DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 07/31/2023 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
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.
Claim 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 17, the term “the reader” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0014785A1 (hereinafter, Childers), in view Al-Qassem U.S. P.G. Publication 2010/0242630A1 (hereinafter, Al-Qassem), in further view of Harlan U.S. P.G. Publication 2009/0144081A1 (hereinafter, Harlan).
Regarding Claim 1, Childers describes a vending machine system (vending machine, Childers, Paragraph 0039 and Figure 1) comprising:
-a vending machine having a smoothie mixing and dispensing assembly (smoothie mixing and dispensing assembly, Childers, Paragraph 0039-0041 and Figure 1),
…
-a mobile device having an ordering app thereon (mobile device for ordering via an app, Childers, Paragraphs 0043-0046); and
-a server connecting with the vending machine over a network, the server having memory for storing computer instructions and a processor for executing the computer instructions (server connecting over a network, the server having memory, processor, and operating instructions, Childers, Paragraph 0095), …
wherein the mobile device communicates an order to the vending machine to activate the smoothie mixing and dispensing assembly to prepare a smoothie for storing in the pre-order holder (mobile device capable of communicating an order to the vending machine, wherein the smoothie mixing / dispensing assembly prepares a smoothie that is stored in a pre-order holder (10), Childers, Paragraphs 0041-0045 and Figure 2).
Childers does not specifically disclose the system to include a cooling assembly having a peltier element, and a pre-order holder having a carousel.
Al-Qassem discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Al-Qassem describes a machine system that includes a peltier cooling element (Al-Aassem, Paragraph 0033 and Figure 6). Moreover, Al-Qassem describes a machine system that includes the incorporation of a carousel system (Al-Qassem, Paragraphs 0032-0034 and Figure 6).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Childers to include a cooling assembly having a peltier element, and a pre-order holder having a carousel, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Al-Qassem.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because incorporating a peltier and carousel system into a machine system allows for automation of the machine (e.g., mixing of desired substances), which is desired in the field to reduce labor (Al-Qassem, Paragraphs 0005-0008).
However, Childers and Al-Qassem do not specifically disclose the system to include that the computer instructions including instructions for implementing a meal planning application with an artificial intelligence module for planning meals.
Harlan discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Harlan describes a machine system that includes meal plan generation software, wherein the meal planning software can include the use of acritical intelligence (Harlan, Paragraphs 0020-0021 and 0036).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Childers to include that the computer instructions including instructions for implementing a meal planning application with an artificial intelligence module for planning meals, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Harlan.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because incorporating meal planning into a machine system allows for the machine to generate healthy or required substances food outputs, as well as avoiding foods which may cause adverse reactions (Harlan, Paragraph 0043-0047).
Regarding Claim 2, Childers, as modified, describes the vending machine system of claim 1, wherein the vending machine includes a reader and the mobile device app generates a code to communicate to the reader to activate the smoothie mixing and dispensing assembly (QR code scanner, Childers, Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 3, Childers, as modified, describes the vending machine system of claim 2, wherein the mobile device app generates a barcode that can be read by the reader (barcode scanner, Childers, Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 4, Childers, as modified, describes the vending machine system of claim 1.
However, Childers does not specifically disclose the system to include that the meal planning application implements the artificial intelligence module to plan a meal with an objective selected from the group consisting of lowering cholesterol, increasing ferric content, and losing weight.
Harlan discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Harlan describes a machine system that includes meal plan generation software, wherein the meal planning software can include the use of acritical intelligence to achieve goals such as losing weight, cholesterol, and increasing items such as ferric content (Harlan, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0036, and 0043-0047).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Childers to include that the meal planning application implements the artificial intelligence module to plan a meal with an objective selected from the group consisting of lowering cholesterol, increasing ferric content, and losing weight, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Harlan.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because incorporating meal planning into a machine system allows for the machine to generate healthy or required substances food outputs, as well as avoiding foods which may cause adverse reactions (Harlan, Paragraph 0043-0047).
Regarding Claim 6, Childers, as modified, describes the vending machine system of claim 1, wherein the vending machine includes a juice press (pressurized tubes, which can act as a juice press, Childers, Paragraph 0053).
Regarding Claim 8, Childers, as modified, describes the vending machine system of claim 1, wherein the vending machine includes a smoothie preserver for holding smoothies that have been pre-ordered and canceled (system can store drinks, which are held until outputted to the distribution station, Childers, Paragraphs 0062-0064 and Figure 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0014785A1 (hereinafter, Childers), in view Al-Qassem U.S. P.G. Publication 2010/0242630A1 (hereinafter, Al-Qassem), in further view of Harlan U.S. P.G. Publication 2009/0144081A1 (hereinafter, Harlan), in further view of Chung et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2013/0096715A1 (hereinafter, Chung).
Regarding Claim 5, Childers, as modified, describes the vending machine system of claim 1, further comprising: a computing device connected to the network (device connected to the network, Childers, Paragraph 0095) …
Childers does not specifically disclose the machine system to include that the vending machine includes an alarm generator that activates to produce an alarm when the vending machine has a low inventory of ingredients; and wherein the vending machine sends the alarm to the computing device over the network.
Chung discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Chung describes a machine system capable of producing an alarm when inventory levels are low (Chung, Paragraph 0111).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Childers to include that the vending machine includes an alarm generator that activates to produce an alarm when the vending machine has a low inventory of ingredients; and wherein the vending machine sends the alarm to the computing device over the network, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Chung.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having an alarm allows for warning that ingredients are running low and allowing for the supplies to be replenished (Chung, Paragraph 0111).
Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0014785A1 (hereinafter, Childers), in view Al-Qassem U.S. P.G. Publication 2010/0242630A1 (hereinafter, Al-Qassem), in further view of Harlan U.S. P.G. Publication 2009/0144081A1 (hereinafter, Harlan), in further view of Recio WO/2016189176A1 (hereinafter, Recio).
Regarding Claim 7, Childers, as modified, describes the vending machine system of claim 1.
Childers does not specifically disclose the system to include that the vending machine includes an automated straw dispenser for inserting straws into a smoothie.
Recio discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Recio describes a machine system capable of incorporating a straw into a drink automatically (Recio, Paragraphs 0013-0014).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Childers to include that the vending machine includes an automated straw dispenser for inserting straws into a smoothie, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Recio.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because incorporating a straw automatically avoids for manual intervention, which can cause hygienic conditions (Recio, Paragraph 0010)
Regarding Claim 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1 and 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Regarding Claim 10, Childers, as modified, describes the method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving the order from the mobile app through a non-contact connection (non-contact mobile app, Childers, Paragraphs 445-0046).
Regarding Claim 11, Childers, as modified, describes the method of claim 9, further comprising: pouring the smoothie into a vessel within the vending machine (dispense into a vessel, Childers, Paragraph 0048 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0014785A1 (hereinafter, Childers), in view Al-Qassem U.S. P.G. Publication 2010/0242630A1 (hereinafter, Al-Qassem), in further view of Harlan U.S. P.G. Publication 2009/0144081A1 (hereinafter, Harlan), in further view of Recio WO/2016189176A1 (hereinafter, Recio), in further view of Chung et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2013/0096715A1 (hereinafter, Chung).
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667