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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 20-21 under the 102 and 103 rejections based on Wade have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Morales US 2011/0000923.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the sleeve” lacks antecedent basis and is believe to be referring to the holder. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morales US 2011/0000923.
Morales discloses a system for facilitating procurement of a controlled or restricted item liquid requested by a consumer, the system comprising:
(Re claim 1) “a receiving portion for receiving a receptacle” (4 figure 4). “a reader of an identifying device associated with the receptacle which is arranged to read the identifying device when the receptable is received in the receiving portion” (5 figure 4). “a dispensing module for dispensing one of a plurality of different types of liquid into the receptacle when the receptable is received in the receiving portion” (F figure 3A). “a processor configured operable for enabling an authentication event in respect of the consumer's request, the authentication event involving an identifier read by the reader from the identifying device and a characteristic associated with the identifier which provides an indication of successful verification of the consumer's eligibility to procure the controlled or restricted liquid item, the identifier being associated with a type of the controlled or restricted liquid item to be dispensed” (‘consumer … bottle … production information … last fluid’ para 0031,0047). “the system is further configured operable for authorising dispensing of the controlled or restricted item by way of a dispensing event on a determination of the characteristic indicating successful verification of the consumer's eligibility to procure the controlled or restricted item following acknowledgment of the identifier on presentation of the identifier at the dispensing event, and the dispensing event controlling the dispensing module to dispense the liquid of the type indicated by the type of liquid permitted to be dispensed” (para 0047).
(Re claim 2) “wherein the identifier is physically associated with a receptacle device for receiving the controlled or restricted item liquid” (1’ figure 2a).
(Re claim 4) “the type of the controlled or restricted item that is dispensed is selected by the type of the controlled or restricted item -liquid of the type associated with the identifier” (‘rfid … fluid contained … new fluid’ para 0047).
(Re claim 6) “the dispensing module is configured to read the identifier from the receptacle device, wherein reading of the identifier triggers retrieving the type of item-liquid associated with the identifier and initiates the verification of the consumer's eligibility to procure the controlled or restricted item” (‘user personal information … credit card information’ para 0047).
Morales discloses a machine for facilitating procurement of a controlled or restricted liquid requested by a consumer, the system comprising:
(Re claim 28) “a receiving portion for receiving a receptacle” (4 figure 4). “a reader of an identifying device associated with the receptacle which is arranged to read the identifying device when the receptable is received in the receiving portion” (5 figure 4). “a dispensing module for dispensing one of a plurality of different types of liquid into the receptacle when the receptable is received in the receiving portion” (F figure 3a). “a network interface” (‘database located outside the machine’ para 0048). “a processor configured to: A. enable an authentication event in respect of the consumer's request, the authentication event initiated by the reader obtaining an identifier of the receptacle by reading the identifying device, the authentication event comprising: (i) authenticating the identifying device; ii) sending the identifier to a server via the network interface; and (iii) receiving from the server, via the network interface: a. a selected type of liquid permitted to be dispensed, the selected type being one of the plurality of different types of liquid; and b. a characteristic associated with the identifier which provides an indication of successful verification of the consumer's eligibility to procure the controlled or restricted liquid of the received type” (‘payment … PIN or password … database’ para 0047-0048). “B. control the dispensing module to dispense the liquid of the type indicated by the type of liquid permitted to be dispensed that is received from the server using the dispensing module upon a determination of the characteristic indicating successful verification of the consumer's eligibility to procure the controlled or restricted liquid” (‘refill the container with new fluid’ para 0047).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales.
Morales discloses the system as rejected above and discloses that the prior art discloses that the system is configured to only facilitate procurement of the controlled or restricted item-liquid of the type associated with the identifier into the receptable device associated with the identifier from the dispensing module, and the type associated with the identifier is unchanged between each dispensing event (para 0006).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Morales to include that the system is configured to only facilitate procurement of the controlled or restricted item-liquid of the type associated with the identifier into the receptable device associated with the identifier from the dispensing module, and the type associated with the identifier is unchanged between each dispensing event as an alternate mode to provide refills of the same product in a simplified manner because it allows a user to reliably receive the same product they desire.
Claim(s) 5,7-12 and 20-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales in view of Dallman US 7,734,374.
Morales discloses the system as rejected above and “the identifying device and the system comprises a receptacle device receiving portion … when it receives the receptacle so as to receive the receptacle in the receiving portion is configured to read the identifier and to receive the type of item associated therewith and to dispense the item according to its type into the receptacle device upon the indication of the successful verification of the consumer's eligibility to procure the controlled or restricted item” (para 0047-0048).
Morales does not disclose that the system comprises a holder device that receives the receptacle.
Dallman teaches a holder device that receives the receptacle (50,14,36,34 figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Morales to include a holder device that receives the receptacle because it allows for retrofitting of existing receptacles and providing additional identification features.
(Re claim 7) “the system is configured such that upon reading of the identifier the system prepares the dispensing module to dispense the type of item associated with the identifier, wherein a receptacle device receiving portion of the dispenser is configured operable to make safe from volatiles/flammables before, during and/or after dispensing” (16B figure 11, 3d figure 3a). The dispenser of Morales appears to include a vent attached to the filler and the system would be vented fully when the door is opened.
(Re claim 8) “wherein the dispensing module is configured to verify that the receptacle complies with dispensing requirements” (para 0030,0051, 1d, 1c figure 2a).
(Re claim 9) Morales does not disclose that the receptacle device comprises a receptacle and a holder device for holding the receptacle, wherein the holder device supports the identifier.
Dallman teaches that the receptacle device comprises a receptacle and a holder device for holding the receptacle, wherein the holder device supports the identifier (50,14,36,34 figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Morales to include that the receptacle device comprises a receptacle and a holder device for holding the receptacle, wherein the holder device supports the identifier because it allows for retrofitting of existing receptacles and providing additional identification features.
(Re claim 10) “the holder device comprises a physical compatibility interface between the receptacle and the holder device for verification that the receptacle meets requirements to be received in the receiving portion” (1d,1c figure 2a) (34,36 figure 6; Dallman).
(Re claim 11) Morales discloses that the physical compatibility interface is a keyed projection on … and a recess on the receptacle. (1c,1d figure 2a).
Morales as modified by Dallman to include a holder would require that the holder have matching projections so that the filling system could still engage with the receptacle.
(Re claim 12) Morales does not disclose that the receptacle is separable from the holder device.
Dallman teaches that the receptacle is separable from the holder device (50,34 figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify they system of Morales to include that the receptacle is separable from the holder device because it allows the holder to be used on multiple receptacles
(Re claim 20) Morales discloses a receptacle, the device comprising an identifier configured operable so as to be acknowledgeable for use in an authentication event enabled by a system for facilitating procurement of a controlled or restricted item requested by a consumer from one of a network of a plurality of dispensing modules, or acknowledgeable by a dispensing apparatus operable for use in procurement of a controlled or restricted item-liquid when the device is presented thereto, wherein the device comprises a physical compatibility interface with the receptacle for verification that the receptacle meets requirements to be received by the dispensing apparatus (figure 2a-3a, para 0047-0048)
Morales discloses that the prior art discloses that the device is associated with only one type of liquid (para 0006).
Morales does not disclose a device configured for holding or providing support for a receptacle.
Dallman teaches a device configured for holding or providing support for a receptacle (50,14,36,34 figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Morales to include that the system is configured to only facilitate procurement of the controlled or restricted item-liquid of the type associated with the identifier into the receptable device associated with the identifier from the dispensing module, and the type associated with the identifier is unchanged between each dispensing event as an alternate mode to provide refills of the same product in a simplified manner because it allows a user to reliably receive the same product they desire.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Morales to include a holder device that receives the receptacle because it allows for retrofitting of existing receptacles and providing additional identification features.
(Re claim 21) Morales discloses that the system is configured to only facilitate procurement of the controlled or restricted item of the type associated with the identifier into the receptable device associated with the identifier (para 0006).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Morales to include that the system is configured to only facilitate procurement of the controlled or restricted item-liquid of the type associated with the identifier into the receptable device associated with the identifier from the dispensing module, and the type associated with the identifier is unchanged between each dispensing event as an alternate mode to provide refills of the same product in a simplified manner because it allows a user to reliably receive the same product they desire.
(Re claim 22) “the holder device is associated with only one type of liquid” Morales, as modified above, only dispenses one type of liquid (para 0006). Morales has also been modified to include a holder, as such claim 22 is rendered obvious.
(Re claim 23) “the receptacle is associated with only one type of liquid”, Morales as modified above limits the receptacle to a one type of liquid (para 0006).
(Re claim 24) “the receptacle device receiving portion is configured to provide a physical compatibility arrangement for verification that the holder device and receptacle meet requirements to be received in the receiving portion” (1c, 3c, 1d,11a figure 2a,4,7a).
(Re claim 25) “the receptacle device receiving portion comprises a sensor for electronically verifying that the holder device and receptacle are correctly received in the receiving portion” (4 figure 6).
(Re claim 26) “the system is configured operable such that dispensing event comprises determining that the sensor has electronically verified that the holder device and receptacle are correctly received in the receiving portion” (4 figure 6, para 0031, 0047-0048).
(Re claim 27) “the physical compatibility arrangement is configured to ensure that the holder device is associated with the same type of liquid as the receptacle is associated with” (1c, 3c, 1d,11a figure 2a,4,7a). Morales requires that the receptacle physically matches the receptacle and as modified by Dallman would require the holder to match the same physical compatibility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights