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 .
Priority
Application 19/036,542 was filed on January 24, 2025 and is a continuation of U.S. Non-provisional Patent Application No. 17/994,757, filed November 28, 2022, which claims the priority benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/362,413, filed April 4, 2022.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending. Claims 1, 5, and 10 were amended in the reply filed March 18, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 8, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection made to claims 1-7, and 10 and it is withdrawn.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that neither Razzoli nor Robinson teach what action a locker takes when no response is received (Response p. 6-7). Examiner notes that the claims recite “responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, assign the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assign the parcel to a second locker” (emphasis added). Assigning the parcel to a second locker (responsive to a lack of response from the user) is an alternative to assigning the parcel to the first locker (responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the references need only teach only one of the claimed alternatives to read on the limitation. As such, Razzoli in view of Robinson does teach the features of claims 1 and 8 as describe in further detail in the 103 rejection below.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 5-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0197809 to Razzoli (Razzoli) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0106296 to Robinson et al. (Robinson).
As to claims 1 and 8, Razzoli teaches, a computerized automated parcel locker system comprising: a housing; a plurality of lockers disposed within the housing (“FIG. 12 illustrates a system 500 of lockers divided in groups, according to some embodiments of the present invention. FIG. 13 is a block diagram illustrating different components of the system of FIG. 12.” and “The system 500 includes at least two groups of lockers.” [0078 and 0079]),
each locker of the plurality of lockers having an associated door that is openable to allow access to the interior of the locker (“Similarly, the second group of locker includes lockers 700 (which may be fashioned after locker 102, 200, 300, or 400)” [0080]);
a plurality of sensors, each sensor associated with a locker of the plurality of lockers and configured to provide a signal indicating a status of the locker (“Each locker 700 has a sensing system 702 for sensing the presence or absence of a parcel inside the locker 700, and a door sensor 704 configured for sensing whether the locker's door is open or closed.” [0080]);
a controller in electronic communication with each associated door, and the plurality of sensors (“The control unit 506 is configured for receiving data from the door sensors 604 and 704 and the sensing system 602 and 702, to determine the status of the lockers.” [0080]);
wherein the controller is configured to: responsive to a first door of a first locker of the plurality of lockers being opened, an expiration of a first timeout period, and a determination by the controller that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period, prompt a user to confirm that a parcel was delivered (“At 914, a message is displayed on the user interface, indicating the locker that has been opened and requesting that the package be stored and the locker's door be closed. At 916, the control unit waits a certain time period (e.g., 30 seconds) and checks whether the door has been closed at predetermined intervals (e.g. 2 seconds) within the time period at 918 …” and “If not all doors are closed at 860, the user interface displays a screen requesting the postal worker to confirm that he/she is one with mail deliveries at 870 …” [0088-0094 and 0100-0101]).
Razzoli does not teach, and responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, the controller is configured to assign the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assign the parcel to a second locker. However, Robinson teaches: and responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, assign the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assign the parcel to a second locker (“… In various embodiments, in response to receiving this indication, the system is configured to associate the parcel with that locker location or particular locker …” and “… Continuing at Step 460, the system, at least partially in response to receiving the indication at Step 450, associates the one or more parcels with the particular locker” [0077 and 0095-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, the controller is configured to assign the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assign the parcel to a second locker, as taught by Robinson with the smart locker system of Razzoli. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Robinson that doing so would help eliminate increased transaction costs for the carrier, and delays in receiving the parcel for the consignee [0001].
Examiner notes that the language of claim 8 is not identical to the language of claim 1 (as quoted above). However, the limitations are the same. Therefore, the analysis is the same.
As to claims 2 and 9, Razzoli in view of Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. Razzoli further teaches, wherein the determination by the controller that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period is based on signals received from the plurality of sensors (“The first group of locker includes lockers 600 (which may be fashioned after locker 200). Each locker 600 has a sensing system 602 for sensing the presence or absence of a parcel inside the locker 600, and a door sensor 604 configured for sensing whether the locker's door is open or closed …” [0080]).
As to claim 5, Razzoli in view of Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Razzoli further teaches, wherein the plurality of sensors includes pressure sensors, optical sensors, door open/close state sensors, or a combination thereof (“The first group of locker includes lockers 600 (which may be fashioned after locker 200). Each locker 600 has a sensing system 602 for sensing the presence or absence of a parcel inside the locker 600, and a door sensor 604 configured for sensing whether the locker's door is open or closed …” [0080]).
As to claim 6, Razzoli in view of Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Razzoli does not teach, a communication interface configured to allow communication with a remote parcel locker management system and/or a local property management system. However, Robinson teaches, a communication interface configured to allow communication with a remote parcel locker management system and/or a local property management system (“FIG. 4 depicts a flow chart that generally illustrates various steps executed by a Delivery Driver Locker Bank Management Module that, for example, may be executed by the logistics server of FIG. 1” and “… Various aspects of the system's functionality may be executed by certain system modules, including a Delivery Driver Locker Bank Management Module 400 …” [0006 and 0081-0084] Examiner notes that Fig. 1 shows the logistics server 100 (which executes the Driver Locker Bank Management Module) remotely located relative to the Locker Bank 700).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, a communication interface configured to allow communication with a remote parcel locker management system and/or a local property management system, as taught by Robinson with the smart locker system of Razzoli. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Robinson that doing so would help eliminate increased transaction costs for the carrier, and delays in receiving the parcel for the consignee [0001].
As to claim 7, Razzoli in view of Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Razzoli does not teach, wherein the parcel locker system is configured to automatically address parcels delivered to an incorrect locker, missing parcels, and/or objects other than delivered parcels placed into any of the plurality of lockers. However, Robinson teaches, wherein the parcel locker system is configured to automatically address parcels delivered to an incorrect locker, missing parcels, and/or objects other than delivered parcels placed into any of the plurality of lockers (“In particular embodiments, such as embodiments in which the system is configured to substantially automatically determine that the one or more parcels have been placed in a particular locker, the system is configured to prompt the delivery driver to confirm that the delivery driver in fact placed the one or more parcels in the particular locker … In various embodiments, the system may display a message (e.g., on a display screen associated with the locker bank computer) stating that the one or more parcels have been placed in the particular locker and request that the delivery driver select among: (1) confirming the veracity of the system determined placement; (2) overriding the system-determined placement and providing the proper locker identification manually; and (3) restarting the delivery process and re-attempting to deliver the one or more parcels to a particular locker [i.e, address parcels delivered to an incorrect locker]” [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the parcel locker system is configured to automatically address parcels delivered to an incorrect locker, missing parcels, and/or objects other than delivered parcels placed into any of the plurality of lockers, as taught by Robinson with the smart locker system of Razzoli. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Robinson that doing so would help eliminate increased transaction costs for the carrier, and delays in receiving the parcel for the consignee [0001].
As to claim 11, Razzoli in view of Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Razzoli further teaches, subsequent to the parcel being assigned to the first locker or to the second locker, notifying a recipient of the parcel that the parcel has been delivered (“The data center is configured for contacting recipients via recipient user devices 514 (also referred to as communication devices in this document), to inform the recipients that a package, a parcel, or mail is waiting to be picked up in one or more lockers.” [0082]).
As to claim 12, Razzoli in view of Robinson teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Razzoli does not teach, wherein the notification is provided via email or text message. However, Robinson teaches, wherein the notification is provided via email or text message (“… In particular embodiments, the system is configured to notify the parcel recipient that the parcel has been delivered to the alternate delivery location (e.g., via e-mail, SMS, text message, or any other suitable method of communication)” [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the notification is provided via email or text message, as taught by Robinson with the smart locker system of Razzoli. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Robinson that doing so would help eliminate increased transaction costs for the carrier, and delays in receiving the parcel for the consignee [0001].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 10 are 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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being as being anticipated by claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same inventive concepts are recited, albeit slight differences in wording (e.g., electronic vs signal communication). The claim limitations in the current application are all taught by U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331 as described in the table below.
Current Application Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 1
A computerized automated parcel locker system comprising:
A computerized automated parcel locker system comprising:
a housing;
a housing;
a plurality of lockers disposed within the housing, each locker of the plurality of lockers having an associated door that is openable to allow access to the interior of the locker;
a plurality of lockers disposed within the housing, each locker of the plurality of lockers having an associated door that is openable to allow access to the interior of the locker;
a plurality of sensors, each sensor associated with a locker of the plurality of lockers and configured to provide a signal indicating a status of the locker;
a plurality of sensors, each sensor associated with a locker of the plurality of lockers and configured to provide a signal indicating whether the associated locker is empty or contains an item;
--
a user interface capable of providing information about each of the plurality of lockers based on the signal provided by each of the plurality of sensors;
a controller in electronic communication with each associated door, and the plurality of sensors;
Examiner notes paragraph [0045] in Applicant’s specification, which teaches an “electronic signal”. As such, it appears that “electronic communication” and “signal communication” are equivalents
a controller in signal communication with each associated door, the user interface, and the plurality of sensors;
--
wherein, responsive to a first door of a first locker of the plurality of lockers being opened and based on a timeout period, the controller is configured and arranged to:
--
responsive to a second door of a second locker being closed before expiration of the timeout period and to the first door not being closed during the timeout period, determining that a parcel was placed in the second locker and, in response, assigning the parcel to the second locker;
--
or responsive to no doors being closed before expiration of the timeout period, assigning the parcel to the first locker or cancelling delivery of the parcel to the automated parcel locker system;
wherein, the controller is configured to:
and wherein,
responsive to a first door of a first locker of the plurality of lockers being opened, an expiration of a first timeout period, and a determination by the controller that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period, prompt a user to confirm that a parcel was delivered;
responsive to the first door of the first locker of the plurality of lockers being opened, an expiration of the first timeout period, and a determination by the controller that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period, the controller is configured to prompt a user to confirm that the parcel was delivered;
and responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, assign the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assign the parcel to a second locker.
and responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, the controller is configured to assign the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assign the parcel to the second locker.
Current Application Claim 2
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 3
wherein the determination by the controller that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period is based on signals received from the plurality of sensors
wherein the step of determining, by the controller, that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period is based on signals received from the plurality of sensors
Current Application Claim 3
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 4
further comprising, subsequent to the first door being opened and the second door being closed before expiration of the timeout period:
further comprising, subsequent to the first door being opened and the second door being closed before expiration of the timeout period,
---
wherein the first door is not closed during the timeout period, and subsequent to determining that the parcel was placed in the second locker:
determining that the second door was opened and closed;
determining that the second door was opened and closed;
receiving a signal from a sensor of the second locker that, subsequent to the second door being closed, an item is in the second locker;
receiving a signal from a sensor of the second locker that, subsequent to the second door being closed, an item is in the second locker;
providing a notification via the user interface indicating that an item is in the second locker;
providing a notification via the user interface indicating that an item is in the second locker;
and responsive to receiving a response to the notification, the response indicating that no item is in the second locker, setting a status of the second locker to indicate that the locker requires maintenance.
and responsive to receiving a response to the notification, the response indicating that no item is in the second locker, setting a status of the second locker to indicate that the locker requires maintenance.
Current Application Claim 4
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 5
wherein the status indicates that the sensor of the second locker requires servicing.
wherein the status indicates that the sensor of the second locker requires servicing.
Current Application Claim 5
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 6
wherein the plurality of sensors includes pressure sensors, optical sensors, door open/close state sensors, or a combination thereof.
wherein the plurality of sensors include pressure sensors, optical sensors, door open/close state sensors, or a combination thereof.
Current Application Claim 6
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 7
further comprising a communication interface configured to allow communication with a remote parcel locker management system and/or a local property management system.
further comprising a communication interface configured to allow communication with a remote parcel locker management system and/or a local property management system.
Current Application Claim 7
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 8
wherein the parcel locker system is configured to automatically address parcels delivered to an incorrect locker, missing parcels, and/or objects other than delivered parcels placed into any of the plurality of locker
wherein the parcel locker system is configured to automatically address parcels delivered to an incorrect locker, missing parcels, and/or objects other than delivered parcels placed into any of the plurality of lockers.
Current Application Claim 8
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 9
A method, performed by a computerized controller in a computerized automated parcel locker system including a plurality of lockers, each having an associated door, and a plurality of sensors, configured to provide signals indicating whether each locker is empty or contains an item, the method comprising:
A method, performed by a computerized controller in a computerized automated parcel locker system including a plurality of lockers, each having an associated door, and a plurality of sensors, configured to provide signals indicating whether each locker is empty or contains an item, the method comprising:
--
responsive to a first door of a first locker of the plurality of lockers being opened and based on a timeout period:
--
responsive to a second door of a second locker being closed before expiration of the timeout period and to the first door not being closed during the timeout period, determining that a parcel was placed in the second locker and, in response, assigning the parcel to the second locker;
--
or responsive to no doors being closed before expiration of the timeout period, assigning the parcel to the first locker or cancelling delivery of the parcel to the automated parcel locker system; and
responsive to a first door of a first locker of the plurality of lockers being opened, an expiration of a first timeout period, and a determination that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period, prompting a user to confirm that a parcel was delivered;
responsive to the first door of the first locker of the plurality of lockers being opened and based on the timeout period: responsive to expiration of the first timeout period and to determining, by the controller, that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period, prompting a user to confirm that the parcel was delivered;
and responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, assigning the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assigning the parcel to a second locker.
and responsive to receiving a confirmation from the user, assigning the parcel to the first locker, or, responsive to a lack of response from the user during a second timeout period, assigning the parcel to the second locker.
Current Application Claim 9
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 11
wherein the determination that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period is based on signals received from the plurality of sensors.
wherein the step of determining, by the controller, that no item has been added to any locker during the timeout period is based on signals received from the plurality of sensors.
Current Application Claim 10
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 12
--
subsequent to the first door being opened and the second door being closed before expiration of the timeout period, wherein the first door is not closed during the timeout period, and subsequent to determining that the parcel was placed in the second locker:
determining that the second door was opened and closed;
determining that the second door was opened and closed;
receiving a signal from a sensor of the second locker that, subsequent to the second door being closed, an item is in the second locker;
receiving a signal from a sensor of the second locker that, subsequent to the second door being closed, an item is in the second locker;
providing a notification indicating that an item is in the second locker;
providing a notification via the user interface indicating that an item is in the second locker;
and responsive to receiving a response to the notification, the response indicating that no item is in the second locker, setting a status of the second locker to indicate that the locker requires maintenance.
and responsive to receiving a response to the notification, the response indicating that no item is in the second locker, setting a status of the second locker to indicate that the locker requires maintenance.
Current Application Claim 11
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 13
subsequent to the parcel being assigned to the first locker or to the second locker, notifying a recipient of the parcel that the parcel has been delivered.
subsequent to the parcel being assigned to the first locker or to the second locker, notifying a recipient of the parcel that the parcel has been delivered.
Current Application Claim 12
U.S. Patent No. 12,211,331, Claim 14
wherein the notification is provided via email or text message.
wherein the notification is provided via email or text message.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights