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 Claims
This is in reply to the communication filed on 11/03/2025.
Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 14 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 11/03/2025:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections Under 35 U. S. C. § 103” in pages 7-8, that:
“The BPAI affirmed the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0222603 to Hay ("Hay") in view of International Publication No. WO 2015/092076 to Radelof ("Radelof'). The BPAI affirmed the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Hay in view of Raelof and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0201449 to Denison et al. ("Denison"). Applicant disagrees with the Examiner and the BPAI because the Examiner and the BPAI improperly interpreted the "kiosks" of the claims as the "bays" of Hay. Despite the BPAI finding to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would not equate the "kiosks" of the claims with the "bays" of the "kiosk" of Hay.
Nonetheless, solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of this Application and expressly not for overcoming any rejection, Applicant has amended claim 1, for example, to recite "wherein the first vending kiosk is not combined with the second vending kiosk in the same housing," thereby removing the otherwise improper interpretation of the claims in light of Hay. Properly interpreted, Hay, alone or in combination with Radelhof, does not teach or suggest at least this feature of claim 1, as amended. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentable over the references relied upon by the Examiner.
Claim 14 and claim 20, as amended, recite features similar to those discussed above with regard to claim 1. As such, these claims are likewise patentable over the references relied upon by the Examiner for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Claims 2-6 and 8-13 depend from and add features to claim 1; and claims 15-19 depend from and add features to claim 14. As such, these dependent claims are likewise patentable over the references relied upon by the Examiner for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1 and claim 14, respectively”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The specification filled on 06/04/2020 states that Vending machines typically offer a number of different items to individuals in a convenient manner, see [0002], and vending kiosk or machine may house a number of different items for sale, see [0003], each vending kiosk may include a door, a locking mechanism and a payment processing mechanism or device, see [0023].
Hay teaches computer-controlled, automated store outlet (ASO) that includes one or more bay, wherein each bay includes a lockable door, and at least one tray that being adapted to hold items offered to sale to customer(s), sensor(s) to identify removed items by the customer(s). the lockable door can be opened after verifying the customer identity by a data input device associated with each bay. According to the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the bay and the computer-controlled, automated store outlet of Hay satisfies the claimed subject matter “vending kiosk”.
In addition, Hay teaches that the ASO is very flexible allowing designing an ASO in deferent shapes and configurations. Therefore, the ASO may be as small as illustrated in FIG. 1 or bigger as illustrated in FIG. 3 or in any other size based on the location's requirements and the location physical configurations. The ASO 10 operates in the same fashion, regardless of the number of bays 22 and modular units provided, see [0062].
Yet, Hey substantially discloses the claimed invention as explained supra; however, Hay fails to explicitly disclose that the kiosks (i.e. the bays) are not combined in the same housing. However, RADELOF teaches vending system that can freely be entered by a person wishing to purchase products, that provide three exemplary vending machine cabinets, each vending machine includes a door (2) and respective identification device 8 for reading an electronic identification means used to unlock the door (2), and grant the customer access to the products, see RADELOF, page 21-lines 6-21. It can be seen that the vending machines are separate (i.e., the claimed not combined) yet the vending machines are connected through a computer system so the customer can pay for the purchased items, see page 10-lines 1-15, and page 16-lines 17-19. See Fig. 2 see snapshot of Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
407
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vending machine art before the effective filing date to modify Hay’s system to make the kiosks (i.e., bays) to be separated (i.e., not combined in the same housing), as taught by RADELOF above, to suit products size and shape for distribution. See RADELOF, page 6, lines 22-23.
For the reasons above along with the reasons set forth below in the updated §103 rejection, the amendments and arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §103 rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “resetting the timer” in page 5-lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required, such as (resetting a timer).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0222603 to Hay (“Hay”) in view of International Publication No. WO2015/092076 to RADELOF UWE (“RADELOF”).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20. Hay teaches a method, comprising:
receiving transaction information associated with a first vending kiosk (Hay, [0050]; “automated store outlet (ASO)”. Fig. 5; “Customer begins process by identifying themselves and their choice of payment method 44”; Fig. 6 reference number 56);
in response to receiving the transaction information, causing a first locking mechanism associated with a first door of the first vending kiosk to be unlocked (Hay, Fig. 5; “when system has qualified the payment method ... 46” > “in order to allow access to any door the qualified customer must be identified again by the system door scanner … the customer opens the door of that bay and can remove any item 48”. Fig. 6; “58” > “60”. [0084]; “each qualified customer must be identified again before opening any bay door 24 by the electronic unit or scanner 26 associated with each bay door 24 … identification is presented at the scanner 26, the door will open 48”);
detecting, using a first sensor associated with the first vending kiosk, removal of a first physical item from the first vending kiosk (Hay, [0091]; “As the customer removes an item 70 from the tray 28, sensors detect the removal of the item 70 and the system is able to determine exactly the product name, description and price of that removed item 70 so as to add it to the virtual shopping cart 64”. Fig. 6; “62”);
adding information associated with the first physical item to a virtual list (Hay, Fig. 6; “64”. [0091]; “determine exactly the product name, description and price of that removed item 70 so as to add it to the virtual shopping cart 64”) of items (Hay, Fig. 5; “as items are removed from the tray, the product’s name, description and price are added to the customers virtual shopping cart 50”. [0073]; “the customer gets his or her active virtual shopping cart, in real time, during any shopping session in the ASO directly on the mobile phone display); and
completing a single transaction using the transaction information and the virtual list if items, the single transaction comprising purchase of both the first physical item from the first vending kiosk and the second physical item from the second vending kiosk (Hay, every ASO's (which included multiple bays (kiosks)) electrical functionalities are controlled by the main control board 90 and the tray circuit boards 86, Upon detecting any changes (i.e., items removal), such as removal or placement of products on or off the trays 28 (as seen in Fig. 7 that there is multiple bays with multiple trays in each bay), a signal is generated, reporting, by a serial data string, such activity to the main control board 90, The center or main control board 90 communicates, and applies such activity to the proper present customer's virtual shopping cart, see [0106] and fig. 7)
Hay substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Hay fails to explicitly disclose the “determining, using sensor information obtained from a second sensor associated with a second vending kiosk, that a second locking mechanism associated with a second door of the second vending kiosk is to be unlocked; causing the second locking mechanism associated with the second door of the second vending kiosk to be unlocked; detecting, using a third sensor associated with the second vending kiosk, removal of a second physical item from the second vending kiosk; adding information associated with the second physical item to the list of items, wherein the first vending kiosk is not combined with the second vending kiosk in the same housing”. However, RADELOF teaches
determining, using sensor information obtained from a second sensor (RADELOF, Fig. 2; “respective identification device 8”) associated with a second vending kiosk (RADELOF, Fig. 2; “vending machine cabinets 1”), that a second locking mechanism (RADELOF, Fig. 2; “a lockable door 2”) associated with a second door of the second vending kiosk is to be unlocked; causing the second locking mechanism associated with the second door of the second vending kiosk to be unlocked (RADELOF, page 21, lines 9-21; “inside the supermarket there are provided three exemplary vending machine cabinets 1 each having a lockable door 2. Next to each of the doors 2 there is provided a respective identification device 8 for reading an electronic identification means and for providing information needed to unlock the respective door 2. … a number of products (not shown) which can be withdrawn by a customer when the customer is successfully identified and the door is unlocked to grant the customer access to the products”);
detecting, using a third sensor associated with the second vending kiosk, removal of a second physical item from the second vending kiosk (RADELOF, page 19, lines 21-26; “a vending machine cabinet … equipped with one or more scales onto which the product to be vended is placed … detect the presence or absence of one or more products”. Page 20, lines 3-4; “detecting the sale of a product by means of the scale detecting the removal of a product”);
adding information associated with the second physical item to the list of items (RADELOF, page 19-line 33- page 20-line 5 “an on-site or remote computer system for operating the one or more scales and optionally the identification system; - granting the customer access to the machine cabinet or room upon identification of the customer with the identification system; - detecting the sale of a product by means of the scale detecting the removal of a product; - charging the customer the sales price”),
wherein the first vending kiosk is not combined with the second vending kiosk in the same housing (RADELOF teaches vending system that can freely be entered by a person wishing to purchase products, that provide three exemplary vending machine cabinets, each vending machine includes a door (2) and respective identification device 8 for reading an electronic identification means used to unlock the door (2), and grant the customer access to the products, see RADELOF, page 21-lines 6-21. It can be seen that the vending machines are separate (i.e., the claimed not combined) yet the vending machines are connected through a computer system so the customer can pay to the purchased items, see page 10-lines 1-15, and page 16-lines 17-19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vending machine art before the effective filing date to modify Hay’s system and virtual list to determining, using sensor information obtained from a second sensor associated with a second vending kiosk, that a second locking mechanism associated with a second door of the second vending kiosk is to be unlocked; causing the second locking mechanism associated with the second door of the second vending kiosk to be unlocked; detecting, using a third sensor associated with the second vending kiosk, removal of a second physical item from the second vending kiosk; adding information associated with the second physical item to the list of items, wherein the first vending kiosk is not combined with the second vending kiosk in the same housing, as taught by RADELOF above, where this would be performed in order to take considerable measures to assure adequate protection from product theft through the frontal zone, after a consumer has selected a product and paid the purchase price. See RADELOF, page 3, lines 5-9.
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Hay in view of RADELOF disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising generating an identifier associated with an individual that provided the transaction information (Hay, [0072]; “a member customer may download a company software application onto a mobile electronic device, such as a smart phone, which allows the customer to be identified by using an image, such as a QR code image, downloaded to the customer's mobile device”).
Regarding claims 3 and 17. The combination discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising verifying an identity of the individual at the second vending kiosk using the identifier (Hay, [0072]; “Upon accessing the application from the mobile phone and after entering the customer's PIN and requesting the QR image, the QR image is pushed to the customer's smart phone number”).
Regarding claim 4. The combination discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising associating a timer with the identifier, the timer specifying an amount of time the identifier is associated with the individual (Hay, [0072]; “The smart phone number on file and the customer's PIN must match in order to receive the qualified QR image. The particular image is good for one session in the ASO. If the QR image does not get used for a predetermined length of time, the QR image becomes void”).
Regarding claim 5. The combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information associated with the first physical item is pricing information for the first physical item (Hay, Fig. 5; “as items are removed from the tray, the product’s name, description and price are added to the customers virtual shopping cart 50”).
Regarding claim 6. The combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual list of items is a virtual shopping cart (Hay, Fig. 5; “as items are removed from the tray, the product’s name, description and price are added to the customers virtual shopping cart 50”).
Regarding claim 8. The combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, using sensor information provided by the first sensor, that the first physical item has been returned to the first vending kiosk (Hay, [0093] If the customer returns the item 70 to the tray 28, the system in real time removes that item from the customer's virtual shopping cart … use of some sensors, such as RFID tags or the like, the location of each product is less critical and such functions are modified accordingly based on the situation of each occurrence”).
Regarding claim 9. The combination discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising removing the information associated with the first physical item from the virtual list of items in response to determining that the first physical item has been returned to the first vending kiosk (Hay, [0093] If the customer returns the item 70 to the tray 28, the system in real time removes that item from the customer's virtual shopping cart”).
Regarding claim 10. The combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the first vending kiosk and the second vending kiosk are physically separate vending kiosks (as seen in Hay Fig. 5-6. Such as Fig. 6; “BAY 1”, “BAY 2” etc.).
PNG
media_image2.png
147
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6
Regarding claim 11. The combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising associating a timer with the transaction information (Hay, [0072]; “The smart phone number on file and the customer's PIN must match in order to receive the qualified QR image. The particular image is good for one session in the ASO. If the QR image does not get used for a predetermined length of time, the QR image becomes void”. [0098]; “the system will automatically close the transaction after a predetermined amount of time of inactivity by the customer 54”).
Regarding claim 12. The combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising locking the locking mechanism associated with the first door of the first vending kiosk based, at least in part, on sensor information provided by a fourth sensor associated with the first vending kiosk (Hay, Fig. 5; “when the customer releases the door handle, the door will automatically close and locked 52. [0094]; “the glass door 24 in front of each modular bay 22 is a biased, self-closing spring door which will close automatically upon releasing the handle of the door. When the door is fully closed, the locking mechanism detects that the door is completely closed, and then at that time the system activates the electric deadbolt to lock the door”).
Regarding claim 16. The combination discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising instructions for receiving an identifier associated with an individual that provided the transaction information (Hay, [0066-0068]; “a customer begins the process of using the present invention by identifying themselves … as illustrated in step 56 of FIG. 6 … the local computerized system identifies the customer and then qualifies the customer to shop at the ASO … the initial identification is usually accomplished at the check-in station. If the customer is an approved member, the customer will have with him or her his or her own customized member card (such as an RFID card, an NFC card, magnetic strip card, or other type of customized identification smart card”).
Regarding claim 18. The combination discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the identifier comprises biometric information of the individual (Hay, [0070]; “the customer can also be identified by the biometric data such as by scanning his or her face or fingerprint at the check-in station scanner. The system compares the facial, fingerprint, or other biometric image with the biometric images on record and identifies the customer”).
Regarding claim 19. The combination discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the identifier is associated with a computing device associated with the individual (Hay, [0072]; “a member customer may download a company software application onto a mobile electronic device, such as a smart phone”. [0086]; “electronic devices in the form of bracelets, rings, etc. which contain a smart RFID chip or any other RF technology may be issued to the customer”. [0017]; “swiping an electronically readable card or electronic device … The customer identification is verified by the system).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of RADELOF further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0143613 to Carter et al. (“Carter”).
Regarding claim 13. The combination of Hay in view of RADELOF discloses the method of claim 12, wherein
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “the sensor information provided by the fourth sensor indicates that an individual associated with the transaction information has moved over a threshold distance away from the first vending kiosk”. However, Carter teaches: the sensor information provided by the fourth sensor indicates that an individual associated with the transaction information has moved over a threshold distance away (Carter, [0069]; “an ultrasonic beacon may be used in combination with an electromagnetic wave based technology (e.g., RF signal-based), to determine the threshold boundary crossing”) from the first vending kiosk (Carter, [0077]; “Similarly, at 933, the user is positioned away from the workbooth. If a determination is made at 935 that the session is active, the door is locked at 937, because the user is not in the vicinity of the workbooth”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vending machine art before the effective filing date to modify Hay to include a known technology of sensor information provided by the fourth sensor indicates that an individual associated with the transaction information has moved over a threshold distance away from the first vending kiosk, as taught by Carter, where this would be performed in order to control access to a controlled-access environment having a boundary and an access point. See Carter [0016].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of RADELOF further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0220845 to Agrawal et al. (“Agrawal”).
Regarding claim 15. The combination of Hay in view of RADELOF discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising
The combination substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the “instructions for resetting the timer in response to detecting the second door is open”. However, Agrawal teaches: instructions for resetting the timer in response to detecting the second door is open (Agrawal, [0052]; “a timer begins each time the access door is open … If the access door remains open at the time of the follow-up message, the follow-up message will indicate this and the timer will be reset”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vending machine art before the effective filing date to modify Hay to include instructions for resetting the timer in response to detecting the second door is open, as taught by Agrawal, where this would be performed in order to provides monitoring systems may enable the vending machine to report to a central host when a “door open” state is detected. This can help operators to identify machines with malfunctioning door switches. See Agrawal [0003].
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627