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 1-7, 9, 10, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shannon (US#2001/0045449).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Shannon discloses a safe device/system 10b, comprising: a housing installed in contact with a wall of a facility ([0031]), the housing and the wall separating a first area of the facility from a second area of the facility (Fig. 5); a first door 12a on a first surface of the housing and facing the first area (Figs. 4-5); a second door 12b on a second surface of the housing and facing the second area (Figs. 4-5); a first operation interface 50a facing the first area and operated to input first information (access code) related to an item inserted into the safe device through the first door (Figs. 4-5); and a second operation interface 50b facing the second area and operated to input second information (access code) related to an item to be removed from the safe device through the second door (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claims 2-6, the access code is the same (i.e. consistent) for both the first and second information (Per Fig. 9, and [0042], “Referring to FIG. 9, the intended recipient would retrieve the delivered good by accessing the storage device in a similar manner. The intended recipient would input the same temporary access code (step 310) or a permanent security code (step 315) into the input device, preferably a keypad.”). The terms “consistency” and/or “consistent” are being viewed as corresponding to the “same”, while the terms “inconsistency” and/or “inconsistent” are being viewed as corresponding to “different”, i.e. not the same.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the second operation interface 50b receives, as the second information (access code), consistency determination information (same access code as first information) indicating (via successful unlocking) whether the first information (access code) and the item to be removed from the second door are consistent (i.e. same).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the second operation interface 50b receives, as the consistency determination information (same access code as first information), consistency information (same access code) indicating (via successful unlocking) that the first information (access code) and the item to be removed from the second door are consistent (i.e. same).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the second operation interface 50b receives, as the consistency determination information (same access code as first information), inconsistency information (wrong access code) indicating (via unsuccessful unlocking) that the first information and the item to be removed from the second door are not consistent (i.e. different, not the same).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the second operation interface 50b receives, as the inconsistency information (wrong access code), information obtained by correcting (via the “CANCEL” key on the keypad) the first information (access code) so as to match the item to be removed from the second door.
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a display (see Fig. 4 and the rectangular display screen directly above keys of keypad 50a), that displays information (entered keys) that the inconsistency information (wrong access code) has been input by operating the second operation interface 50b.
Regarding claim 7, further comprising circuitry ([0046], “For example, the present invention may employ various integrated circuit components, e.g., memory elements, processing elements, logic elements, look-up tables, and the like, which may carry out a variety of functions under the control of one or more microprocessors or other control devices.”) configured to determine whether the first information and the second information are consistent (Fig. 9, [0042], “Referring to FIG. 9, the intended recipient would retrieve the delivered good by accessing the storage device in a similar manner. The intended recipient would input the same temporary access code (step 310) or a permanent security code (step 315) into the input device, preferably a keypad.”).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first operation interface 50a is operated to input information after correcting the first information via the “CANCEL” key on the keypad so as to match the item inserted into the safe device through the first door.
Regarding claim 10, further comprising a display (see Fig. 4 and rectangular display of 50a above keypad) facing one of the first area and the second area, the display outputting information (entered access code from keypad) indicating that one of the first operation interface and the second operating interface is being operated.
Regarding claim 15, further comprising: a first locking/unlocking mechanism that locks and unlocks the first door ([0041]); and a second locking/unlocking mechanism that locks and unlocks the second door ([0042]).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the first locking/unlocking mechanism and the second locking/unlocking mechanism operate exclusively with (independently from) each other, and the first door 12a and the second door 12b are operable (capable of being operated) such that when one of the first door and the second door is open (e.g. first door is unlocked), the other of the first door and the second door cannot be opened (e.g. second door is locked).
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 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (US#2001/0045449) in view of Nelson (US#9889979).
Regarding claim 8, although Shannon discloses a display that displays information, such as entered keys (see Fig. 4 and the rectangular display screen directly above keys of keypad 50a), Shannon fails to disclose when the circuitry determines that the first information and the second information do not match (e.g. wrong access code entered), the displayed information is an indication that the first information and the second information do not match. The applicant is reminded patentable novelty cannot be principally predicated on mere printed matter and arrangements thereof, such as the specific displayed information, but must reside basically in physical structure. (See In re Montgomery 102 USPQ 248). In any event, as evidenced by Nelson, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see safe 100 including a display 110 that displays information including entered keys and also status messages for users and operators (col. 3, lines 20-22). Therefore, as evidenced by Nelson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shannon such that the displayed information further included status messages for users and operators such as an indication that the first information and the second information do not match. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the displayed information further including status messages for users and operators, such as an indication that the first information and the second information do not match, would enhance the user interface of the safe.
Regarding claim 11, although Shannon discloses a display facing one of the first area and the second area (see Fig. 4 and the rectangular display screen directly above keys of keypad 50a), and the display outputting information such as entered keys, Shannon fails to disclose the information indicating that one of the first door and the second door is open. The applicant is reminded patentable novelty cannot be principally predicated on mere printed matter and arrangements thereof, such as the specific displayed information, but must reside basically in physical structure. (See In re Montgomery 102 USPQ 248). In any event, as evidenced by Nelson, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see safe 100 including a display 110 that displays information including entered keys and also status messages for users and operators (col. 3, lines 20-22). Therefore, as evidenced by Nelson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shannon such that the displayed information further included status messages for users and operators such as information indicating that one of the first door and the second door is open. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the displayed information further including status messages for users and operators, such as information indicating that one of the first door and the second door is open, would enhance the user interface of the safe.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (US#2001/0045449) in view of Choi et al. (US#2017/0213187).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Shannon fails to disclose a camera facing the first or second area, and a storage that stores a face image of a user captured by the camera in association with an operation of the first or second operation interface by the user. However, as evidenced by Choi, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see safe 100 including an external facing camera 151 ([0057]) and a storage 190 ([0132]) that stores a face image of a user captured by the camera in association with an operation of the interface 140 by the user. Therefore, as evidenced by Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shannon to include a camera facing the first or second area, and a storage that stores a face image of a user captured by the camera in association with an operation of the first or second operation interface by the user. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a camera facing the first or second area, and a storage that stores a face image of a user captured by the camera in association with an operation of the first or second operation interface by the user, would enhance the security of the safe.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (US#2001/0045449) in view of Roman et al. (US#2021/0005033).
Regarding claim 14, Shannon fails to disclose a printer facing the first area and which prints operation information of the first operation interface. However, as evidenced by Roman, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see safe device 1410 comprising a first door 1412 facing a first area, a first operation interface 1420 (keypad), and output devices including a printer facing the first area and which prints operation information of the first operation interface ([0086]). Therefore, as evidenced by Roman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shannon to include a printer facing the first area and which prints operation information of the first operation interface. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a printer facing the first area and which prints operation information of the first operation interface would enhance the operational capabilities of the safe by providing a means of record keeping, or receipt, for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Shannon (US#2001/0045449) is capable of being modified by Hengst (US#2019/0254459) which teaches it is known in the analogous art to include an emergency unlocking operation unit (physical key) that is operated to perform unlocking by the locking/unlocking mechanism with mechanical operation in an emergency ([0025]). However, the prior art of record fails to disclose the first and second emergency unlocking operation units in combination with the following: a third emergency unlocking operation unit that is operated to perform unlocking of one of the first locking/unlocking mechanism and the second locking/unlocking mechanism by a key input signal in an emergency; and an emergency door which covers the first emergency unlocking operation unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted Shoenfeld (US#10238210) teaches a lock manual override for safe 10 (see col. 3, lines 35-41).
It is noted applicant’s cited JP 2014-169587 discloses a safe comprising: a housing 1; a first door 30 with locking mechanism 50; and a second door 40 with locking mechanism 60.
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
Prosecution Insights