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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the application is in condition for allowance.
In response, except for newly rejected and amended independent claim 33, the remaining amended independent claims have been allowed. The applicant is herein referred to the new 103 rejection presented in the office action.
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.
Claim 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacFarlane et al. (US 2020/0375388) in view of Nakao (US 2022/0262190).
Claim 33, MacFarlane discloses a method for automated preparation and pick-up of a beverage ordered by a customer, the method comprising: dispensing a cup (201) which is appropriate to contain the beverage ordered by the customer (figs.1-2); receiving the cup in a first cup-transfer mechanism (231); moving the cup along a first axis by the first cup-transfer mechanism (231) during preparation of the beverage ordered by the customer (para.0325-0328; 231 gets the cup along an axis, inherently); placing the cup with the beverage ordered by the customer from the first cup-transfer mechanism (231) at a pick-up location (209 is a delivery portal/station) from which the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer is picked up by the customer; and making room at the location (209) to receive subsequent cups without requiring human interaction; a second cup-transfer mechanism (232); wherein the dispensing step comprises dropping the cup from a predetermined distance that remains constant regardless of a size to of the cup (the dispensing step does comprise dropping the cup from a predetermined distance; para.0390; dispensing tubes 1700 can allow for cups with differing sizes and diameters; para.0328; robotic staging arm 231 has access to the delivery station or portal 209; robotic brewing arm 232 & robotic staging arm 231 grab the cups and transfer them during the dispensing process onto stationary solid surfaces; therefore, it would be inherent that 231 and 232 position the cups onto the stationary solid surfaces by dropping them or placing them when the cups, regardless of cup size, are at a particular predetermined distance from the stationary solid surface).
Although MacFarlane does not disclose moving the cup only along a first axis by the first cup- transfer mechanism (231) during preparation of the beverage ordered by the customer, disabling or removing the additional axis movement of the first cup-transfer mechanism is a variation of the prior art that is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement.
MacFarlane does not disclose transferring the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer from the first cup-transfer mechanism to a second cup-transfer mechanism after the beverage has been prepared, wherein the second cup-transfer mechanism is configured to move the cup only along at least one of a second axis and a third axis, wherein the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis are mutually perpendicular; placing the cup with the beverage ordered by the customer from the second cup-transfer mechanism at a pick-up location from which the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer is picked up by the customer.
Nakao discloses transferring the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer from the first cup-transfer mechanism (31) to a second cup-transfer mechanism (32) after the beverage has been prepared, wherein the second cup-transfer mechanism (32) is configured to move the cup only along at least one of a second axis (x-direction; para.0230) and a third axis (z-direction; para.0230), wherein the
first axis (y- direction; para.0227), the second axis, and the third axis are mutually perpendicular. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of MacFarlane with transferring the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer from the first cup-transfer mechanism to a second cup-transfer mechanism after the beverage has been prepared, wherein the second cup-transfer mechanism is configured to move the cup only along at least one of a second axis and a third axis, wherein the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis are mutually perpendicular; placing the cup with the beverage ordered by the customer from the second cup-transfer mechanism at a pick-up location from which the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer is picked up by the customer because it merely provides another well-known configuration of utilizing dual transfer units which further improves operational efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,5-12,14-17,20-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: an apparatus for automated preparation and delivery of a beverage ordered by a customer including the features “at least one front door; wherein: the pick-up station comprises a conveyor; and the conveyor is located on the at least one front door. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claim 4 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: an apparatus for automated preparation and delivery of a beverage ordered by a customer including the features “and the conveyor rotates such that the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer is dropped from the conveyor if the customer has not picked up the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer from the conveyor within an allotted period of time. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: an apparatus for automated preparation and delivery of a beverage ordered by a customer including the features “wherein: the pick-up station comprises a conveyor; and the second cup-transfer mechanism moves the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer only along the second axis and/or the third axis to place the cup on the conveyor. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claims 18-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: an apparatus for automated preparation and delivery of a beverage ordered by a customer including the features “wherein: each of said plurality of cup dispensers comprises a turret assembly configured to hold a plurality of sleeves of cups; and when the cup dispenser has dispensed all of the cups from a first sleeve of the plurality of sleeves of cups held in the turret assembly, the turret assembly moves a second sleeve of the plurality of sleeves of cups held in the turret assembly into a position where the cup dispenser can dispense cups from the second sleeve. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claims 22-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: an apparatus for automated preparation and delivery of a beverage ordered by a customer including the features “at least one door granting access to the pick-up station, wherein the at least one door is locked when the conveyor is moving.“ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claims 24,27,32,34-35,37-38 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A method for automated preparation and pick-up of a beverage ordered by a customer including the steps “wherein the placing step comprises placing the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer on a conveyor using the second cup-transfer mechanism; and rotating the conveyor such that the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer is dropped from the conveyor if the customer has not picked up the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer from the conveyor within an allotted amount of time. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claims 30-31 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A method for automated preparation and pick-up of a beverage ordered by a customer including the steps “rotating each of the conveyors such that the cup containing the beverage ordered by the customer is dropped from the conveyor if the customer has not picked up the cup containing the beverage from the conveyor within an allotted amount of time.“ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Claims 39-40 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A method for automated preparation and pick-up of a beverage ordered by a customer including the steps “granting access to the pick-up location via at least one door; and locking the at least one door when the conveyor is moving. “ in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights