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 .
1. Claims 1-25 filed 05/15/2025 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: This application filed 05/15/2025 Claims Priority from Provisional application 63648383, filed 05/16/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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--25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-10 are to a process comprising a series of steps, and clams 11-25 to a machine/system , which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of operating a retail kiosk system comprising:
(i) providing a plurality of lockers and at least one kiosk in communication with each of the plurality of lockers, each of the plurality of lockers including a product therein;
(ii) retrieving a product list based on at least one code scanned by the at least one kiosk;
(iii) determining a locker location of each product on the product list;
(iv) generating a pickup sequence associated with the product list based, at least in part, on the locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list;
(v) based on the pickup sequence, opening a first locker of the plurality of lockers;
(vi) determining that the product in the first locker has been removed from the first locker; and
(vii) in response to determining that the product in the first locker has been removed, opening a second locker of the plurality of lockers.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-25 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations in claim 1 comprising , " determining a locker location of each product on the product list; generating a pickup sequence associated with the product list based, at least in part, on the locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list; determining that the product in the first locker has been removed from the first locker;", under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to information processing and organization using mathematical concepts falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity under MPEP 2016.04 (a)(2) subsection II. Also, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
If a claim that includes two or more abstract ideas groupings per Step 2A, Prong One , as per MPEP 2106.04, subsection IIB, under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above, fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process groupings of abstract ideas. They are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Accordingly, claim1 and its dependent claims 2-9 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Claim 10 recites:
10. A point of delivery retail kiosk system for vending products comprising:
a plurality of lockers, each of the plurality of lockers including a body formed to include an aperture opening into an interior product storage region, a door coupled to the body to close the aperture, and a lock configured to release selectively the door from the body to open the aperture, each of the plurality of lockers containing a product therein, at least one kiosk including a user interface and a scanner configured to scan at least one code, and a controller in communication with each of the plurality of lockers and the at least one kiosk, the controller configured to
retrieve a product list based on the at least one code scanned by the scanner of the at least one kiosk and output a pickup sequence associated with the product list to be implemented by the plurality of lockers, the pickup sequence based, at least in part, on a locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list so that the pickup sequence is optimized based on the locker location of each product and the category of each product on the product list thereby allowing the plurality of lockers to be sequentially opened based on the pickup sequence in an optimized manner.
Regarding the independent claim 10, the highlighted limitations, " retrieve a product list based on the at least one code scanned by the scanner of the at least one kiosk and output a pickup sequence associated with the product list to be implemented by the plurality of lockers, the pickup sequence based, at least in part, on a locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list so that the pickup sequence is optimized based on the locker location of each product and the category of each product on the product list thereby allowing the plurality of lockers to be sequentially opened based on the pickup sequence in an optimized manner.", relates to information processing, which can be implemented by a human operator using logic falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process groupings of abstract ideas. They are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Accordingly, claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-2 0recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Regarding the independent claim 21, it recites limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed on the same basis reciting an abstract idea along with its dependent claims 22-25.
Thus, all pending claims 1-25, as analyzed above, recite an abstract idea . (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-25: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising generic computer devices for communicating with each other implementing the steps of (i) providing a plurality of lockers and at least one kiosk in communication with each of the plurality of lockers, each of the plurality of lockers including a product therein; (ii) retrieving a product list based on at least one code scanned by the at least one kiosk; (iii) determining a locker location of each product on the product list; (iv) generating a pickup sequence associated with the product list based, at least in part, on the locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list; (v) based on the pickup sequence, opening a first locker of the plurality of lockers; (vi) determining that the product in the first locker has been removed from the first locker; and (vii) in response to determining that the product in the first locker has been removed, opening a second locker of the plurality of lockers. The steps of "(i) providing a plurality of lockers and at least one kiosk in communication with each of the plurality of lockers, each of the plurality of lockers including a product therein; (ii) retrieving a product list based on at least one code scanned by the at least one kiosk; ; (v) based on the pickup sequence, opening a first locker of the plurality of lockers; (vii) in response to determining that the product in the first locker has been removed, opening a second locker of the plurality of lockers." , under their broadest reasonable interpretation , though represent physical steps, relate to using generic computer devices performing generic and conventional steps which do not reflect any unconventional or technical improvement in the computer functioning or hardware. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In In limitations ; (iii) determining a locker location of each product on the product list; (iv) generating a pickup sequence associated with the product list based, at least in part, on the locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list; (vi) determining that the product in the first locker has been removed from the first locker;" the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the foregoing, even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims 2-9, merely expand the scope of the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites "displaying the pickup sequence on a user interface ….' which is non-significant extra-solution activity, claims 3, 4, and 8 merely represent conventional activities, claims 6-7 and 9 recite non-functional descriptive subject matter , claim 5 recites determining function, a mental process, which all do not reflect any technical improvement to computer functioning, software, or hardware and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-9 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 10-20:
Claim 10 recites the additional elements comprising: " a plurality of lockers, each of the plurality of lockers including a body formed to include an aperture opening into an interior product storage region, a door coupled to the body to close the aperture, and a lock configured to release selectively the door from the body to open the aperture, each of the plurality of lockers containing a product therein, at least one kiosk including a user interface and a scanner configured to scan at least one code, and a controller in communication with each of the plurality of lockers and the at least one kiosk, the controller configured to retrieve a product list based on the at least one code scanned by the scanner of the at least one kiosk and output a pickup sequence associated with the product list to be implemented by the plurality of lockers, the pickup sequence based, at least in part, on a locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list so that the pickup sequence is optimized based on the locker location of each product and the category of each product on the product list thereby allowing the plurality of lockers to be sequentially opened based on the pickup sequence in an optimized manner. ", wherein the combination of lockers in communication with a kiosk and using a scanner to scan the code, are recited at very high level of generality which does not amount to non-generic controller architecture or a specific unconventional control method. Instead, the generic architecture is implementing generic and unconventional steps of retrieving a product list based on the at least one code scanned by the scanner of the at least one kiosk and output a pickup sequence associated with the product list to be implemented by the plurality of lockers, the pickup sequence based, at least in part, on a locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list so that the pickup sequence is optimized based on the locker location of each product and the category of each product on the product list thereby allowing the plurality of lockers to be sequentially opened based on the pickup sequence in an optimized manner, which do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim language uses broad functional results rather than specific technical mechanisms. The broad claim language "so that the pickup sequence is optimized" states a result, "retrieve a product list" and "output a pickup sequence" based on location and category can reasonably be read as abstract information organization and ordering. In these limitations, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 10 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claims 11-20: Claim 11 recites determining locker location, claims 12-13, 15, 19 -20 recite including an indicator to indicate when a product is removed from the locker, and the lockers are opened sequentially, displaying pick-up sequence, change of indicators for different visual representations, where the visual representations include colored light indicators, and the lockers releasing doors in response to receiving a signal allowing the access, which similar to the limitations of base claim 10, and claims 17-18 recite non-functional descriptive subject matter, which all relate to information organizing and processing and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 10 -20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 21-25: Since their limitations, are similar to the limitations of claims 1-3, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, even when viewed individually and combination, the additional elements in claims 1-25 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-25 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claims recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-25 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic- computer components/physical elements and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic -computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic= computer components/physical elements cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims recite generic physical components such as "a plurality of lockers" and "at least one kiosk," but the language of claims, as drafted, do not recite a specific unconventional technical improvement beyond implementing the pickup sequence in a retail kiosk sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per MPEP 2106 , a conclusion that an additional element or elements is/are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity in step 2A should be re-evaluated in step 2B. Here the receiving, displaying and communicating/processing information steps were considered are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity activities in step 2A and thus it is re-evaluated in step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere the receiving, displaying and communicating/processing information steps using a generic computer and physical items is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, displaying and communicating/processing information steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general- purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-25 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). Claims 1-25, as drafted are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-14, 17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0196858 A1 to International Vending Management, Inc. (hereinafter, "IVM
Regarding claim 1, IVM discloses a method of operating a retail kiosk system (a storage and dispense protocol may be initiated to operate the IT support kiosk 12; para. [0038]) comprising :
providing a plurality of lockers and at least one kiosk in communication with each of the plurality of lockers (IT support kiosk 12 being in communication with the plurality of lockers 60 that support a work surface 18; Fig. 1; para. [0029]), each of the plurality of lockers including a product therein (each of the lockers of the kiosk configured to receive defective hardware 24 or include replacement hardware 26; para. [0029]);
retrieving a product list based on at least one code scanned by the at least one kiosk (the user may select a locker to store hardware 24 by inputting an identifier code; para. [0040]);
determining a locker location of each product on the product list (the remote station 16 may determine if the selected locker is available by accessing its memory 94; para. [0040]);
generating a pickup sequence associated with the product list based, at least in part, on the locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list (the remote station identifies an identifier code inputted by the user for a particular locker then determines if the selected locker is available or not; para. [0040]);
based on the pickup sequence, opening a first locker of the plurality of lockers (a second command signal is set by the remote station to open an occupied locker containing the replacement hardware 26; para. [0042]);
determining that the product in the first locker has been removed from the first locker; and
in response to determining that the product in the first locker has been removed, opening a second locker of the plurality of lockers (The remote station is also configured to output a second command signal to the access control system to cause the access control system to open an occupied locker housing a replacement device upon receipt of a confirmation signal from the access control system indicative that the available locker is closed; paras. [0007], [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, IVM discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the pickup sequence on a user interface of the at least one kiosk (the remote station 16 may also output a command signal to the IT support kiosk 12 or the communication system 14 to provide an instruction or message to the user to place the defective device in the available locker 61 and to close the locker; paras. [0040], [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, IVM discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of opening a first locker includes changing a first indicator included on the first locker to a first visual representation from a second visual representation different than the first visual representation to indicate that the first locker is open (If the selected locker is not available, i.e. it is occupied or an error occurs, the remote station 16 sends a command signal to the IT support kiosk 12 or the communication system 14 to display a message to the user that the selected locker is unavailable and another locker should be chosen and the remote station 16 may also output a command signal to the IT support kiosk 12 or the communication system 14 to provide an instruction or message to the user to place the defective device in the available locker 61 and to close the locker; paras. [0040], [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, IVM discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the step of opening a second locker includes changing the first indicator included on the first locker to the second visual representation and changing a second indicator included on the second locker to a third visual representation from a fourth visual representation different than the third visual representation to indicate that the second locker is open (If the selected locker is not available, i.e. it is occupied or an error occurs, the remote station 16 sends a command signal to the IT support kiosk 12 or the communication system 14 to display a message to the user that the selected locker is unavailable and another locker should be chosen and the remote station 16 may also output a command signal to the IT support kiosk 12 or the communication system 14 to provide an instruction or message to the user to place the defective device in the available locker 61 and to close the locker; paras. [0040], [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, IVM discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the product in the second locker has been removed from the second locker, and in response to determining that the product in the second locker has been removed, opening a third locker of the plurality of lockers (The remote station is also configured to output a second command signal to the access control system to cause the access control system to open an occupied locker housing a replacement device upon receipt of a confirmation signal from the access control system indicative that the available locker is closed; paras. [0007], [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, IVM discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the category of each product includes at least one of a weight, a size, and a cost (Lockers with varying heights may be added or removed from the container housing 54 in this manner to accommodate devices of varying sizes; para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, IVM discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of retrieving a product list based on at least one code includes retrieving the product list based on two different codes (The access control system 22 is configured to open the storage locker 60 and/or dispense the replacement hardware 26 in response to acceptance of the user identifier and verification that the user is authorized to store the hardware 24 in the locker 60 and/or retrieve the replacement hardware 26, wherein acceptance of the user identifier considered a first code and the verification of user authorization considered another code; para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, IVM discloses a point of delivery retail kiosk system for vending products (IT support kiosk 12; para. [0038]) comprising: a plurality of lockers (a storage container 20 includes plurality of lockers 60 that support a work surface 18; Fig. 1; para. [0029]), each of the plurality of lockers including a body formed to include an aperture opening into an interior product storage region (each locker 60 has a locker compartment 66 configured to receive a variety of goods within an interior product storage region; para. [0047]), a door coupled to the body to close the aperture (The door 64 is hingedly attached to the locker compartment 66 and is arranged to control access to an interior product storage region formed in the locker compartment 66; para. [0047]), and a lock configured to release selectively the door from the body to open the aperture (The lock assembly 68 is located within the locker compartment 66 and is configured to secure the door 64 to the locker compartment 66 to block access to the contents located within an interior product storage region of each locker 60; para. [0047]), each of the plurality of lockers containing a product therein (each of the lockers of the kiosk configured to receive a variety of goods; Fig. 10; para. [0047]), at least one kiosk including a user interface and a scanner configured to scan at least one code (A user may interact with the touchscreen display to initiate the remote IT conference such as by following a series of prompts displayed by the monitor, and the scanner 34 and the keyboard 36 may be used together or separately to authenticate a user's identity by inputting an identifier code; paras. [0033], [0040]), and a controller in communication with each of the plurality of lockers and the at least one kiosk (The access control system 22 is configured to accept a user identifier input into the IT support kiosk by a user, such as by inputting a code or through automatic recognition of the user identifier such as a barcode or RFID badge; para. [0030]), the controller configured to retrieve a product list based on the at least one code scanned by the scanner of the at least one kiosk and output a pickup sequence associated with the product list to be implemented by the plurality of lockers (The access control system 22 is configured to open the storage locker 60 and/or dispense the replacement hardware 26 in response to acceptance of the user identifier and verification that the user is authorized to store the hardware 24 in the locker 60 and/ or retrieve the replacement hardware 26; para. [0030]), the pickup sequence based, at least in part, on a locker location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list so that the pickup sequence is optimized based on the locker location of each product and the category of each product on the product list thereby allowing the plurality of lockers to be sequentially opened based on the pickup sequence in an optimized manner (The access control system 22 may include a plurality of PCBs 38 designated for separate groups of the lockers 60, such that each of the PCBs 38 may be communicatively coupled to one another so that they control opening of the lockers 60 between one another; para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, IVM discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to determine the locker location of each product on the product list for use in determining the pickup sequence (The access control system 22 is configured to open the storage locker 60 and/or dispense the replacement hardware 26 in response to acceptance of the user identifier and verification that the user is authorized to store the hardware 24 in the locker 60 and/or retrieve the replacement hardware 26; para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, IVM discloses the system of claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of lockers includes a sensor in communication with the controller and configured to indicate when the product in the respective locker is removed from the respective locker (The remote station is configured to output a second command signal to the access control system to cause the access control system to open an occupied locker housing a replacement device upon receipt of a confirmation signal from the access control system indicative that the available locker is now closed and occupied with defective hardware; paras. [0007], [0032], [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, IVM discloses the system of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of lockers associated with the pickup sequence are opened sequentially such that a second locker of the plurality of lockers is not opened until the sensor of a first locker in the plurality of lockers indicates that the product in the first locker is removed from the first locker (The remote station is also configured to output a second command signal to the access control system to cause the access control system to open an occupied locker housing a replacement device upon receipt of a confirmation signal from the access control system indicative that the available locker is closed; paras. [0007], [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, IVM discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the pickup sequence is displayed on the user interface of the at least one kiosk (The remote station 16 may also output a command signal to the IT support kiosk 12 or the communication system 14 to provide an instruction or message to the user to place the defective device in the available locker 61 and to close the locker at step 116; para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, IVM discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the category of each product includes at least one of a weight, a size, and a cost (Lockers with varying heights may be added or removed from the container housing 54 in this manner to accommodate devices of varying sizes; para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 20, IVM discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the lock of each of the plurality of lockers is configured to release the respective door from the respective body in response to a signal received from the controller to allow a user to access the interior product storage region (When a user is determined to have authority to access the lockers 60 and the command signal is sent to the PCB 38 by the remote station 16, the PCB 38 sends a signal to lock 76 to release the hook 74 of the door 64; para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 21, IVM discloses a controller (the printed circuit board 38 of the access control system 22; paras. [0032], [0035]) comprising a processor, and a memory having instructions stored therein executable by the processor to cause the processor to a) retrieve a product list based on at least one scanned code, b) determine a location of each product on the product list, c) determine a pickup sequence associated with the product list, the pickup sequence based, at least in part, on the location of each product on the product list and, at least in part, on a category of each product on the product list, and d) output the pickup sequence code (The PCB 38 also includes a microprocessor 96 and a memory storage unit 98, such that the memory storage unit 98 includes instructions that, when executed by the microprocessor 96 in response to receipt of a command signal from the remote station 16 as a result of an acceptable user identifier, causes the microprocessor 96 to open one or more of the storage lockers 60 and the plurality of PCBs 38 designated for separate groups of the lockers 60, such that each of the PCBs 38 may be communicatively coupled to one another so that they control opening of the lockers 60 between one another; paras. [0032], [0035]).
Regarding claim 22, IVM discloses the controller of claim 21, wherein the instructions stored in the memory further include instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to control a plurality of lockers such that the plurality of lockers are sequentially opened based on the pickup sequence in an optimized manner (the memory storage unit 98 includes instructions that, when executed by the microprocessor 96 in response to receipt of a command signal from the remote station 16 as a result of an acceptable user identifier, causes the microprocessor 96 to open one or more of the storage lockers 60; para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 23, IVM discloses the controller of claim 22, wherein the instructions stored in the memory further include instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to open a first locker of the plurality of lockers based on the pickup sequence (the memory storage unit 98 includes instructions that, when executed by the microprocessor 96 in response to receipt of a command signal from the remote station 16 as a result of an acceptable user identifier, causes the microprocessor 96 to open one or more of the storage lockers 60; para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 24, IVM discloses the controller of claim 23, wherein the instructions stored in the memory further include instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to determine that the product in the first locker has been removed from the first locker (The PCB 38 is electrically coupled to one or more storage lockers 60 and is configured to unlock the one or more storage lockers 60 upon receipt of a validation signal from the remote station 16, the signal considered validation that the product has been removed; paras. [0007], [0032]).
Regarding claim 25, IVM discloses the controller of claim 24, wherein the instructions stored in the memory further include instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to, in response to determining that the product in the first locker has been removed, open a second locker of the plurality of lockers (The PCB 38 is electrically coupled to one or more storage lockers 60 and is configured to unlock the one or more storage lockers 60 upon receipt of a validation signal from the remote station 16, the signal considered validation that the product has been removed; paras. [0007], [0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IVM in view of DE 103 05 333 A1 to Andreas Hache (hereinafter, "Hache") cited in the IDS filed 02/09/2026.
Regarding claim 8, IVM discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose changing a kiosk indicator included on the at least one kiosk to a first visual representation from a second visual representation different than the first visual representation to indicate that the at least one kiosk is available for use. However, Hache, in the same field of endeavor, teaches changing a kiosk indicator included on the at least one kiosk to a first visual representation from a second visual representation different than the first visual representation to indicate that the at least one kiosk is available for use (The red-light indicator 28 signals the reservation. By entering the PIN on the keyboard 32 of the control panel 30 the reserved compartment opens 13 the system and the empties are deposited and after closing the door, the reservation is canceled, therefore the red-light indicator 28 goes out and the green light indicator 24 signals a new delivery; para. [0024]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Hache in the same field of endeavor, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify IVM to include changing a kiosk indicator included on the at least one kiosk of IVM to a first visual representation from a second visual representation different than the first visual representation to indicate that the at least one kiosk is available for use based on the teachings of Hache for signaling the reservation or new delivery to the user (Hache, para. [0024]), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, IVM, as modified by Hache, discloses the methods of claims 1 and 8 and Hache further teaches wherein the first visual representation is an illuminated green light (the green light indicator 24 signals a new delivery; para. [0024]).
Regarding claims 15-16, and 18-19, since their limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 8-9, they are covered in the analysis of claims 8-9 and rejected as being unpatentable over IVM in view of Hache on the same basis.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Bullard III et al. [US 20180336612 A1 ; see para 0030] describes a computing device 102 within an item storage locker system authenticates the third-party recipients of items for picking up of selected item(s) to unlock one or more item storage lockers storing the selected item(s) and permitting the third-party recipient to remove the item(s) from the locker(s) and take possession of the item(s).
(ii) VON ZURMUEHLEN et al.; [US 20150179006 A1 ; see Abstract] The electronic locker system has a kiosk server that can be used to control a plurality of locker columns to form a large array of lockers.
(iii) Kuenzi et al. [ US 12626556 B2 ; see abstract] describes an electronic locking system providing automatic real-time notifications to at least one user on the status of electronic lock is open or not.
Foreign references:
(iv) WO 2018183844 A1 [see Abstract] describes a locker system for convenient delivery and retrieval is disclosed by receiving a designated code for retrieval of a delivery package.
(v) WO 2015100390 A1 describes that lockers are constructed of a sturdy material, such as stainless steel and including a door 14 which can be opened to access the interior of the compartment and permit deposit or retrieval of a parcel therein.
NPL reference:
(vi) B. Khokher, M. B. Savadatti, A. Kumar, T. V. M. Nikhil, P. Raj and A. V. Thakre, "Advance Computing in IoT based High-Security Smart Bank Locker," 2023 7th International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC), Erode, India, 2023, pp. 1331-1335, retrieved from IP. COM on 08182026 describes a IoT-based smart lockers with sensors and access keys which provide security, verification, and alerts to the user when someone else tries to access their locker and quickly sends an alarm to the authorized user, and provides the option to either grant or reject access to the valid user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
YOGESH C. GARG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights