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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the combination lock (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant is advised to add new Fig. 12 identical to Fig. 12 of the parent application No. 17/746,667, including the subsequently required associated amendments to the specification referencing new Fig. 12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of numerous informalities, the below proposed amended paragraphs overcome all such informalities:
[0042] FIG. 9 illustrates a perspective view of a gap with a mounting
[0043] FIG. 10 illustrates a perspective view of an apparatus for housing a delivered parcel, with a mounting
[0063] (e.g., plate 122) that can be positioned into the channel(s) 112 when anticipating or expecting a parcel delivery, thereby securing the apparatus 100 to the ground. The "lock" may only be removable by gaining access to the inside of the receptacle. The locking mechanism base(s) configured from the plates 120, 122 and/or 124 can be secured to a variety of surfaces for the purpose of creating a secure delivery depot. The plate 122 can comprise the aforementioned key.
[0065] FIG. 5 illustrates cut-away view of an apparatus 101 for housing a delivered parcel, in accordance with an alternative embodiment. Note that the apparatus 101 is similar to the previously discussed apparatus 100, but includes some differences, such as the use of a circular plate 125 having a center 127 as part of a locking mechanism 134. The plate 125 defines a key. The apparatus 101 also functions as a self-contained receptacle. The circular plate 125 sits above a plate 132 and is inserted into a side rail 126 and a side rail 128 each defining a channel. The side rail 126 and the side rail 128 can respectively connect to the wall 106 and the wall 108
[0066] FIG. 6 illustrates a cut-away view of an apparatus 103 for housing a delivered parcel, in accordance with an alternative embodiment. In the alternative embodiment depicted in FIG. 6, a locking mechanism 136 can be implemented, which includes a partially circular plate 135 and a base plate 132 upon which the circular plate is located. The plate 135 defines a key. The partially circular plate 135 can rotate in the direction indicated by arrow 142 about a center 137 to engage with and insert into the rails 126 and 128. The apparatus 103 is also an example of a self-contained receptacle.
[0073] FIG. 9 illustrates a perspective view of a gap 117 with a mounting 119 (e.g., side lid lock mechanism) mounting mounting
[0074] FIG. 10 illustrates a perspective view of the apparatus 100 for housing a delivered parcel, with the gap 117 for the mounting 119 of
Appropriate correction is required. The above changes were required and made by the applicant in the parent application No. 17/746,667.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4. (Proposed Amended) The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the at least one base comprises a plurality of base plates
Claim 6, line 2, change “circulate” to --circular--;
Claim 7, line 1, change “palte” to --plate-- and after “center” insert --thereof--; and
Claim 7, line 2, after “rails” insert --formed on the self-contained receptacle--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
In claim 1, line 2, the phrase “a self-contained receptacle comprising at least one base” is inaccurate as the at least one base is not part of the receptacle. The receptacle comprises an open bottom. The at least one base is a distinct plurality of plates secured to the ground/floor within the interior of the receptacle adjacent the open bottom thereof, e.g. see Fig. 2 and the open bottom of the receptacle (including channel 112) and the cooperating at least one base including plates 120, 122, 124. The applicant is advised to introduce the “at least one base” in a separate paragraph of claim 1.
It is unclear if the “at least one base secured to the ground” recited in claim 2, line 1, is referencing the “at least one base…securable to a floor” previously recited in claim 1, lines 2-3.
Claim 2 is inaccurate as the base does not form a channel, but rather two adjacent side walls 106 and 108 of the receptacle each form a channel, see Figs. 1-2 and channel 112.
It is unclear if the “key” recited in claim 2, line 3, is referencing and/or includes the “at least one base” previously recited in claim 1, line 2. The at least one base is comprised of a plurality of plates, see plates 120, 122, and 124 in Fig. 2. The “key” is one of the plates of the base and is positioned on a top surface of a bottom plate of the base, see Fig. 2 and the plate (key) 122 positioned in channel 112 and on a top surface of bottom plate 124.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
In claim 5, lines 1-2, “the plurality of base plates” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is inaccurate as only one base plate of the at least one base is securable to a surface by an adhesive. Specifically, it is the lowermost base plate of the at least one base which is adhesively securable to the floor, see Fig. 2 and lowermost base plate 124.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it depends from a rejected claim.
Claim 7 is incomplete for failing to recite sufficient structural cooperation between the plurality of rails and the apparatus. The rails 126 and 128 are formed on two adjacent side walls of the receptacle and each form a channel for insertion of the key, see Fig. 5 and rails 126 and 128 each defining a channel for insertion of plate (key) 125.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, and 3, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,857. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application clearly reads on claim 1 of the related patent as each recite the apparatus comprising: a self-contained receptacle; at least one base (line 24); a slidable lid, and a locking mechanism including a combination lock and mounting.
Claims 2 of the instant application reads on claim 1, last paragraph, of the related patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application reads on claim 1, line 28, of the related patent, “bottom adhesive plate”.
Claim 4 of the instant application reads on claim 1, line 27, of the related patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application reads on claim 1, lines 28-30, of the related patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application reads on claim 2 of the related patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application reads on claim 3 of the related patent.
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 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gramlich (US#2001/0040422).
Regarding claim 1, Gramlich discloses in Figs. 2A-2G an apparatus for housing a delivered parcel, comprising: a self-contained receptacle comprising at least one base (planar bottom panel of receptacle base, including the front, rear, and side flanges extending upward from the planar bottom panel), wherein the self- contained receptacle is collapsible, removable, and at least indirectly securable to a floor via holes 202, and houses and secures a parcel within the self-contained receptacle; a lid 204 attached to the self-contained receptacle, wherein the lid is slidable via guide slots 206 with respect to the self-contained receptacle to allow access to the self-contained receptacle for a delivery of the parcel by a courier; and a locking mechanism 201 comprising a combination lock [0014] and a mounting (inherent mounting surface(s) for combination lock), wherein the locking mechanism secures the lid to the self-contained receptacle with the combination lock and the mounting, wherein the combination code is provided to the courier (steps 302 and 304) in advance of the delivery of the parcel to allow the courier to unlock and slide the lid into an open position and place the parcel within the self-contained receptacle and slide and lock the lid into a closed position to secure the parcel within the self-contained receptacle.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the above defined at least one base is being viewed and labeled as a “base plate” via its geometry.
Regarding claim 4, the at least one base comprises the planar bottom panel of the receptacle base, and the front, rear, and side flanges of receptacle extending upward from the planar bottom panel.
Regarding claim 5, the above defined base plates of claim 4 are capable of being secured, i.e. “securable”, to a surface via an adhesive. It is noted an adhesive is not being claimed.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gramlich (US#2001/0040422).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above with respect to claim 4, Gramlich discloses a plurality of base plates (front, rear, and side flanges of the receptacle base), including the at least one base (planar bottom panel of the receptable base) upon which the plurality of base plates are located, i.e. extend upward therefrom. However, Gramlich discloses a rectangular receptable comprising a rectangular receptacle base and thus rectangular base plates as opposed to a circular base plate. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gramlich such that receptacle was at least partially circular shaped and thus included at least partially circular shaped base plates for aesthetic preference as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon overcoming the double patenting rejection, claims 2 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the receptacle forms a channel which removably receives therein a key of the at least one base secured to the floor/ground to lock and unlock the receptacle to the floor/ground. Likewise, regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the receptacle comprises rails forming a channel which removably receives therein a rotating circular plate of the at least one base secured to the floor/ground to lock and unlock the receptacle to the floor/ground.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677