14052102 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

Ex Parte Wilkinson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 2017

14052102 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/052,102 10/11/2013 Bruce W. Wilkinson 8842-131456-US 1027 122573 7590 03/09/2017 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP/ Walmart 120 South LaSalle Street Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER AKHTER, SHARMIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2682 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2017 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRUCE W. WILKINSON Appeal 2017-000320 Application 14/052,102 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-000320 Application 14/052,102 STATEMENT OF CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Claims 1,15, and 18 are representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An apparatus comprising: a delivered-package vault having a selectively-lockable access portal; a radio-frequency identification (RFID)-tag reader; a control circuit operably coupled to the RFID-tag reader and the selectively-lockable access portal and configured to verily when at least one expected package RFID tag is placed within the delivered-package vault, at least in part by comparing information read from the package RFID tag with previously-received information regarding the expected package, to confirm delivery of a corresponding expected package. 15. A method comprising: by a control circuit that is operably coupled to a radio frequency identification (RFID)-tag reader: using the RFID-tag reader to verify a delivery-vector RIFD [sic] tag and unlock a selectively-lockable access portal in response to such verification; using the RFID-tag reader to verify when at least one expected package RFID tag is placed within a delivered- package vault, at least in part by comparing information read from the package RFID tag with previously-received information regarding the expected package, to confirm delivery of a corresponding expected package. 2 Appeal 2017-000320 Application 14/052,102 18. The method of claim 15 wherein verifying a delivery- vector RIFD [sic] tag comprises only verifying the delivery- vector RFID tag in response to having previously received a wireless message as regards the delivery-vector RFID tag. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1 Claims 1—6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biasi (US 2005/0075989 Al, Apr. 7, 2005) in view of Dohrmann (US 6,967,575 Bl, Nov. 22, 2005). Final Act. 2—6. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biasi in view of Dohrmann and further in view of Martin (US 2013/0063008 Al, Mar. 14, 2013). Final Act. 6-7. Claims 7, 8, and 15—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biasi in view of Dohrmann and further in view of Nielsen (US 2002/0180582 Al, Dec. 5, 2002). Final Act. 7-13. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biasi in view of Dohrmann and further in view of McIntyre (WO 2012/174387 A2, Dec. 20, 2012). Final Act. 13-14. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Biasi in view of Dohrmann and further in view of Moreno (US 2002/0035515 Al, Mar. 21, 2002). Final Act. 14-15. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Office Action mailed on October 30, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on August 18, 2016. 3 Appeal 2017-000320 Application 14/052,102 ISSUE Appellant has presented several arguments as to why the combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited in independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claim 18.2 These contentions present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Biasi and Dohrmann teaches or suggests the features recited in representative claims 1,15, and 18, supra! ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellant on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Final Action and Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—15; Ans. 3—5. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant contends: (1) [Njeither of the relied-upon prior art references teaches the idea of using previously supplied information to verify that a particular package that has actually been placed inside a delivery box is an “expected” package. Reply Br. 2 (emphasis in original omitted, emphasis added). 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated March 31, 2016, and Reply Brief dated October 4, 2016. 4 Appeal 2017-000320 Application 14/052,102 (2) The relied-upon sections of Dohrmann . . . are all directed to different ways of determining that a person is authorized to open the delivery box. That one of those ways includes relying upon information regarding the package itself does not change the essential fact that Dohrmann’s teachings are all directed to deciding whether and when to open the delivery box. Id. at 3 (emphasis added). (3) Because Biasi specifies authenticating the delivery person by a person before the secure box is even assigned to receive the delivery, there is simply no reason to further burden Biasi’s boxes with Dohrmann’s mechanism as suggested by the Examiner. Id. at 5 (emphasis added) (hereinafter the “before” feature). As to Appellant’s above contention 1, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims do not recite “actually.” As to Appellant’s above contention 2, we disagree. Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the claim language as the claims do not preclude Dohrmann’s “when to open the delivery box” aspect. We disagree with Appellant that Dohrmann’s description of whether and when to open a delivery box does not teach the delivery box is “an expected package.” As to Appellant’s above contention 3, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claims 1,15, and 18 do not preclude Biasi’s “prior capture” feature. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1—20. 5 Appeal 2017-000320 Application 14/052,102 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6