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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-final action in response to application filed on 06/13/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
The application appears to be a divisional application as a result of restriction requirement mailed 08/01/2024 in application 18/469,788. However, the application is currently being identified as a continuation. If the above assessment is incorrect, please clarify it in the next correspondence.
Specification
0001 is objected over the application being divisional instead of continuation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA
Claims 1-10 contains multiple improper antecedent basis issues. Claim 1, for example, includes “a plurality of smart containers” as well as “a smart container is configured to”. It’s not clear if the latter container is part of the plurality of containers. Examiner recommends amending “a plurality” into “one or more smart containers” and subsequently being referred as “the one or more smart containers”.
Further, claim 1 also includes multiple reference to “a digital certificate associated with the reservation information”. It’s also unclear if claim requires at least one or two reservation certificates.
Applicant is recommended to include further indents (or break lines) to differentiate each elements and its relative functions. This would help with readability and help spotting any other potential antecedent basis issue. For example, and purely for illustration purpose only, claim 1 can be formatted as follows:
A system, comprising:
one or more smart containers;
at least one distribution equipment; and
a logistics data center; wherein
the one or more smart container is configured to:
[…]
the at least one distribution equipment is configured to:
[…]
the logistics data center is configured to:
[…]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20050083176) in view of Yang (US 20070150375).
As per claim 1, Yamada discloses A system, comprising:
a plurality of smart containers (Fig. 1, item 2);
distribution equipment (Fig. 1, item 26); and
a logistics data center (Fig. 1, item 11, central management center); wherein
a smart container is configured to:
receive,
communicate with the logistics data center (Fig. 1 see communication between item 2 and item 11);
send status information that reflects use status of one or more specific storage divisions of the smart container (see Fig. 6, S1 regarding access through central management center and see S6 regarding status of empty boxes being displayed);
receive reservation information for the smart container sent by the logistics data center and reserve a storage division based on the reservation information (see 0116 reservation ID number associated with reservation ID information issued by central center. See 0120 reservation ID number transmitted to delivery box 2); and
open the reserved storage division based on a reservation digital certificate associated with the reservation information (0181 receiving person opens box. See 0173 check is made for information supplied by receiving person (buyer));
the distribution equipment is configured to:
transport goods and receive from logistics data center information
send geographic location information of the distribution equipment and distribution information for to-be-distributed goods (0085)
the logistics data center is configured to:
receive the storage division status information provided by the plurality of smart containers, and the geographic location information and the distribution information (see Fig. 6, S1 regarding access through central management center and see S6 regarding status of empty boxes being displayed)
store smart container geographic location information (see Fig. 6, S1 regarding access through central management center and see S6 regarding status of empty boxes being displayed) and
send reservation information for a specific storage division of a corresponding smart container and a reservation digital certificate associated with the reservation information to the corresponding smart container (see 0116 reservation ID number associated with reservation ID information issued by central center. See 0120 reservation ID number transmitted to delivery box 2); and
send a delivery notification to a mobile terminal of a recipient, the delivery notification including smart container location information where the delivered goods are located and a pick-up digital certificate for opening the associated storage division (0181 receiving person opens box. See 0173 check is made for information supplied by receiving person (buyer)).
Yamada does not explicitly disclose
smart container is used to ship item
data center is used to calculate route and receive position information
Yang teaches
smart container is used to ship item (see 0060, MPS being vehicles lockers or movable kiosks. See 0199, MPS being portable lockers)
data center is used to calculate route and receive position information (0079)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Yang’s mobile locker and server-based routing to Yamada’s locker delivery system for the purpose of being more flexible to locate an ideal location for user to pickup an item.
As per claim 2, Yamada further discloses the system as described in claim 1, wherein the smart container is further configured to:
keep time while the goods are stored (0148, usage fee started to be charged); and
calculate a storage division use fee that should be collected based on a timekeeping result (0154, usage fee debited).
As per claim 4, Yamada further discloses the system as described in claim 1, wherein the smart container is further configured to:
after the receiving of the pick-up digital certificate, activate a recording unit to begin recording (0154, usage fee debited based on calculated result).; and
in the event that the storage division is shut, cease recording, recorded content being saved locally or uploaded to the logistics data center (0153-0154, door closing can be used as trigger for usage fee charging).
As per claim 5, Yamada further discloses the system as described in claim 2, wherein the smart container is further configured to:
after the determining that the pick-up digital certificate is correct, cease keeping time (0154, usage fee debited).
As per claim 6, Yamada further disclose the system as described in claim 5, wherein the smart container is further configured to:
after the ceasing to keep time, calculate the storage fee based on the timekeeping result (0154, usage fee debited).
As per claim 10, Yamada further discloses the system as described in claim 1, wherein the smart container is further configured to:
before the receiving of the pick-up digital certificate:
receive the pick-up digital certificate by distribution equipment of express delivery personnel or mobile terminal of a recipient (0153-0154, receiving phone number is previously registered).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20050083176) in view of Yang (US 20070150375), further in view of Motoyama (US 20160027261).
As per claim 3, Yamada discloses the system as described in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving of the pick-up digital certificate includes to scan the pick-up digital certificate with a two-dimensional code scanner.
Motoyama teaches using a two-dimensional code to access locker (see 0123 using QR code as access code. See 0096 that QR code is two-dimensional).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Motoyama’s QR code based access code with Yamada’s barcode reader for the purpose of using additional standardized code format.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20050083176) in view of Yang (US 20070150375), further in view of Turner (US 20120194043)
As per claim 7, Yamada discloses the system as described in claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the smart container is further configured to: after the calculating of the storage fee, open the storage division.
Turner teaches when payment is associated with collecting an item, unlocking door is performed after the payment is calculated and collected (0056)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to apply Turner’s workflow into Yamada’s locker system for the purpose of preventing a person taking the item without making payments.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20050083176) in view of Yang (US 20070150375), further in view of official notice.
As per claim 8, Yamada discloses the system as described in claim 1, wherein the smart container is further configured to:
after the storage division is shut, change a use status of the storage division based on the
Yamada does not explicitly disclose a signed message. Official notice is taken on acquiring signature. Acquiring signature is a common practice of authorizing charges on cards. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to require a signature prior to printing record as part of record keeping procedure in the delivery industry.
As per claim 9, Yamada discloses the system as described in claim 1, wherein content of
confirmation of pick up (0154, charges on usage fee is generated);
confirmation of the signed receipt message and an instruction to delete video associated with goods; or
a refusal to sign receipt and an instruction to store video associated with the goods.
Yamada does not explicitly disclose a signed message. Official notice is taken on acquiring signature. Acquiring signature is a common practice of authorizing charges on cards. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to require a signature prior to printing record as part of record keeping procedure in the delivery industry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights