10s. Since it appears that Applicant’s intention was to have the claims similar to US 12183140 B2, Examiner is assuming that the 2nd claim 10 was unintentional and will be cancelled. Further, the 2nd claim 10 is similar to claims 2 and 19, hence Examiner is not considering the 2nd claim 10 below.
Claims 11 – 17 are method claims which dependent on system claim 9 in the 1st group of claims. It appears that claims 11 – 17 should depend on method claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 - 10 (1st claim 10) and 11 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 - 20 respectively of prior U.S. Patent No. 12183140. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 - 10 (1st claim 10) and 11 - 20 are identical to claims 1 - 20 respectively of US 12183140.
As stated above, the 2nd claim 10 is assumed to be unintentional and will be cancelled.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to package delivery using access codes:
Nesling (US 20100085148) discloses delivery container.
Shuster (US 6756879) discloses method and apparatus for securing delivery of goods.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights