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 Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 1 December 2025 is acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended claims 1 and 15. Claims 2, 5-9, and 17 were previously cancelled by the Applicant. Claims 11-14 were previously withdrawn by the Applicant. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 15-16, and 18-20 remain pending in the application.
Upon review of the prior prosecution of this application, Examiner notes that in the previous Office Action (see Non-Final, mailed 17 June 2025), Claims 3-4 and 10 were not treated, an error by the Examiner. However, these claims were found as unpatentable over the prior art, and were rejected under 35 USC 103 in the prior Office Action (see Final, mailed 23 December 2024).
Applicant did not explicitly traverse the rejections of Claims 3-4 and 10 in the Arguments filed 23 May 2025 in response to the Final mailed 23 December 2024 (Here, Applicant only traversed the rejections of the independent claims). Additionally, in Applicant’s Arguments filed 1 December 2025 in response to the 17 Jule 2025 Non-Final, Applicant acknowledged that only Claims 1 and 15-20 were pending.
Regardless, and in the interests of completeness of the prosecution record, this present action is released as Non-Final and addresses Claims 3-4 and 10, which were not amended, and remain unpatentable over the prior art. The present Office Action replaces the previous Action mailed 17 June 2025, yet also addresses Applicant’s arguments of that Action, as well as the present claim set filed 1 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments, see pages 1-9, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 15-20, under 35 USC § 103 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 17 June 2025 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art of Burkhard (EP 3088141 B1), in views of Jennings (US 2007/0106422), Kross (US 3,940,019), Munson (US 2021/0347396), and DeMars (US 2014/0306584) fail to teach the features of amended Claims 1 and 15, notably:
“ a table portion… having a three-sided rectangular shape with the fourth side forming a curved edge”,
“a cylinder spittoon… positioned adjacent to the customer-facing side of the table portion”,
“a bottle resting tray on the table portion, configured to hold a plurality of bottles and glasses” (this limitation was previously, and remains present in Claim 18, and rejected by the Examiner as unpatentable over the prior art),
“a higher, curved bar countertop designed for placing beverage-related accessories”, and
“a plurality of lockable wheels disposed on the bottom of the table portion positioned along structural supports adjacent to the perimeter of the table portion, with the lockable wheels being arranged to correspond with the curved and linear edges of the base of the table portion”.
Applicant additionally argues that the cited combinations of the previous Office Action amount to impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting the following:
As stated in the previous Office Actions, many of Applicant’s claimed features of “a table bar adapted to accommodate a robot for dispensing one or more beverages” either already exist in “human-oriented” bars, appear to serve no novel function (in other words, Applicant has not shown how these features produce unexpected results, are novel over the prior art, or unique to a “robot-oriented” apparatus), or are obvious matters of design choice.
Examiner continues to assert that the limitations of the present application (the immediate working area in which said robotic arm would be utilized) are no different than the immediate working area of an actual human bartender, and therefore no different than the current operating designs utilized by thousands of beverage serving areas (e.g., “bars”) worldwide in commercial establishments and private homes. Bars typically include a table portion for preparing beverages and a raised countertop for serving said beverage to a customer and/or server. Commercial bars additionally typically have at least some dedicated areas for the retention and/or drainage of spilled liquid. Bars additionally have dedicated sections, such as “recessed areas” to conveniently place, retain, and secure beverage preparation and serving items, such as bottles, glasses, etc.
Again, the present application does not teach any features that would be unique to an automated or robotic system, e.g., one a work area that would be different than one a human bartender would normally utilize in the routine preparation and serving of beverages. Absent any teaching of novel improvements unique to a robot-controlled/operated work area, Examiner concludes that the concept is not novel over the prior art, or over the general well-known practices of beverage making and serving.
With specific regards to Applicant’s amendments of “ a table portion… having a three-sided rectangular shape with the fourth side forming a curved edge”, “the recessed area for the spittoon is positioned adjacent to a customer-facing side of the table portion" and “a higher, curved bar countertop designed for placing beverage-related accessories”, and “wheels are "positioned along structural supports adjacent to the perimeter of the table portion, with the lockable wheels being arranged to correspond with the curved and linear edges of the base of the table portion”, Examiner notes that Applicant merely points to support in the Figures for these limitations, thereby solidifying Examiner’s assertations that these features serve no novel purpose, are design choices, and are not patentable over the previously presented prior art, which at the very least provide functional equivalents of these claimed features. Please see MPEP 2183.
With specific regard to Applicant’s arguments of improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner has provided new examples of the prior art (FP Robotics) below that read even more closely upon Applicant’s presently amended, previously presented, and original claims of the current claim set.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the countertop of the table portion further comprises a recessed area shaped and sized to receive a base of the robot for mounting thereto” of Claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the final clause of the claim contains the following limitation: “wherein the table bar is constructed to facilitated automated beverage dispensing and includes structural features enabling stability and flexibility for robotic operation in varied environments.” Here, the word “facilitated” should be corrected to “facilitate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10 and 18 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the amended claim contains the limitation” a table portion for mounting the robot on a table countertop of the table portion, having a three-sided rectangular shape with the fourth side forming a curved edge”. It is unknown if the phrase “having a three-sided rectangular shape with the fourth side forming a curved edge” describes the “table portion”, or “the table countertop of the table portion”. The scope of the claim is therefore unclear and indefinite.
Further regarding Claim 1, the claim contains the following two limitations:
“A table bar adapted to accommodate a robot for dispensing one or more beverages comprising:
(1) “… a raised bar portion shaped into an L-configuration…” (see line 8 of the claim)
(2) “… wherein the raised bar portion includes an L-shape with a bend portion adapted to facilitate the placement of beverage-related accessories at varying heights.” (see the last clause of the claim).
As written, it is unknown if these two clauses provide the same limitation for “the raised bar portion”. The scope of the claim is therefore unclear and indefinite.
During a telephonic interview conducted 12 February 2025, Attorney Falati confirmed that the intended subject matter of these two limitations were identical, and acknowledged an error. Correspondingly, the Claim 1 is interpreted to require “… a raised bar portion shaped into an L-configuration…”, and the last clause is ignored. However, amendment/correction is required.
Regarding Claims 3-4 and 10, these claims depend upon Claim 1, and therefore suffer the same deficiencies of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim states “The table bar of claim 15, further comprising a bottle resting tray having a plurality of recessed areas, each shaped to accommodate specific beverage- related accessories, such as wine bottles, cocktail glasses, and shakers.” However, it is unknown from Applicants claims, specification and/or figures if the “bottle resting tray” is actually a part of (i.e. integrated into the surface of) the table bar, or merely a separate component that “rests” on top of the table bar itself. This ambiguity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Further regarding Claim 18, the phrase “such as” further renders the claim indefinite, as it is unknown if “wine bottles, cocktail glasses, and shakers” are merely examples, or are actually required by the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim contains the limitation, “the table portion comprises a curved sidewall.” However, antecedent Claim 1 also claims “a table portion for mounting the robot on a table countertop of the table portion, having a three-sided rectangular shape with the fourth side forming a curved edge”.
The subject matter of Claim 4 (“table portion… having a curved sidewall”) is essentially identical to the “table portion … having… a curved edge” of Claim 1. Claim 4 therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
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, 3-4, 10, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over F&P Robotics (Youtube videos and related screenshots of said videos as annotated by Examiner, publicly available 12 June and 16 August 2019), in view of Munson (US 2021/0347396).
Examiner’s note: please see videos retrieved from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxgloLmVEzU, posted to YouTube on 16 August 2019, and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waizEowx7Dw, posted to YouTube on 12 June 2019
Regarding Claim 1, F&P Robotics discloses a table bar (see non-patent literature in the form of screen shots from YouTube videos posted 12 June and 16 August 2019, as annotated by the Examiner) and adapted to accommodate a robot (clearly present in the aforementioned screenshots) for dispensing one or more beverages comprising:
a table portion for mounting the robot on a table countertop of the table portion, having a three-sided rectangular shape with the fourth side forming a curved edge,
PNG
media_image1.png
840
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- the table countertop including a recessed area shaped and sized to receive a cylinder spittoon for collecting leftover beverages during robotic dispensing operations, and a bottle resting tray on the table portion, configured to hold a plurality of bottles and glasses (Examiner notes that this limitation merely requires a countertop recessed area sized to receive these objects. The objects (cylinder spittoon and bottle resting tray) are not required by Claim 1, nor has Applicant disclosed any dimensions associated with these items. Examiner asserts that the table countertop recessed area of F&P Robotics is shaped and sized to receive these objects, as broadly claimed by Applicant);
PNG
media_image2.png
672
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a raised bar portion shaped into an L-configuration,
the raised bar portion including a higher, curved bar countertop designed for placing beverage-related accessories,
wherein the L-configuration includes a forwardly extending section that projects outwardly in a direction facing a customer area, and
wherein the bar countertop includes one or more recessed areas sized and shaped to receive beverage-related accessories;
wherein the countertop of the table portion is being lower than the countertop of the raised bar portion, and
wherein the recessed area for the spittoon is positioned adjacent to the customer-facing side of the table portion, and
wherein the raised bar portion includes an L-shape with a bend portion adapted to facilitate the placement of beverage-related accessories at varying heights.
PNG
media_image3.png
904
1222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
690
898
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
692
920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, it is clear that all of the above limitations of Applicant’s Claim 1 are present within the F&P Robotics apparatus. Examiner acknowledges that the F&P Robotics apparatus is silent on wheels, and therefore does not disclose “a plurality of lockable wheels disposed on the bottom of the table portion positioned along structural supports adjacent to the perimeter of the table portion, with the lockable wheels being arranged to correspond with the curved and linear edges of the base of the table portion, each lockable wheel including a mechanism configured to prevent rolling or rotation by engaging a brake or lock via a foot pedal or lever”, as claimed by Applicant.
However, the courts have held that making a claimed device portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. In the present case, the “plurality of lockable wheels” as claimed by Applicant would have the predictable result of making the F&P Robotics apparatus mobile, and would be obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art who wishes to have a mobile apparatus.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Munson teaches a plurality of lockable wheels (paras 67 and 88, Fig 1, wheels 10, lockable via “foot operated lever 14”) disposed on the bottom of the table portion positioned along structural supports (lower rail moldings 18) adjacent to the perimeter of the table portion (see at least Figs 1 and 7), with the lockable wheels being arranged to correspond with the curved and linear edges of the base of the table portion (see Fig 7), each lockable wheel including a mechanism configured to prevent rolling or rotation by engaging a brake or lock via a foot pedal or lever (“foot operated lever 14”), as claimed by Applicant.
PNG
media_image6.png
852
798
media_image6.png
Greyscale
F&P Robotics and Munson each teach apparatuses designed to facilitate the serving of beverages. Munson also teaches a work area for beverage dispensing featuring wheels. Munson additionally teaches lockable wheels, with the obvious advantage of preventing unintended rolling of the wheeled apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Munson’s teachings to F&P Robotics’ disclosures by adding lockable wheels 10 and the foot operated lever 14 as taught by Munson, in order to gain the advantage of a mobile work area while preventing unintended rolling of said work area.
Regarding Claim 3, although F&P Robotics teaches the claimed invention to include a robot serving drinks from a table bar, it is not entirely clear from either the video or screenshots if the table bar further comprises “at least one of built-in wine cooler, refrigerator, and storage compartment formed inside the table portion for storing beverages and beverage-related accessories”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 3.
However, built-in wine coolers are extremely well-known, have been commercially available for decades, and are in wide-spread use in both residential and commercial beverage preparation areas. Munson additionally teaches at least one of built-in wine cooler (see para 10 “The mobile serving cart further includes a cooler assembly” and cooler 22), refrigerator, and storage compartment formed inside the table portion for storing beverages and beverage-related accessories.
F&P Robotics and Munson each teach apparatuses designed to facilitate the serving of beverages. Munson also teaches a work area with a built-in cooler, with an obvious convenience for a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Munson’s teachings to F&P Robotics’ disclosures by adding a cooler as taught by Munson, in order to gain the advantage of convenience to the user.
Regarding Claim 4, F&P Robotics, as modified by Munson above, teach the table bar of claim 1, wherein the table portion comprises a curved sidewall (see the above rejection of Claim 1, and annotated screenshots of F&P Robotics, showing the “fourth side forming a curved edge” as part of the “table portion”).
Regarding Claim 10, F&P Robotics, as modified by Munson above, teach the table bar of claim 1, wherein the countertop of the table portion further comprises a recessed area shaped and sized to receive a base of the robot for mounting thereto. Please see the annotated screenshots of F&P Robotics above. Examiner additionally notes that Applicant’s drawings do not depict this claimed feature (see the above Drawings objection); the countertop of the table portion as shown in the F&P Robotics screen shot appear to be the same as described in Applicant’s Specification and Figs 4, 5, and 8.
Regarding Claim 15, F&P Robotics discloses (see non-patent literature in the form of screen shots from YouTube videos posted 12 June and 16 August 2019, as annotated by the Examiner, and the rejection of Claim 1 above) a table bar for robotic beverage dispensing, comprising:
- a table portion having: a table countertop configured to support a robot, the table countertop including a recessed area adapted to receive a base of the robot for secure mounting, and a cylindric spittoon removably placed in the recessed area of the table countertop, the spittoon configured to collect liquid waste during beverage dispensing, (see Examiner’s annotations; the cylindrical objects are capable of collecting liquid waste as well as serving as a “tray”), and
wherein the table portion comprises a curved sidewall; and a raised bar portion shaped into an L-configuration including a bend, the raised bar portion comprising:
- a bar countertop of the raised bar portion is at a height higher than the table countertop, wherein the L-configuration includes a forwardly extending section that projects outwardly in a direction facing a customer area,
- at least one recessed area on the bar countertop sized and shaped to securely hold beverage-related accessories;
- wherein the table bar is constructed to facilitated automated beverage dispensing and includes structural features (side walls, clearly seen in the screenshots) enabling stability and flexibility for robotic operation in varied environments.
Further regarding Claim 15, it is clear that all of the above limitations of Applicant’s Claim 15 are present within the F&P Robotics apparatus. Examiner acknowledges that the F&P Robotics apparatus is also silent on wheels, and therefore does not disclose “a plurality of lockable wheels at the bottom of the table portion, each lockable wheel having a mechanism operable by a foot pedal or lever to prevent rolling or rotation”, as claimed by Applicant.
However, and per the rationale presented above in the rejection of Claim 1, Munson teaches a plurality of lockable wheels at the bottom of the table portion, each lockable wheel having a mechanism operable by a foot pedal or lever to prevent rolling or rotation (paras 67 and 88, Fig 1, wheels 10, lockable via “foot operated lever 14”).
F&P Robotics and Munson each teach apparatuses designed to facilitate the serving of beverages. Munson also teaches a work area for beverage dispensing featuring wheels. Munson additionally teaches lockable wheels, with the obvious advantage of preventing unintended rolling of the wheeled apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Munson’s teachings to F&P Robotics’ disclosures by adding lockable wheels 10 and the foot operated lever 14 as taught by Munson, in order to gain the advantage of a mobile work area while preventing unintended rolling of said work area.
Regarding Claim 16, F&P Robotics as modified by Munson above teaches a table bar for robotic beverage dispensing, wherein the lockable wheels (Munson, paras 67 and 88, Fig 1, wheels 10) include a locking mechanism that clamps the wheel in place when engaged, preventing both rolling and swiveling motion.
Regarding Claim 18, F&P Robotics teaches the claimed invention, to include a recessed area and a bottle tray (broadly interpreted by Examiner as any apparatus that can hold a bottle or other drinking apparatus). Please see the screenshots above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s Claim 18 limitation of “a bottle resting tray having a plurality of recessed areas, each shaped to accommodate specific beverage- related accessories, such as wine bottles, cocktail glasses, and shakers.” Please see the rejection of Claim 18 above under 35 USC 112(b), wherein it is unknown from Applicant’s disclosure whether said “bottle resting tray” is integrated into the table, or merely another component the rests atop the table.
Examiner notes that compartmentalized trays in general are extremely well-known for all types of applications, and takes Official Notice that trays for bottles and related accessories are known for a number of applications such as storage, serving, collection, and washing. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a separate, appropriately-sized, commercially available “bottle resting tray” on a tabletop to perform any of the aforementioned functions.
If so desired, one of ordinary skill in the art could also duplicate the “bottle resting tray” depicted in the screen shots of the F&P Robotics apparatus above, since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the present case, a duplication of trays would have the predictable result of being able to treat additional bottles and accessories.
Finaly, Munson teaches a bottle resting tray having a plurality of recessed areas, each shaped to accommodate specific beverage- related accessories (a garnish and tool holder assembly 26, see Fig 1 and para 69).
F&P Robotics and Munson each teach apparatuses designed to facilitate the serving of beverages. Munson also teaches a work area for beverage dispensing featuring storage trays, which is a widely recognized convenience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Munson’s teachings to F&P Robotics’ disclosures by adding a “beverage resting tray” as taught by Munson, in order to gain the advantage of the widely recognized convenience of having such a tray in a work area.
Regarding Claim 19, F&P Robotics teaches the claimed invention, but neither the video nor screenshots clearly depict the type of material(s) used to construct the disclosed robotic bar. The reference is therefore silent on the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the table portion and raised bar portion are constructed from stainless steel to provide enhanced durability and resistance to moisture, staining, and wear.
The phrase “to provide enhanced durability and resistance to moisture, staining, and wear” is a statement of intended use, and not given patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2144.
Munson, however, teaches a robotic bar comprising steel and aluminum (see para 65). Although the Munson reference does not explicitly teach “a table portion and raised bar portion” constructed of this material, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to use stainless steel and/or aluminum for any food and/or beverage preparation area if desired. Examiner further takes Official Notice that stainless steel and aluminum are common materials used in sinks and commercial countertops worldwide, and widely known.
F&P Robotics and Munson each teach apparatuses designed to facilitate the serving of beverages. Munson also teaches a work area for beverage dispensing featuring stainless steel and aluminum construction, which is a widely recognized as being easy to clean. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Munson’s teachings to F&P Robotics’ disclosures by adding stainless steel components, as taught by Munson, to the beverage preparation/serving areas of the robotic bar disclosed by F&P Robotics, in order to gain the advantage easily cleaned work areas.
Regarding Claim 20, although F&P Robotics teaches the claimed invention to include a robot serving drinks from a table bar, it is not entirely clear from either the video or screenshots if the table bar further comprises “an integrated cooling system within the table portion, configured to maintain a set temperature for beverage storage compartments”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 20.
However, built-in wine coolers are extremely well-known, have been commercially available for decades, and are in wide-spread use in both residential and commercial beverage preparation areas. Munson additionally teaches an integrated cooling system within the table portion (see para 10 “The mobile serving cart further includes a cooler assembly” and cooler 22), configured to maintain a set temperature for beverage storage compartments (the inherent function of a cooler assembly).
F&P Robotics and Munson each teach apparatuses designed to facilitate the serving of beverages. Munson also teaches a work area with a built-in cooler, with an obvious convenience for a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Munson’s teachings to F&P Robotics’ disclosures by adding a cooler as taught by Munson, in order to gain the advantages of convenience to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3753