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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claim 1) in the restriction requirement of 01/29/26 in the reply filed on 03/27/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are as detailed hereafter:
First Cup Transfer Mechanism: “Apparatus 100 includes one or more automated first cup-transfer mechanisms 170 that receive the beverage cups 156 from the cup dispensers 164 and move the beverage cups 156 within apparatus 100 during the preparation of the customer's beverage. Referring to FIG. 5C, apparatus 100 includes two such automated first cup- transfer mechanisms 170 a, 170 b. Each first cup transfer mechanism 170 a, 170 b includes a rail 172 arranged along an x-axis of apparatus 100. In preferred embodiments, rails 172 are located above cup dispensers 164 to prevent beverages and (and add-ins) from spilling onto rails 172. Each first cup transfer mechanism 170 a, 170 b also includes a cup support 174 which is configured to receive a cup 156 from one of the cup dispensers 164 and to move the cup along the length of rail 172 during the preparation of the customer's beverage. (Cups supports 174 are configured to accommodate all of the different top diameters of the different cup sizes that are supplied from cup turret assemblies 154 and cup dispensers 164). Specifically, after cup support 174 receives a cup 156 from one of the cup dispensers 164, cup support 174 first moves cup 156 to one of two laser engravers 176, which engrave information about the customer's beverage order onto cup 156.”, para. [0052]-[0053]; “
Second Cup Transfer Mechanism: “Apparatus 100 also includes one or more automated second cup-transfer mechanisms 178 which receive a cup 156 with a completed beverage from first cup-transfer mechanism 170 and deliver the completed beverage to first pick-up station 106 or to second pick-up station 108, as directed by master controller 198. Referring to FIG. 5C, apparatus 100 includes two such automated second cup- transfer mechanisms 178 a, 178 b which are located at opposite ends of the x-axis of the apparatus. Referring to FIGS. 6A-6F, each second cup transfer mechanism 178 a, 178 b includes a rail 180 arranged along a y-axis of apparatus 100 and a rail 182 arranged along a z-axis of apparatus 100. The x, y, and z axes of apparatus 100 are mutually perpendicular. A cup support 184 is configured to receive a cup 156 with the completed beverage from a cup support 174 of a first cup-transfer mechanism 170. Prior to receiving cup 156 from cup support 174 of first cup-transfer mechanism 170, cup support 184 is positioned at a bottom of rail 180, as shown in FIG. 6A. The size of cup support 184 is smaller than the size of cup support 174 so that cup support 184 engages cup 156 at a portion of cup 156 that is lower (and thus has a smaller diameter) than the portion of cup 156 that is engaged by cup support 174. When cup support 174 brings cup 156 with the completed beverage to second cup-transfer mechanism 178, cup support 184 travels upwardly along rail 180 until it receives cup 156 therein. Cup support 184 then continues to travel upwardly along rail 180 a little further until it lifts cup 156 out of cup support 174, as shown in FIG. 6B. Cup support 174 is then moved away from the second cup-transfer mechanism 178, as shown in FIG. 6C.”, para. [0055].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “as close as possible”, it is submitted that this phrase is indefinite as the aforementioned phrase is a relative phrase/term which is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and additionally, the phrase indications possibility/probability. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knight et al. (US 11,053,109).
With regard to claim 1, Knight describes a method for automated preparation and delivery of beverages (“Systems and methods for automatic beverage dispensing according to a recipe linked with a marker”, Title), comprising: moving a first one of a plurality of cup-transfer mechanisms (first cup transfer mechanism: 20/22/24/25/26, FIG. 3) to a first position (28) (“as that shown FIGS. 3-4, the cup dispenser 20 includes a cup slide 24 that moves the cup 2 from the storage chamber 22 in which it was released to a desired position above one of the cup holders 42. The cup slide 24 has a cup support 26 that receives a cup 2 released from one of the storage chambers 22. The cup support 26 is transitionally moveable along a rail 25 to subsequently transport the cup 2 to a home position 28”, col. 2, ln. 66 to col. 3, ln. 6) during preparation of a first beverage (via cup 2); moving a second one of the plurality of cup-transfer mechanisms (second cup transfer mechanism: 40/42/48, FIG. 3) as close as possible to the first position (28) during preparation of a second beverage (“The cup support 26 then releases the cup 2 such that the cup 2 falls or is otherwise guided into the cup holder 42. The region of the conveyor 40 where the cup holder 24 receives a cup 2 from the cup dispenser 20 is referred to as the cup receiving location I (FIG. 2). The recipe to be fulfilled is assigned or linked to a particular cup 2, or in certain embodiments with the particular cup holder 42 holding the particular cup 2, using a marker 44.”, col. 3, ln. 4-15); and completing a movement of the second one of the plurality of cup-transfer mechanisms when the first one of the plurality of cup-transfer mechanisms vacates the first position (last cup sensor 50: “This process of incorporating a last cup sensor 50 thereby ensures that the conveyor 40 does not move a dispensed cup 2 back underneath the home position 28, which could result in accidental cups 2 stacking and/or an overflow or overfill condition (in addition to negatively impacting the fulfillment of the recipes associated therewith). In short, this allows the system 1 to safely queue multiple orders at once.”, col. 5, ln. 45-52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
