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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 02/20/2026. Claims 1 and 8 were amended; no claim was cancelled or added in a reply filed 05/18/2026. Therefore claims 1-12 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 in regards to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Office Actions alleges that claims 1-12 are directed to the abstract idea of "buying or renting an item," which the Office Action characterizes as falling under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes-specifically, "fundamental economic practice, business practice and managing interactions between people and personal behavior and concepts that can be done in the human mind (with pen and paper)." Office Action, page 3. The Office Action further has alleged that the additional elements amount to "no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in the field of smart lockers." Office Action, page 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees.” (remarks p. 7)
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter, the characterization of the abstract idea is clarified in view of the amended claims. Claims 1 and 8 do not merely recite “buying or renting an item” at a high level. The claims more specifically recite determining commercial prices for purchasing and temporarily using an item, using individual and community usage information to recalculate the temporary use price, and in claim 8, reconciling a prior payment.
Claim 1 recites “the processor calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item”, where the second price is determined from a proportion of the item’s new cost based on the user’s temporary use duration and an expected total community use duration. Claim 1 further recites recomputing the expected total community use duration and recalculating the temporary use price.
Claim 8 similarly recites calculating purchase and temporary use prices, determining the temporary use price using an individual user’s use and actual total community use, recomputing that price, and: “reconciles a prior payment of an earlier user of the selected item”. These limitations recite commercial pricing, allocation of an item’s cost among users, and settlement or adjustment of payments such limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices and commercial interactions.
The rejection need not establish that every limitation can be performed mentally. A claim may recite an abstract commercial practice together with additional physical or computer implemented elements. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, those additional elements must then be evaluated to determine whether they integrate the commercial practice into a practical application. The fact that the claims include sensor data, databases, processors, or access codes does not remove the expressly recited pricing and payment activity from the abstract idea grouping.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 continue to recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong one.
Applicant argues “Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1 and 8, as amended, integrate any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(b), a claim that is implemented on a "particular machine" that is integral to the claim may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 and 8, as amended, recite precisely such a particular machine-a smart storage station apparatus with physical sensors attached to specific containers, a processor that operates the apparatus based on physical sensor measurements, and a processor-driven access-code validation mechanism that actuates physical access to a specific container.” (remarks p. 7-8)
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The use of a particular machine is an important consideration, but it is not independent or dispositive test for eligibility. The relevant question is whether the judicial exception is applied with or through a machine that is integral to the claimed application of the exception, rather than whether the claim merely includes a physical apparatus or uses machinery as a tool to perform data collection and calculations. The MPEP expressly distinguishes integral use of a machine from situations in which machinery merely provides the environment or tools through which the abstract process is implemented.
The recited storage station components do not apply the pricing calculating to control the physical operation of the machine. Claims 1 and 8 recite that the processor provides access: “in response to validation of the access code at the storage station apparatus” The claims do not recite that access to the container is provided, withheld, modified, or otherwise controlled based upon: the calculated purchase price; the calculated temporary use price; the accumulated community use data; the recomputed expected or actual total length of use; the recalculated second price; or the reconciliation of a prior payment.
Instead, the access operation is triggered by validation of an access code. The pricing calculations occur as a separate commercial operation. Thus, the claimed access control mechanism does not use the pricing calculation to control a physical process in the manner that a mathematical relationship was used to control the rubber curing process in Diehr.
Applicant also characterizes the claim as requiring “a processor driven access code validation mechanism that actuates physical access to a specific container”. The actual claim language is broader. Claim 1 and 8 recite that” the processor provides access to the one of the one or more containers”. The claims do not expressly require an electronic lock, locking actuator, a motor, a latch, an electrical signal sent to a lock or any particular mechanism by which access is physically provided.
Accordingly, Applicant’s characterization that the processor necessarily “actuates” or “unlocks” a physical lock adds a limitation that is not expressly recited. Even assuming that providing access encompasses electronically unlocking a container under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the unlocking remains responsive to authentication, not to the claimed pricing or payment calculations.
The storage station, containers, sensors, processor, interface, database, and access code functionality therefore provide the technological environment and tools in which the pricing practice is implemented. Merely implementing an abstract idea using physical or tangible components does not automatically establish integration. The MPEP explains that the recitation of concrete components is insufficient where generic machinery merely performs conventional computer functions or serves as a tool for applying the exception.
Applicant has therefore not established that the alleged judicial exception is applied through a particular machine that is integral to the pricing and payment calculation.
Applicant argues “With respect to claim 1, as amended, the claim now recites that "the processor receives sensor data from the one or more sensors indicating return events of the selected item to the container by each of a plurality of users in the community of users," that "the database accumulates community use data for the selected item from the received sensor data indicating the return events by the plurality of users," and that "the processor recomputes the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by the community of users based on the accumulated community use data stored in the database and recalculates the second price for the user, using the recomputed expected total length of time of use. Applicant submits that these limitations are not a mental process. A human mind cannot aggregate sensor-detected return events from a plurality of users across the community, store the resulting community use data in a database, and dynamically recompute the community's expected total length of time of use to drive an individual user's price." Applicant submits that these limitations are not a mental process.” (remarks p. 8).
Applicant’s argument is acknowledged but is not persuasive. First, the rejection does not require finding that the entirety of the claimed operation can be performed mentally, Claim 1 independently recites a commercial pricing practice within the certain method of organizing human activity grouping.
Second, the inability of a human to perform a claimed process with the same speed, volume, accuracy, or convenience as a computer does not, by itself, demonstrate a technological improvement or integration into a practical application. The claim must be evaluated based upon what the computer and machine components are required to do, not merely the number of users or amount of information involved. The claimed operations remain to receive information indicating a return; store and accumulate that information; estimate an expected community use duration; use the estimate in a pricing calculation; and revise the price.
Increasing the number of users whose information is aggregated does not change the character of the operation from a commercial pricing determination into an improvement in computer or storage station technology.
Third, applicant’s assertion that the expected total length is recomputed “to drive” the individual user’s price confirms that the purpose of the machine implementation is the commercial pricing determination. The claim does not use the recomputed lifetime to alter how the storage station stores an item, detects a return validates an access code, or physically provides access.
The fact that the commercial calculation uses automatically collected data may improve the accuracy or timeliness of the price, but an improvement in the quality of a business result is not necessarily an improvement in technology.
Furthermore, the abstract idea in the claim is also directed towards a commercial pricing practice of determining a purchase price and a temporary use price, allocating a proportion of the items’ new cost based on individual and community usage, and revising that price when the expected community use period changes. That practice falls within certain methods of organizing human activity regardless of whether the claimed implementation includes sensor generated information that could not literally originate in the human mind.
The sensor, database, and processor limitations must therefore be evaluated as additional elements under step 2A, prong two.
The sensors perform a data gathering function by indicating return events. The database stores and aggregates the resulting information. The processor uses the accumulated information to estimate an expected total use period and recalculate the temporary use price. These limitations improve the information available for the commercial pricing determination, but they do not improve the operation of the sensors, database, processor, storage station, or access control system.
Rather, the claimed components collect, store, aggregate, and process information for the purpose of revising a commercial price. Data gathering that supplies information for an abstract calculation and generic storage or processing of that information do not, without more, integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues “The multi-user, sensor-accumulated, dynamically recomputed community lifetime parameter is fundamentally a machine- implemented data-aggregation and recomputation operation that meaningfully limits the claim beyond any alleged abstract pricing concept.” (remarks p. 8)
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The limitation narrows the information used in the abstract pricing practice, but narrowing an abstract idea to a specific set of inputs does not necessarily integrate the exception into a practical application. Claim 1 specifies that the price is calculated using a community lifetime parameter derived from accumulated return event information. The community use information, However, remains information used as an input to the pricing calculation.
The claims do not recite a particular technological technique for deriving the expected lifetime from the return events. For example, claim 1 does not specify a particular predictive model; a particular data structure; a particular sensor fusion process, a particular mechanism for distinguishing use duration from non-use duration. The limitations therefore define what information is considered and what commercial result is calculated, rather than a technological improvement in how the machine operates.
Applicant argues “With respect to claim 8, as amended, the claim now recites that "the database accumulates, based on the received sensor data, the actual total length of time of use of the selected item across the plurality of users in the community of users," and that "the processor recomputes the second price for the user based on the accumulated actual total length of time of use stored in the database and reconciles a prior payment of an earlier user of the selected item based on the accumulated actual total length of time of use." (remarks p. 8).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The amended limitations more particularly define the commercial pricing and payment practice, but they do not change its fundamental character. Clam 8 recites accumulating information concerning actual use; recalculating a temporary use price from that information; and reconciling an amount previously paid.
Recalculating a price based upon actual transaction information and adjusting a prior payment are commercial accounting and settlement functions. The database and processor implement those functions by storing information performing calculations and updating a financial transaction.
The accumulated actual use information is not used to control the physical operation of the container or sensor. It is used to determine the amount that should have been charged and to reconcile a payment. Thus, the result of the claimed data accumulation and calculation is a financial result, not an improvement in the storage station technology.
Applicant argues “Applicant submits that these limitations require physical sensor-based measurement at the container of each return event by each of a plurality of users in the community, machine- implemented aggregation of those return events into an accumulated actual total length of community use stored in a database, and a dynamic, retroactive cross- user pricing adjustment whereby a prior payment of an earlier user is reconciled based on the accumulated community usage. None of these operations can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The cross-user payment reconciliation in particular is a concrete, machine-implemented operation that meaningfully limits the claim beyond any alleged abstract pricing concept.” (remarks p. 9)
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and, in part, attributes requirements to claim 8 that are not expressly recited. First, claim 8 recites sensor data “indicating return events of the selected item to the container”. The claim does not expressly recite that the sensors measure the entire duration of each user’s use. A return event sensor may indicate that an item has been returned, but the claim does not explain how a sensor attached to a container measures the beginning of use, periods of actual operation, interruptions in use, or the entire duration between removal and return.
The claim subsequently states that the database accumulates the actual total length of use “based on” the received sensor data. This broadly establishes a relationship between the return event information and the accumulated duration, but it does not require the sensors themselves to physically measure the complete use duration as Applicant contends.
Second, Applicant characterizes the claim as requiring a “retroactive cross user pricing adjustment”. Claim 8 does not require reconciliation of one user’s payment because a different subsequent user used the item. The claim recites “a prior payment of an earlier user”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the earlier user may be the same individual whose use occurred before the later reconciliation. The claim does not recite a different earlier user or a first user distinct from a second user. Accordingly, Applicant’s cross user characterization is narrower than the claim language. The claim encompasses the conventional circumstance in which an initial charge to a user is subsequently reconciled after actual use information becomes available.
Moreover, as argued above, the rejection does not depend solely upon the mental process grouping. Claim 8 recites commercial pricing and payment reconciliation activity within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. A commercial practice does not cease to be abstract merely because its claimed implementation uses information generated by sensors, involves multiple users, or requires a computer to perform the operation at a practical scale.
Moreover, the underlying commercial operations, recording use, allocating cost based on use, recalculating an amount due, and crediting or debiting a prior payment, are conceptually recognizable accounting and transactional activities. The claimed computer components automate those operations and enable them to be performed efficiently across multiple transactions.
Thus, even assuming that the full sensor-based implementation cannot literally be performed in the human mind, that fact does not establish that the recited pricing and payment practice is integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the cross-user payment reconciliation is not a concrete machine implemented operation that meaningfully limits the claim beyond any alleged abstract pricing concept because as explained above, claim 8 does not expressly require reconciliation across different users. It requires reconciliation of “a prior payment of an earlier user” which could be the same person relative to the later reconciliation operation.
Further, even if the claim required adjustment of a prior user’s payment based upon aggregate use by multiple users, the resulting operation would remain a financial reconciliation. The processor may perform the adjustment automatically, but the claimed result is an updated charge, credit, debit, refund, or account balance. The claim does not require the reconciliation to change the operation of the container, sensor, locking mechanism, or storage station.
Applicant argues “Additionally, both claims 1 and 8, as amended, recite that "the processor generates an access code and transmits the access code to the user, and the processor provides access to the one of the one or more containers in response to validation of the access code at the storage station apparatus." Applicant submits that this imposes a meaningful, non-abstract physical limitation on the claims. The processor actuates physical access to a specific container-i.e., unlocking a physical lock-only in response to electronic validation of a transmitted code at the storage station apparatus. This is a concrete physical and mechanical action that cannot be performed mentally. The access-code validation workflow ties the alleged abstract idea to a tangible, machine-controlled physical operation at the storage station.” (remarks p. 9).
The access code limitation is acknowledged as an additional limitation outside the pricing exception. However, it does not integrate the pricing exception into a practical application. The claim require the processor to: generate an access code; transmit the code to the user; validate the code at the station; and provide access after validation.
This limitation performs authentication and access control the pricing calculation is not used in performing that authentication. The processor does not validate the access code against the calculated price, the accumulated community use information, or the reconciliation status. Nor does the claim require successful payment or price recalculation as a condition for access.
Thus, the access code process is functionally independent of the commercial pricing process. It places the pricing process in the environment of an access-controlled storage station but does not cause the abstract pricing calculation to be applied through the access mechanism.
Generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or adding a separate technological operation does not establish integration where the technological operation does not meaningfully apply the exception.
Furthermore, although “provides access” may broadly encompass unlocking a container, it is functional language that does not require a particular physical lock, actuator, latch, motor, or control signal. The eligibility analysis must be based upon the limitations actually recited, rather than a narrower physical implementation that may appear in the specification.
Even assuming that the processor electronically unlocks a physical lock, that operation occurs in response to validation of the access code and not in response to the pricing calculation. The abstract pricing practice does not control the physical access operation. Thus, the claim does not apply the pricing calculation to cause a physical transformation or change the manner in which the container operates.
Applicant argues “Even if, arguendo, the alleged abstract idea was not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, the combination of additional elements in claims 1 and 8, as amended, constitutes significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The combination of (i) one or more sensors physically attached to specific containers that generate sensor data indicating return events of the selected item by a plurality of community users, (ii) a processor that actuates physical access to a specific container in response to electronic validation of a transmitted access code, and (iii) a database that accumulates community-wide use data based on sensor-derived measurements from a plurality of users,
together with a processor that dynamically recomputes the community's expected or actual total length of time of use and recalculates (and, in claim 8, reconciles) prices accordingly, which constitutes an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea of "buying or renting an item."” (remarks p. 9-10).
Applicant’s argument has been considered but it is not persuasive.
At step 2B, the additional elements must be considered individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
The relevant additional elements include a structure, containers, processor, interface, power supply, database, sensors attached to one or more containers, receipt and storage of sensor data, generation, transmission and validation of an access code and provision of access to a container. Individually, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and perform ordinary functions associated with computerized storage and rental systems.
As an ordered combination, the elements implement the commercial pricing and reconciliation practice in a smart storage station environment. The claim does not recite an unconventional interaction in which the pricing calculation changes the operation of the sensors, access mechanism, database architecture, or processor. Nor does it recite a technological improvement arising from the ordered arrangement. The ordered combination therefore amounts to using computerized storage station components to collect the information needed for the pricing calculation, carry out the calculation and perform a separate authenticating operation. Such implementation does not provide an inventive concept merely because the abstract commercial practice is carried out automatically.
Moreover, Applicant’s ordered combination above is linked to sensors that provide data indicating return events, the database storing and aggregating information, the processor calculating prices and authenticating access code. These components do not operate in a claimed unconventional manner merely because their outputs are combined in one commercial storage station system.
The claims do not require the accumulated community information to control physical access. Conversely, the access code validation does not affect the manner in which the community use data is accumulated, or the price is determined. The recited functions therefore remain largely parallel. The sensor and database supply data to the pricing process and the access code workflow authenticates access to the container. The ordered combination lacks a claimed technological interaction that transforms the abstract pricing practice into an improvement in the storage station. It instead automates the collection of transaction information and the calculation or settlement of a charge.
Applicant argues “The Office Action's characterization that the additional elements are "nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer" and that the specification (paragraph 45) does not indicate the processor is "anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components" (Office Action, page 4) does not address the now-amended limitations. The Office Action's specific assertion that the additional elements amount to "no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in the field of smart lockers" cannot be sustained against the amended multi-user community-use accumulation, dynamic recomputation of the community's expected or actual total length of time of use, access-code-driven physical container unlocking, and (in claim 8) cross-user payment reconciliation limitations, none of which were present in the original claims as examined.” (remarks p. 10).
Applicant is correct to the limited extent that the eligibility analysis must address the claims in their presently amended form. The rejection cannot be maintained solely by repeating an analysis directed to the original claims. The amended limitations concerning sensor-indicated return events by multiple users; accumulated community use data; recomputation of expected or actual total use; recalculation of the temporary use price; access code generation, transmission and validation and claim 8’s payment reconciliation must be expressly evaluated under Step 2A, prong two and step 2B.
Those limitations have been considered above. They do not alter the conclusion because the return sensors gather information used in the pricing calculation; the database stores and aggregates that information, the processor estimates or determines a community use duration and recalculates a commercial price; claim 8 reconciles a prior payment which is itself a commercial settlement activity; the access code workflow controls access based on authentication, not based on the claimed pricing or reconciliation result; and the claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the storage station, sensor, database, processor, or access mechanism.
Thus, the rejection is maintained based upon the amended claims, not merely based upon the original characterization of the processor as a generic component.
Moreover, the amended limitations narrow the manner in which the commercial price is determined. They require the pricing process to use item specific information derived from returns by multiple community users and, in claim 8, to reconcile a previously made payment. However, the amendments continue to use the storage station components as tools for carrying out the commercial pricing and settlement process.
The multiuser character of the data affects the quantity and source of the information used in the calculation, not the technological operation of the storage station. The dynamic recomputation updates the commercial price, not the operation of the sensor, database, processor, or locking mechanism.
The access code operation is likewise not driven by the pricing calculation. The claim requires access following validation of the access code, regardless of the calculated price or reconciliation. The access code workflow therefore remains a separate authentication operation appended to the commercial pricing process.
The amended claims consequently remain directed to determining and adjusting commercial charges for purchasing or temporarily using an item, implemented using a sensor equipped, access controlled storage station. The additional elements do not meaningfully apply the pricing calculation to control the physical station and do not recite technological improvement. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to the judicial exception.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1/8: “…return events of the selected items to the container” should read”…return events of the selected items to a container of the one or more containers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 3/10 recite “wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is attached to one of the one or more containers.” which is already recited in claims 1/8 “one or more sensors attached to at least one of the one or more containers”. Therefore, the claims do not further limitation claims 2 and 9 which are dependent from claims 1 and 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item, calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the second price based upon a proportion of a new cost of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and an expected total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users; receiving sensor data indicating return events of the selected items to the container by each of a plurality of users in the community of users, wherein the database accumulates community use data for the selected item from the received sensor data indicating the return events by the plurality of users, and recomputes the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by the community of users based on the accumulated community use data and recalculating the second price for the user using the recomputed expected total length of time of use”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers buying or renting an item which is a method that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for concepts that fall under fundamental economic practice, business practice and managing interactions between people and personal behavior and concepts that can be done in the human mind (with pen and paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites “a structure; one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers; a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers; an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items; a power supply, wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof”, “one or more sensors” and “wherein the processor generates an access code and transmits the access code to the user, and the processor provides access to the one of the one or more containers in response to validation of the access code at the storage station apparatus”.
Additionally, “wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item” is also recited in functional language at a high level of generality which amounts to extra solution activity. These additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in the field of smart lockers. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer. In addition, the specification of the application as filed (paragraph 45) does not provide any indication that the additional element (processor providing access) described above is anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt and transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Dependent claim 2/3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 4/5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 6/7 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item, calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the second price based upon a proportion of a new cost of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and an actual total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users; receives sensor data indicating return events of the selected item to the container by each of a plurality of users in the community of users, wherein the actual total length of time of use of the selected item across the plurality of users in the community of users is accumulated, and recomputing the second price for the user based on the accumulated actual total length of time of use and reconciling a prior payment of an earlier user of the selected item based on the accumulated actual total length of time of use ”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers buying or renting an item which is a method that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for concepts that fall under fundamental economic practice, business practice and managing interactions between people and personal behavior and concepts that can be done in the human mind (with pen and paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites “a structure; one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers; a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers; an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items; a power supply, wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof”, “one or more sensors” and “wherein the processor generates an access code and transmits the access code to the user, and the processor provides access to the one of the one or more containers in response to validation of the access code at the storage station apparatus”
Additionally, “wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item” is also recited in functional language at a high level of generality which amounts to extra solution activity. These additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in the field of smart lockers. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer. In addition, the specification of the application as filed (paragraph 45) does not provide any indication that the additional element (processor providing access) described above is anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt and transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Dependent claim 9/10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 11/12 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aloe (US 2014/0368156) in view of Reeves (US 2021/0031650) and Hoshino (US 2011/0050239), Zhu (US 2018/0365641).
As per claim 1, Aloe discloses a storage station apparatus, comprising:
a structure (fig. 1, paragraph 22-23);
one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers (paragraph 24-25, 28, “[0024] Within the kiosk, the batteries to be vended and/or adapters may be organized in a vending rack, allowing a mechanized dispenser to identify the appropriate item to be vended and to dispense it.”, “[0028] In operation, the battery pack and/or adapter may be vended through the dispensing structure in any manner capable of removing the battery pack from the vending rack and delivering it to a client. In one embodiment, a mechanical arm may grab a pack, remove it from the vending rack, and place it in an outlet for a client to take.”);
a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers (paragraph 22, 52, “0022] The kiosk may have a computerized user interface module to allow a user to select the type of device they have that requires charging, via a touch screen or other computerized interface. In this manner the kiosk may be configured to receive this input and select the proper charging equipment to vend. The identified battery packs may then be vended through a vending structure such as a drawer, slot, aperture, or the like.”);
an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items (paragraph 22, 52-54, “[0053] FIG. 4 provides a flow chart of an embodiment of the user interface. The process begins when a customer initiates a new session.”);
a power supply (fig. 1, paragraph 25-26, the kiosk has its own power supply not shown and the vending racks are also used as charging units),
wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof (paragraph 52-54, 56, “An analytics repository module 33 may store analytics information to analyze and adjust kiosk operation and location to optimize efficiency. An administrator and analytics reporting module 35 provides user interface and access to the server system. The user access may be an analytics user 36B, 36D, a customer administrator 36C, or a kiosk administrator 36D. The analytics users may be users that access the server 30, particularly the analytics repository module 33 and analytics reporting module 35. The customer administrator 36C may be an administrator accessing the server 30 to view, access, and control customer information. Customer information may include purchase and renting history, current renting information, customer location usage, and the like.”),
wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item (paragraph 42, “[0042] In one embodiment, the kiosk may have a return structure that is an openable door that allows the battery pack and/or adapter to be returned, processed and stored. Once the kiosk detects the returned product, it may communicate to the server that the product is returned.”), wherein the processor calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user (paragraph 27, 34, 40, “[0027] In one embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow purchase of the battery packs. In another embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow a rental of the battery packs on a time-based rate.”).
Wherein the processor calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and The processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item ([0034] Once the device is selected, the user may select either renting or buying of the battery pack, and further may continue shopping in the event that more than one battery pack is desired. Based on the rental or buying selection, the kiosk will display the price for the item.)
One or more sensors attached to at least one of the one or more containers, wherein the processor receives sensor data from the one or more sensors indicating return events of the selected item to the container by each of a plurality of users in the community of users ([0010] The kiosk further has a dispensing structure that allows the identified battery pack to be vended to the customer. A return structure of the kiosk has an openable door and a sensor that allows a customer to return a rented battery pack and allows the kiosk to identify the returned battery pack.)
wherein the database accumulates community use data for the selected item from the received sensor data indicating the return events by the plurality of users ([0013] The core services module is configured to receive the information provided by the communications unit and further configured to process credit card information. The administration repository module is configured to store and receive information relating to the history of the renting of the plurality of battery packs.).
However, Aloe does not disclose but Reeves discloses the second price based upon a proportion of anew cost of the selected item (“[0028] Battery owners can be compensated with rent for the capital value of their rental property. A battery pack with a 25-kWh capacity would be worth on average $2500 during its lifetime using the projected numbers above. At 12% return to the owner, a pack would cost the renter $25 rent per month for continuous use. Renters using these battery packs for long trips could expect to pay about $1.67 rent per day, assuming that the packs are in use only half the days available in a year. Rent would be in addition to energy and battery wear charges.” Reeves explains that battery owners may be compensated through rent for the capital value of their property and gives an example in which a battery pack having an average value of $2500 during its lifetime produces a specified monthly or daily rental charges);
The proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and an expected total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users (abstract, “The vehicle battery pack exchange system herein described charges renters for the time use interval, the energy needed to recharge the battery pack, and the battery wear their use has caused. Data on battery wear accelerating stress parameters such as current, voltage, temperature, and state of charge is collected for battery packs rented to vehicle users… Renters are charged for battery pack usage time, energy supplied by the rental station, and battery wear providing battery owners a secure return on their investment. “[0012]… Owners can lease a small battery pack for normal daily driving and recharge the battery pack overnight at home. Recharged battery packs can be rented for longer trips and replaced quickly during the day with recharged battery packs at battery swap stations located along the highways… 0027] As an illustration of the relative importance of battery wear costs consider the following example using battery costs and wear numbers consistent with current trends projected a few years into the future. For example, assume that the rechargeable battery initial cost be $150 per kWh of storage capacity with a residual value of $50 per kWh of capacity after it is worn down too much for further prime vehicle use. When capacity is no longer sufficient for prime vehicle use, it still will likely be useful for utility load leveling, storage of intermittent energy from solar or wind, or rental as a lower grade vehicle battery. The battery would deliver 1500 charge-discharge cycles during its normal wear life at moderate temperatures and cycling between 10% and 90% capacity. Thus, during its normal life the average capital value of a battery pack would be $100 per kWh of capacity and deliver 0.8 kWh per kWh of gross capacity for each cycle. Battery cycling wear would consume $100 worth of battery capital value during its 1500 cycle lifetime. Each kWh delivered from the battery pack thus has a normal wear cost component $0.083=100/(1500×0.8).” Reeves gives monthly and daily rent examples and characterizes the rental cost as including a conventional rent charge for use of the battery’s capital value. Moreover, Reeves determines the user’s capital value rent and battery wear charges with reference to the battery’s projected lifetime. It states that the battery has a value during its lifetime and allocates rental and wear charges across the battery usage so that the battery owner receives a return on the investment. It further teaches repeated short term and long-term rentals and periodic swapping of the battery packs. Although it does not use the exact phrase “expected total length of time of use by community of user”, Reeve’s projected battery lifetime is the total useful period over which the repeatedly rented battery’s capital value is consumed by the collection of renters.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Reeves in the teaching of Aloe, in order for battery owners [to] be compensated with rent for the capital value of their rental property (please see Reeves, paragraph 28).
However, Aloe in view of Reeves does not disclose but Hoshino discloses wherein the database accumulates community use data for the selected item (“[0164] There is a case where the achieved values of charge-discharge-able range values are accumulated if a battery is put into circulation. The predicted cumulate amount can be calculated using both a historical charge-discharge-able range value and a predicted charge-discharge-able range value of a battery company…” When this is applied to Aloe’s repeatedly rented battery, those accumulated historical values represent the battery’s community use history across successive renters)
wherein the processor recomputes the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by the community of users based on the accumulated community use data stored in the database (“[0164] There is a case where the achieved values of charge-discharge-able range values are accumulated if a battery is put into circulation. The predicted cumulate amount can be calculated using both a historical charge-discharge-able range value and a predicted charge-discharge-able range value of a battery company. For example, the difference between the predicted charge-discharge-able range value of the manufacturer and the history charge-discharge-able range value of the battery is determined, and a difference predicted at the time the lease period expires is determined by the process, change, and tendency of the difference using an extrapolation method or the like. The predicted cumulate amount of the battery manufacturer at the time the lease period expires is corrected and used using the determined prediction difference… [0203] In contrast, when the determination in step S40 is No, that is, when the designated new set conditions are different from the previous set conditions, the repeat lease processing unit 34f updates the predicted charge-discharge-able range value using the charge-discharge-able range value at the time the lease starts as an initial value in step S46. Although the update is executed based on the data for transiting the charge-discharge-able range value owned by the battery manufacturer 11, the data of the predicted charge-discharge-able range value received by executing a communication with the battery manufacturer information processing apparatus 21 may be used for the update.” Hoshino’s predicted cumulate amount is expressly identified as information relating to battery life. It is based on use through the end of battery life and correlates with the total or remaining period during which the battery can continue to be used. Furthermore, Hoshino expressly recomputes an expected lifetime or cumulative useful amount based on historical use and present condition data stored for the selected battery. It explains that its cumulative amount may be expressed using cumulative battery use time and that the end of useful life occurs when the battery’s charge/discharge capability reaches a required minimum. Thus, under BRI, its updated predicted cumulative amount teaches an updated expected total length of useful operation.)
and recalculates the second price for the user, using the recomputed expected total length of time of use ([0066] The controller 34 comprises a database creation unit 34a, a price reference calculation unit 34b, a history information processing unit 34c, a remaining value calculation unit 34d, a lease fee calculation unit 34e, and a repeat lease processing unit 34f.. [0036] When a remaining value and a battery price are examined, it is assumed that they have the following relationship: Remaining value(i).times.market value(i)=price(i) [0037] The remaining value means a remaining capability which is assumed to be provided with the battery. The remaining value has a direct correlation with values (for example, a charge-discharge-able range value, a cumulate amount, and the like to be described later) which can be objectively obtained. [0038] The residual value and the market value of the battery changes according to what usage it uses. [0039] In the expression, the variation is shown as a suffix (i=1 to n). That is, it is considered that the price is determined as a result of a human-induced judgment for selecting any one of plural usages of the battery. the price which is determined, is residual value. [0040] Based on the consideration described above, a price calculated by an apparatus is presented as an index for supporting determination of a residual value executed by a person… [0206] When the repeat lease processing unit 34f updates the data of the file, the repeat lease processing unit 34f can calculate also a repeat lease fee in the lease firm by the same procedure as the calculation of a new lease fee.” The residual value calculation unit determines a residual value used to calculate the lease fee, the lease fee calculation unit calculates a battery specific lease fee using that residual value. For a repeated lease, Hoshino teaches updating the predicted cumulative amount, calculating a battery price from the predicted cumulative value, determining residual value and calculating a repeat lease fee.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hoshino in the teaching of Aloe in view of Reeves, in order to make a battery value evaluation index (please see Hoshino abstract).
However, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses wherein the processor generates an access code and transmits the access code to the user, and the processor provides access to the one of the one or more containers in response to validation of the access code at the storage station apparatus ([0066] The recipient 106 can request to access the locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110 that is storing the item 102. Based on receiving the request to access the locker storing the item 102, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can send a request to the logistics management system 108 for identity verification information. In some implementations, the identity verification information can include a QR code. In particular implementations, based on receiving the request from the electronic locker arrangement 110 for identity verification information, the logistics management system 108 can generate the identity verification information and provide the identity verification information to the electronic locker arrangement 110. In illustrative examples, the logistics management system 108 can generate a QR code that uniquely identifies the recipient 106 in relation to the item 102 and send the QR code to the electronic locker arrangement 110. The electronic locker arrangement 110 can then provide the QR code to the recipient 106. For example, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can display the QR code and the recipient 106 can utilize the second computing device 202 to scan the QR code… [0067] In response to verifying the identity of the recipient 106, the logistics management system 108 can cause the electronic locker arrangement 110 to provide access to a locker storing the item 102 by the recipient 106. In some implementations, the logistics management system 108 can send a signal to the electronic locker arrangement 110 to open the locker storing the item 102. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Zhu in the teaching of Aloe, in order to manage the delivery of items by large numbers of couriers using a network of electronic locker arrangements (please see Zhu abstract).
As per claim 2, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses further comprising: one or more sensors operatively connected to the processor wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector, or a combination thereof. ([0064] The electronic locker arrangement 110 can determine that the sender 104 has placed the item 102 into a locker for storage. In some implementations, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can determine that the item 102 has been stored in the electronic storage arrangement 110 based on input from one or more sensors of the electronic locker arrangement 110. For example, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can determine that a locker assigned to store the item 102 has been closed. In another example, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can obtain video input to determine that the item 102 has been stored inside a locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110. In additional examples, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can utilize data from weight sensors to determine that the item 102 has been placed in a locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110. The electronic locker arrangement 110 can also obtain input, such as via a user interface displayed by the electronic locker arrangement 110 or via a logistics application executed by the first computing device 202, indicating that the item 102 has been stored in a locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110. In additional implementations, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can send sensor data to the logistics management system 108 and the logistics management system 108 can determine that the item 102 has been stored in the electronic locker arrangement 110.)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 3, Aloe discloses wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is attached to one of the one or more containers per claim 1. (paragraph 10).
As per claim 4, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof ([0111] Additionally, the one or more first computing devices 602 can include one or more input/output devices (not shown). The one or more input/output devices can include a display device, keyboard, a remote controller, a mouse, a printer, audio input/output devices, a speaker, a microphone, a camera, and so forth)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 5, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses wherein at least one of the one or more peripherals is attached to one of the one or more containers ([0111] Additionally, the one or more first computing devices 602 can include one or more input/output devices (not shown). The one or more input/output devices can include a display device, keyboard, a remote controller, a mouse, a printer, audio input/output devices, a speaker, a microphone, a camera, and so forth—Under BRI, the claimed “containers” are components of the storage station structure. Zhu discloses an electronic locker arrangement in which the disclosed camera is incorporated into the locker assembly that includes the item storage compartments. Accordingly, the camera is physically attached to the locker assembly containing the one or more containers, which teaches at least one peripheral attached to one of the one or more containers) (please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 6, the combination of claim 1 discloses wherein the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item of $10 when the new cost of the selected item is $100, the length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user is 100 hours, and the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users is 1000 hours (in particular Reeves teaches allocating the capital value of a reusable battery over the battery’s useful lifetime and charging renters for the duration of temporary use. It explains that “battery owners can be compensated with rent for the capital value of their rental property” as shown in claim 1. It further provides numerical examples in which a battery’s capital value is distributed across its expected useful life to derive rental and wear charges. It states that battery cycling “would consume $100 worth of battery capital value during its 1500 cycle lifetime” and calculates the unit wear cost by dividing the capital value consumed by the projected lifetime and usable output .083 =100/(1500x.8). it also separately teaches that “[0064]…the processing circuit 112 charges the renter’s account for…the time charge for use of the capital value for the interval between rental and return”. Thus, Reeves expressly recognizes the items’ capital value, the expected total lifetime over which that value is consumed and the individual renter’s temporary use interval as variables affecting the rental price. Hoshino further teaches determining and updating the expected cumulative useful amount of an individually identified battery and calculating or reviewing a lease fee using the updated expected use information, as explained in the rejection of claim 1. Although neither Reeves nor Hoshino expressly disclose the exact numerical example in claim 6, the claimed result follows directly from application of the proportional pricing relationship taught by the combination: new cost x (an individual temporary use period)/(expected total community use period)=temporary use price. Therefore, the numbers introduced by claim 6 merely recites a numerical example resulting from application of the proportional pricing relationship taught by the combination to particular values for item cost, user rental duration and expected rentable life).
As per claim 7, Aloe does not disclose but Reeves discloses wherein the processor calculates the second price at a lower price than the proportion of a new cost of the selected item (“[0071] As another example, battery pack quality could be evaluated earlier in the return process. Further, the sorting of battery packs could be modified to create a continuous range of quality levels with each different quality level having a distinct capital rental charge. For example, 4 battery packs each with 25 kWh full charge capacity would give the same performance as 5 lower quality battery packs each having 20 kWh of full charge capacity. If equal performance is to have equal pricing, the capital rental charge for the lower quality units should be 80% of the rental charge of the higher capacity units.” Reeves expressly teaches that lower quality, more heavily used batteries receive a lower capital rental charge, including an example in which the charge is reduced to 80% of the charge for a higher capacity battery).
The proportion based on the length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user ([0005] Battery swapping solutions provide an alternative to recharging solutions. Instead of purchasing batteries as part of the vehicle, customers lease or rent batteries, which can be exchanged at battery exchange stations when the batteries are depleted. Battery swapping solutions can be used as part of a battery exchange system. In conventional battery exchange systems, the customer is charged a rental fee based on the amount of energy used and the length of the rental period… [0028] Battery owners can be compensated with rent for the capital value of their rental property. A battery pack with a 25-kWh capacity would be worth on average $2500 during its lifetime using the projected numbers above. At 12% return to the owner, a pack would cost the renter $25 rent per month for continuous use. Renters using these battery packs for long trips could expect to pay about $1.67 rent per day, assuming that the packs are in use only half the days available in a year. Rent would be in addition to energy and battery wear charges. Renting several battery packs would be very similar financially to renting a car.)
After an extent of previous use of the selected item passes a threshold amount of use ([0069] The processing circuit 112 sorts the battery packs 200 sorted according to quality (450, 455). The highest quality battery packs 200 with the least loss in capability due to wear are identified and designated for premium use (450). Battery packs 200 that are somewhat worn but still adequate for rental use in vehicles are also identified and designated for economy use (455). Reeves also teaches that battery packs may be sorted into distinct quality levels “[0071] As another example, battery pack quality could be evaluated earlier in the return process. Further, the sorting of battery packs could be modified to create a continuous range of quality levels with each different quality level having a distinct capital rental charge. For example, 4 battery packs each with 25 kWh full charge capacity would give the same performance as 5 lower quality battery packs each having 20 kWh of full charge capacity. If equal performance is to have equal pricing, the capital rental charge for the lower quality units should be 80% of the rental charge of the higher capacity units. ” the boundary between those classifications is a threshold capacity or quality level. When previous use causes the battery to cross from the higher capacity classification to the lower capacity classification) (please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
Although Reeves implicitly discloses that the proportion is also based on the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by the community of users because it expressly allocates battery capital value across the battery’s project normal lifetime. The difference between the initial value and residual value is the capital value consumed over the battery’s useful life consumed by the community. Hoshino explicitly discloses that the proportion is also based on the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by the community of users, after an extent of previous use of the select item ([0035] In the evaluation process, a data collection firm 10 manages information for evaluating a value of a battery as a subject of lease in an integrated fashion. The information for evaluating the battery value is composed of information relating to a battery design, history information relating to the characteristics of a used battery, and the like. A value corresponding to a use period of the battery can be obtained from the information for evaluating the battery value… 0037] The remaining value means a remaining capability which is assumed to be provided with the battery. The remaining value has a direct correlation with values (for example, a charge-discharge-able range value, a cumulate amount, and the like to be described later) which can be objectively obtained… [0130] In FIG. 8, a shaded portion corresponds to the cumulate amount described above. If the "cumulate amount" has a curved line of the charge-discharge-able range value (CRV) based on the use frequency in a predetermined motif, the life indicated by the curved line can be found from the time (which may be different from an actual use period) corresponding to the charge-discharge-able range value (CRV) measured at an evaluation time to the times of the end of life shown by the curved lines is determined as a cumulate amount at that time. As described above, "cumulate amount" is a value corresponding to the remaining life of the battery in the predetermined motif… [0146] When the battery is used under the respective set conditions, "cumulate amount" is a value corresponding to an integrated value obtained by integrating a period of the remaining life and a required charge-discharge-able range value. Under the same use conditions, the larger the "cumulate amount," the longer the battery can be used… [0164] There is a case where the achieved values of charge-discharge-able range values are accumulated if a battery is put into circulation. The predicted cumulate amount can be calculated using both a historical charge-discharge-able range value and a predicted charge-discharge-able range value of a battery company. For example, the difference between the predicted charge-discharge-able range value of the manufacturer and the history charge-discharge-able range value of the battery is determined, and a difference predicted at the time the lease period expires is determined by the process, change, and tendency of the difference using an extrapolation method or the like. The predicted cumulate amount of the battery manufacturer at the time the lease period expires is corrected and used using the determined prediction difference.... [0167] First, all of setting conditions the use of which can be assumed are retrieved from the battery performance remaining at the time the lease period expires and when the battery is reused under the setting conditions, a cumulate amount which can be expected in the use from the start of the reuse to the end of the life, is calculated (step S13-1)…. [0173] The battery price of each assumed cumulate amount is set to the battery price table in addition to the set conditions and the price reference explained already. The assumed cumulate amount is an assumed value of the cumulate amount at the time the battery is used, and the lease period expires. The assumed cumulate amount is a value corresponding to elapsed time. Since the cumulate amount is the assumed value, the cumulate amount includes all the representative values in a range which covers the cumulate amounts to be treated. The battery price is written for each of the combinations of the representative values of the cumulate amount and the set conditions… [0190] In step S30, the data collection firm information processing apparatus 20 receives the actually measured charge-discharge-able range value transmitted thereto from the equipment maintenance firm information processing apparatus 26 and records the charge-discharge-able range value in a relevant portion of the battery price database 35a as a part of the history charge-discharge-able range value at that time. When the history charge-discharge-able range value is accumulated, the unique state transition of the battery can be found.”) (please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale)
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aloe (US 2014/0368156) in view of Bin (CN 119624050), Reeves (US 2021/0031650) and Zhu (US 2018/0365641).
As per claim 8, Aloe discloses a storage station apparatus, comprising:
a structure (fig. 1, paragraph 22-23)
one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers (paragraph 24-25, 28, “[0024] Within the kiosk, the batteries to be vended and/or adapters may be organized in a vending rack, allowing a mechanized dispenser to identify the appropriate item to be vended and to dispense it.”, “[0028] In operation, the battery pack and/or adapter may be vended through the dispensing structure in any manner capable of removing the battery pack from the vending rack and delivering it to a client. In one embodiment, a mechanical arm may grab a pack, remove it from the vending rack, and place it in an outlet for a client to take.”)
a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers (paragraph 22, 52, “0022] The kiosk may have a computerized user interface module to allow a user to select the type of device they have that requires charging, via a touch screen or other computerized interface. In this manner the kiosk may be configured to receive this input and select the proper charging equipment to vend. The identified battery packs may then be vended through a vending structure such as a drawer, slot, aperture, or the like.”)
an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items (paragraph 22, 52-54, “[0053] FIG. 4 provides a flow chart of an embodiment of the user interface. The process begins when a customer initiates a new session.”)
a power supply (fig. 1, paragraph 25-26, the kiosk has its own power supply not shown and the vending racks are also used as charging units),
wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof (paragraph 52-54, 56, “An analytics repository module 33 may store analytics information to analyze and adjust kiosk operation and location to optimize efficiency. An administrator and analytics reporting module 35 provides user interface and access to the server system. The user access may be an analytics user 36B, 36D, a customer administrator 36C, or a kiosk administrator 36D. The analytics users may be users that access the server 30, particularly the analytics repository module 33 and analytics reporting module 35. The customer administrator 36C may be an administrator accessing the server 30 to view, access, and control customer information. Customer information may include purchase and renting history, current renting information, customer location usage, and the like.”),
wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item (paragraph 42, “[0042] In one embodiment, the kiosk may have a return structure that is an openable door that allows the battery pack and/or adapter to be returned, processed and stored. Once the kiosk detects the returned product, it may communicate to the server that the product is returned.”), wherein the processor calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user (paragraph 27, 34, 40, “[0027] In one embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow purchase of the battery packs. In another embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow a rental of the battery packs on a time-based rate.”).
Wherein the processor calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and The processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item ([0034] Once the device is selected, the user may select either renting or buying of the battery pack, and further may continue shopping in the event that more than one battery pack is desired. Based on the rental or buying selection, the kiosk will display the price for the item.);
One or more sensors attached to at least one of the one or more containers, wherein the processor receives sensor data from the one or more sensors indicating return events of the selected item to the container by each of a plurality of users in the community of users ([0010] The kiosk further has a dispensing structure that allows the identified battery pack to be vended to the customer. A return structure of the kiosk has an openable door and a sensor that allows a customer to return a rented battery pack and allows the kiosk to identify the returned battery pack.)
wherein the database accumulates community use data for the selected item from the received sensor data indicating the return events by the plurality of users ([0013] The core services module is configured to receive the information provided by the communications unit and further configured to process credit card information. The administration repository module is configured to store and receive information relating to the history of the renting of the plurality of battery packs.).
However, Aloe does not disclose but Bin discloses the second price based upon a proportion of a new cost of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and an actual total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users (“the SKU attribute management module is used for performing SKU attribute definition on each asset of each type of asset, the SKU attribute of each asset comprises a unique identification SKU, the unique identification SKU comprises: server, bandwidth, batch number, purchase mode, tax rate, depreciation time and asset original value; the purchase mode comprises lease and purchase; the asset unit price calculating module is used for obtaining the monthly depreciation fee of the purchased asset according to the purchase mode of the asset, and taking the obtained monthly depreciation fee as the unit price of the purchased asset; obtaining the monthly rent of the leasing assets, taking the obtained monthly rent as the unit price of the leasing assets;… The obtaining of the monthly depreciation fee for the purchased assets comprises: obtaining the initial value of the purchased asset purchase, the residual value of the asset at the end of the service life and the asset depreciation period, the asset depreciation period is counted by taking the month as the unit; obtaining the monthly depreciation fee according to the initial value at the time of purchase, the residual value at the time of the end of the service life and the asset depreciation period… the obtaining of monthly rent for the assets of the tenancy comprises: obtaining the rental total price and rental period of the assets of the rental, the rental period is counted by taking the month as the unit; obtaining monthly rent according to the rental total price and rental period. Preferably, the metering module comprises: a data collecting module, a data pulling module and a data cleaning module; the data collecting module is used for collecting the asset using data according to the preset collecting frequency by the network monitoring system; the data pulling module is used for counting the resource attribute according to the asset using data, the resource attribute is the attribute for determining the asset price, the using time length of the asset and the using number of the asset; the data pulling module is further used for displaying the resource attribute, the using time length of the asset and the using number of the asset; the data cleaning module is used for pre-processing the collected asset use data to generate standard daily dosage detail data. ” Bin’s product mode calculates the unit price of fixed or leased assets from the asset’s attributes, and its accounting module determines the cost of the asset during the use period by combining usage quantity and asset price. Thus, it teaches deriving a use charge from the original or acquisition value of the shared asset and its service/depreciation period. Bin’s metering module obtains asset use data, including asset use duration and usage quantity. Its accounting module uses the measured amount of asset use and the asset unit price to calculate the cost during the period of use. Furthermore, for a shared resource Bin expressly discloses allocating the asset cost “for the cost of the asset obtained by combining the price with the pricing mode in the use time, if the asset is the shared resource, the cost is distributed according to the actual use proportion of each service line for using the asset, or the cost is distributed according to the appointed proportion of each service line for using the asset.” As such, the disclosed allocation formula uses the particular participant’s amount of resource use, the total amount of resource use by all participating users and the total cost of the shared resource. Bin identifies the denominator as the total usage of the resource by all participating business lines or users “).
wherein the database accumulates, based on the received sensor data, the actual total length of time of use of the selected item across the plurality of users in the community of users (“the data cleaning module is used for pre-processing the collected asset use data to generate standard daily dosage detail data…. the data cleaning module is used for pre-processing the collected asset use data, … the data storage module is used for storing the data cleaned by the data cleaning module in a relational database or a time sequence database;” the stored data supports querying and accounting across usage periods and participating users. Bin then obtains the usage amount of the shared resource and the total use across participating users to calculate each participant’s proportional cost allocation. In this case, Aloe supplies the physical sensor indicated return event and the beginning and ending rental period records. Combining Aloe’s timed rental session and return detection with Bin’s time series accumulation would cause each completed rental duration to be added to the total use of the selected battery across the customer community).
wherein the processor recomputes the second price for the user based on the accumulated actual total length of time of use stored in the database (the accounting module is further configured to perform accounting according to the cost apportionment calculation result, comprising: the checking module is further used for according to the requirement of the user for single asset cost of the account, or, each item of all asset using total cost of the account, or, all item of all asset using total cost of the account… an accounting module 3: for from the asset usage data of the metering module 2 to obtain the usage amount of different resources; it is also used for obtaining the unit price of the used asset from the product module 1… the accounting module 3 is further used for accounting according to the cost apportionment calculation result… the accounting module 3 calculates the account through the pricing mode combined with the price and the flexible apportionment mode” Bin’s accounting module calculates assets use cost from stored actual usage and allocates the cost of a shared resource according to the dynamically determined actual use proportion. Its dynamic adjustment module adjusts asset pricing or depreciation based on asset attributes and use information. The accounting module issues bills based on the resulting cost allocation calculation. As additional user durations are accumulated the total use denominator changes, and application of Bin’s disclosed formula necessarily recomputes each participant’s allocated share. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Bin in the teaching of Aloe, in order for the cost [to be] distributed according to the actual use proportion of each service line for using the asset (please see Bin).
However, Aloe in view of Bin does not disclose but Reeves discloses wherein the processor reconciles a prior payment of an earlier user of the selected item based on the accumulated actual total length of time of use (“[0028]… Continuous renters could be billed an assumed normal monthly wear charge added to the rent with an accurate reckoning when battery packs 200 are swapped periodically or when battery wear data is sent to the battery exchange station 100.” Reeves teaches initially billing a renter using an assumed normal charge and subsequently conducting an accurate accounting when actual battery use information becomes available. Under BRI, the user whose initial payment was made before the later reckoning is “an earlier user”. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Reeves in the teaching of Aloe in view of Bin, in order for battery owners [to] be compensated with rent for the capital value of their rental property (please see Reeves, paragraph 28).
However, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses wherein the processor generates an access code and transmits the access code to the user, and the processor provides access to the one of the one or more containers in response to validation of the access code at the storage station apparatus ([0066] The recipient 106 can request to access the locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110 that is storing the item 102. Based on receiving the request to access the locker storing the item 102, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can send a request to the logistics management system 108 for identity verification information. In some implementations, the identity verification information can include a QR code. In particular implementations, based on receiving the request from the electronic locker arrangement 110 for identity verification information, the logistics management system 108 can generate the identity verification information and provide the identity verification information to the electronic locker arrangement 110. In illustrative examples, the logistics management system 108 can generate a QR code that uniquely identifies the recipient 106 in relation to the item 102 and send the QR code to the electronic locker arrangement 110. The electronic locker arrangement 110 can then provide the QR code to the recipient 106. For example, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can display the QR code and the recipient 106 can utilize the second computing device 202 to scan the QR code… [0067] In response to verifying the identity of the recipient 106, the logistics management system 108 can cause the electronic locker arrangement 110 to provide access to a locker storing the item 102 by the recipient 106. In some implementations, the logistics management system 108 can send a signal to the electronic locker arrangement 110 to open the locker storing the item 102. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Zhu in the teaching of Aloe, in order to manage the delivery of items by large numbers of couriers using a network of electronic locker arrangements (please see Zhu abstract).
As per claim 9, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses further comprising: one or more sensors operatively connected to the processor wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector, or a combination thereof. ([0064] The electronic locker arrangement 110 can determine that the sender 104 has placed the item 102 into a locker for storage. In some implementations, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can determine that the item 102 has been stored in the electronic storage arrangement 110 based on input from one or more sensors of the electronic locker arrangement 110. For example, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can determine that a locker assigned to store the item 102 has been closed. In another example, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can obtain video input to determine that the item 102 has been stored inside a locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110. In additional examples, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can utilize data from weight sensors to determine that the item 102 has been placed in a locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110. The electronic locker arrangement 110 can also obtain input, such as via a user interface displayed by the electronic locker arrangement 110 or via a logistics application executed by the first computing device 202, indicating that the item 102 has been stored in a locker of the electronic locker arrangement 110. In additional implementations, the electronic locker arrangement 110 can send sensor data to the logistics management system 108 and the logistics management system 108 can determine that the item 102 has been stored in the electronic locker arrangement 110.)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 10, Aloe discloses wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is attached to one of the one or more containers per claim 1. (paragraph 10).
As per claim 11, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof ([0111] Additionally, the one or more first computing devices 602 can include one or more input/output devices (not shown). The one or more input/output devices can include a display device, keyboard, a remote controller, a mouse, a printer, audio input/output devices, a speaker, a microphone, a camera, and so forth)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 12, Aloe does not disclose but Zhu discloses wherein at least one of the one or more peripherals is attached to one of the one or more containers ([0111] Additionally, the one or more first computing devices 602 can include one or more input/output devices (not shown). The one or more input/output devices can include a display device, keyboard, a remote controller, a mouse, a printer, audio input/output devices, a speaker, a microphone, a camera, and so forth—Under BRI, the claimed “containers” are components of the storage station structure. Zhu discloses an electronic locker arrangement in which the disclosed camera is incorporated into the locker assembly that includes the item storage compartments. Accordingly, the camera is physically attached to the locker assembly containing the one or more containers, which teaches at least one peripheral attached to one of the one or more containers)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
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 OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Kevin Flynn can be reached at 5712703108. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights