Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/940,390

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING TOUCHLESS FOOD SERVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 08, 2022
Examiner
SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Vollrath Company, L.L.C.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
483 granted / 881 resolved
+2.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
928
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§103
52.5%
+12.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 881 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/8/25. Applicant's election with traverse of the election of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Independent Claim 1 “does not recite features relating to temperature, temperature control, or temperature controlled airflow” as mentioned in Applicant’s Remarks received 12/8/25. This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons. First, this case is being examined under US election practice instead of international practice. Therefore, “unity of invention” does not apply. Applicant proposes combining Invention I, directed towards Claims 1-8 and Invention II, directed towards Claims 9-18. This is considered incorrect for the reasons as follows. Essentially, the invention of Independent Claim 9, which represents Invention II, does not require the details of Invention I as represented by Independent Claim 1. For example, Independent Claim 1 has details of the first cannister such as “a first canister configured to selectively couple with the first power supply module and controllably dispense the first food product using power from the first power supply module, wherein the first canister comprises a first receptacle, a first base coupled to the first receptacle, and a first dispenser, the first base having a first outlet aligned with the first opening in the first positioning bracket”. The subcombination of Invention II does not require such details for patentability. The subcombination of Invention II also has separate utility such as for use in another food dispensing apparatus with different features than found in the invention of Invention I and Independent Claim 1. Therefore, the withdrawal of Claims 9-20 is accepted and examination of Claims 1-8 of Invention I are examined as found below. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohammed et al (US 2019/0272699 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Mohammed discloses a food service system, i.e., vending machine (600), as illustrated in figure 1, for example, for controllably dispensing a first food product, i.e., “different flavors of ice cream, custard, frozen yogurt, sherbets, sorbets or other similar products” and/or “distinct flavors of a frozen food product (e.g., vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, etc.)”, as mentioned at paragraphs 47 and 48, for example, the food service system (600) comprising: a housing (880), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 58, for example, having a first bay, i.e., user access station (630, 1104) as illustrated in figures 1, 2 and 25, for example, defined by one or more walls, i.e., noting figures 25-28 show various walls surrounding user access station (630, 1104); a first positioning bracket, i.e., arm (835) and guide chute (823) as illustrated in figures 13-15, mounted in the first bay (630, 1104) and having a first opening, noting the hole in arm (835) as seen in figure 15, for example; a first power supply module, i.e., noting the wire harnesses, for example, as illustrated in figure 9 and as mentioned at paragraph 46, noting motor (825), as mentioned at paragraph 52 and as illustrated in figures 13-15, must be powered by electricity, for example, having a first mounting interface, noting the spindle that interfaces with auger (820) can be construed as a mounting interface; a first canister, i.e., container (810), configured to selectively couple with the first power supply module, as illustrated in figures 9 and 13-15, and controllably dispense the first food product, i.e., different flavors of ice cream product, using power from the first power supply module, as illustrated in figure 9, wherein the first canister (810) comprises a first receptacle, i.e., construed as the wall of the canister (810), noting Applicant’s definition of both cannister (126) and receptacle (502) as mentioned at paragraphs 80 and 81 and as illustrated at figure 11 of Applicant’s disclosure, a first base, i.e., construed as the bottom of cannister (810) with opening (815) through which auger (820) passes, as well as guide chute (823), all of which operate as a nozzle similar to Applicant’s disclosed base, coupled to the first receptacle (810), and a first dispenser, i.e., auger (820) as illustrated in figure 15, for example, the first base having a first outlet, i.e., dispense opening (815), aligned with the first opening in the first positioning bracket (835); and a first drive motor module, i.e., motor (825), removably mounted to the first base and operatively coupled to the first dispenser (820) as illustrated in figure 15, for example; wherein the first canister (810) is removably mounted in the first bay (630, 1104) by at least an engagement between the first drive motor module (825) and the first mounting interface, i.e., construed as the superstructure of the frame, brackets and housing, of the first power supply module; and wherein the first drive motor module (825) actuates the first dispenser (820) in response to an electrical signal, i.e., via processing electronics (632) as mentioned at paragraph 62 and as illustrated in figure 9, for example, and the first dispenser (820) controllably dispenses the first food product from the first receptacle (810) to the first outlet (815). 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. 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. Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al (US 2019/0272699 A1) in view of Milan et al (US 2009/0179042 A1). Regarding Claims 2-8, Mohammed teaches the system as described above. Regarding Claim 2, Mohamed further teaches mention of a refrigerated enclosure as mentioned at paragraphs 51 and 53, which states as follows. [0051] Referring to FIGS. 13-15, topping dispensing station 625 is configured to automatically dispense at least one topping. Toppings may be solid or liquid and may require refrigeration or not. For example, toppings can include various types of candy, sprinkles, fruit, syrups and other toppings appropriate for serving with a frozen food product. [0053] In some embodiments, topping dispensing station 625 is configured to dispense one or more liquid toppings (e.g., chocolate sauce, hot fudge, caramel, butterscotch, etc.) in place of or in addition to solid toppings. Topping dispensers for liquid toppings are known in the art and typically include a vertically movable pump lever that is depressed to dispense the liquid topping. A linear actuator, stepper motor or other appropriate automatic actuator may be used to depress the pump lever or actuate a pump to automate the operation of a liquid topping dispenser. Processing electronics may be configured to determine the amount of liquid topping dispenses based on an input from a flow sensor, an input from a weight sensor (e.g., similar to weight sensor 840), the duration of time the pump is activated, the number of steps of a stepper motor used to activate a pump, etc. In embodiments including one or more toppings that need to be refrigerated, a refrigeration enclosure and a related refrigeration system are included in order to maintain the toppings at the appropriate refrigerated temperature. Emphasis provided Regarding Claim 2, Mohammed does not expressly teach further comprising a temperature control system and a temperature controlled compartment, wherein the temperature control system is configured to provide a temperature controlled airflow to the temperature controlled compartment. Regarding Claim 2, Mohammed does not expressly teach, but Milan teaches further comprising a temperature control system, i.e., controller (40) with temperature sensor (272) and a temperature controlled compartment, i.e,. noting chiller section (26, 26a, 26b) with smoothie receptacle storage section (24, 24n) as illustrated in figures 1, 15, 28, 31, 32 and 38 and as mentioned at paragraphs 90 and 95, for example, wherein the temperature control system (40) is configured to provide a temperature controlled airflow to the temperature controlled compartment (24, 24n). Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided further comprising a temperature control system and a temperature controlled compartment, wherein the temperature control system is configured to provide a temperature controlled airflow to the temperature controlled compartment, as taught by Milan, in Mohammed’s food service system, for the purpose of cooling the frozen items/products such as ice cream. Regarding Claim 3, Mohammed does not expressly teach wherein the temperature control system is a cooling system and the temperature controlled airflow is a chilled airflow, and wherein the housing comprises a first fan configured to direct at least a portion of the chilled airflow in a first direction along the first canister to cool the first canister. Regarding Claim 3, Mohammed does not expressly teach, but Milan teaches wherein the temperature control system (40, 272) is a cooling system, as mentioned at paragraph 110, first sentence, stating “controller 40 is configured to initiate and terminate a chill cycle of operation wherein the contents of the selected smoothie receptacle are lowered to the second temperature for crystallizing the contents of the selected smoothie receptacle” and noting refrigeration unit (32) as illustrated in figures 37, and the temperature controlled airflow is a chilled airflow, as mentioned in paragraph 136, mentioning “a source of airflow”, and wherein the housing, i.e., frame (22), as illustrated in figure 1, comprises a first fan (252) configured to direct at least a portion of the chilled airflow in a first direction along the first canister, i.e., bin (302) to cool the first canister (302), for example. Regarding Claim 4, Mohammed does not expressly teach further comprising a cooling system providing a chilled airflow, wherein the first positioning bracket comprises an aperture configured to direct at least a portion of the chilled airflow to isolate the first canister from ambient air outside the housing. Regarding Claim 4, Mohammed does not expressly teach, but Milan teaches further comprising a cooling system (40, 272) providing a chilled airflow, i.e., via fan (252), wherein the first positioning bracket, i.e., chiller mounting plate (80, 80s, 80c, 170), comprises an aperture, i.e., the spacing between the fins of finned heat exchanger (92) as mentioned in paragraph 107 and as illustrated in figures 8-10, for example, configured to direct at least a portion of the chilled airflow to isolate the first canister, i.e., smoothie receptacles (30), from ambient air outside the housing (22) as mentioned at paragraphs 96, 124 and as illustrated in figures 2-4, 10, 15. Regarding Claim 5, Mohammed does not expressly teach, wherein the aperture is a slot having an elongated dimension approximate the first opening in the first positioning bracket. Regarding Claim 5, Mohammed does not expressly teach, but Milan teaches wherein the aperture, i.e., the spacing between the fins of finned heat exchanger (92) as mentioned in paragraph 107 and as illustrated in figures 8-10, for example, is a slot having an elongated dimension approximate the first opening, i.e, the ends of the chiller guide funnel (56) in which smoothie receptacle (30) slides, in the first positioning bracket, i.e., chiller guide funnel (56), as illustrated in figures 3, 4, 10. Regarding Claim 6, Mohammed teaches wherein the first outlet of the first canister (810) is disposed above the aperture in the first positioning bracket (835), as illustrated in figures 14 and 15, noting that the bracket (835) and the aperture (815) are located below cannister (810). Note that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Regarding Claim 7, see the rejection of Claim 1, noting that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the canister and its positioning brackets, as well as other pertinent details as needed to meet the demand for higher volumes of frozen product as well as to vary the flavors offered. Regarding Claim 8, see the rejection of Claim 1, noting that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the canister and its positioning brackets, as well as other pertinent details as needed to meet the demand for higher volumes of frozen product as well as to vary the flavors offered. Conclusion Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zito ‘559 is cited as teaching another food dispensing apparatus including a bay (270) including a plurality of bins with drum (274) that controls the output of ingredients through an exit outlet as mentioned at paragraph 61, for example. See also figures 1, 3 and 4. Beavis ‘407 is cited as teaching a food dispensing apparatus with controller system (16, 20) as illustrated in figures 1-4. Rusch ‘453 is cited as teaching a set of dispensing paddles (82) as illustrated in figure 3, for example. Jones ‘893 is cited as teaching bracket/aperture assembly at figures 2 and 5, for example. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM. 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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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. /JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 January 2, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583542
BICYCLE PARKING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567298
A COIN FEEDING UNIT, A MODULE COMPRISING SAID COIN FEEDING UNIT, AND A COIN HANDLING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562021
VEHICLE TREATMENT ARCH WITH PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL INDICATION SYSTEM AND TOOL ENGAGEMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562017
A COIN APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555478
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REALTIME COMMUNITY INFORMATION EXCHANGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+15.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 881 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month