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 .
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-13 are currently being examined.
Drawings
Replacement drawing sheets were received on March 6, 2026. These drawings are acceptable. The drawing objection is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims and made arguments to address the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejections in the First Office Action of December 9, 2025. Applicant’s amendments (see Applicant’s Remarks, page 6) adequately overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejections by the cancelation of Claim 4 and inclusion of it into Independent Claim 1; therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims and made arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the First Office Action of December 9, 2025. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but they do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained. These rejections are discussed below in the response to arguments section. Claims 1 and 5-9, is/are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. This rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and does not constitute new grounds of rejection as no new references are cited [See MPEP 1207.03(a)(II)]. These rejections are discussed below in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in Sections 2 and 4 (see Applicant’s Remarks, pages 6-7), filed March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that "this combination [Hartman in view of O'Shea] is not disclosed, taught, suggested, or contemplated in the collective teaching of the cited references. Hartman is silent as to any humidifier and O'Shea only teaches that humidifiers exist. Thus, there is no nexus but for the teaching of the present application itself and the only argument that can be made for obviousness is that it would be possible to combine the teaching of the cited references", a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Addressing Applicant’s argument against capability to combine more directly, O’Shea does not merely teach that humidifiers exist, but teaches the intended use of a humidifier for the purpose of storage of products such as “cannabis products” and explicitly outlines “to control a humidity level within a product package or container in which such products or items are stored.” Hartman teaches the intended use of a storage location for said cannabis products and O’Shea teaches a humidifier for the intended use of the storage of cannabis products in a storage location, thus the prior art discusses exactly such a possibility, negating any comparison to In re Joseph Guiffrida, CAFC 2012-1692. The original rejection is not based on an argument of capability to combine, but that the combination/modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specific teaching of the cited references. As Hartman clearly anticipates the original limitations of original Independent Claim 1 (and 5-9) and O’Shea anticipates the further limitation of original Claim 4, explicitly for the intended use as outlined in Hartman, the references do not lack a rationale for an obviousness argument. The prior art rejection combination of Hartman and O’Shea from the First Office Action are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in Sections 3 and 5-7 of Applicant’s Remarks have been fully considered but they do not overcome the prior art rejections for the reasons asserted in the previous paragraph, namely that the argument for the allowability of Independent Claim 1 and Claims 5-9, based on the incorporation of Claim 4 limitations into Independent Claim 1, and by dependence Claims 2, 3, and 10-12, is not persuasive. Similarly, the argument for the allowability of Independent Claim 13 is not persuasive, for the same reasons as asserted in the previous paragraph. The prior art rejections from the First Office Action are maintained.
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(s) 1 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20160155127 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hartman) in view of O'Shea et al. (CA 3232645 A1, hereinafter referred to as O'Shea).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Hartman discloses a machine for vending regulated products such as marijuana, it fails to teach a product or feature for maintaining humidity levels in said machine. However, O’Shea teaches a humidifier with the intended use of controlling the humidity of a storage location for items such as cannabis products.
A vending machine for dispensing marijuana products, the vending machine [See Abstract and Para. 0012 “smart vending machines that through modern technology are capable of automated distribution of…medical and recreational marijuana”] comprising:
a cabinet [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 100 for depiction of basic vending machine cabinet]
a dispenser mechanism being mounted in the cabinet, the dispenser mechanism being configured to dispense a selected one of a plurality of products positioned in the cabinet [See Para. 0023 “receive the particular selected regulated product in much the same way a traditional vending machine operates” and claim 1 “dispense a regulated product selected by a prospective consumer”]
a processor being operatively coupled to the dispenser mechanism [See Para. 0013 “the smart vending machine's programmable controller” and claim 1 “a programmable controller in electronic communication with said vending machine… controller is programmed to verify the identity and eligibility of a prospective customer to purchase a particular regulated product and to control whether or not said vending machine proceeds to accept payment for and dispense said particular regulated product”]; and
an identification sensor being mounted on an exterior of the cabinet [See at least Fig. 3, Ref Numeral 101 “identification scanner”], the identification sensor being operatively coupled to the processor [See claim 1 “an identification scanner configured to scan information from a prospective consumer's identification”, and [0046]], the identification sensor being configured to detect indicia of authenticity of an identification card and receive age data from the identification card [See Para. 0015-0020, specifically “scanning an image of the proffered identification…then verify the authenticity of the proffered identification by comparing such key information against pre-existing information stored in a database, located either within the smart vending machine or in a remotely accessible database…verifying whether or not the identification presented by the prospective consumer is valid so that the smart vending machine can proceed to determine whether or not the individual to whom the identification was issued meets the statutory age restrictions or other individualized restriction for the particular regulated products.”]
a humidifier being mounted in the cabinet, the humidifier being operatively coupled to the processor, the humidifier being configured to humidify the interior of the cabinet when activated [See Background Of The Invention, specifically “Similarly, cannabis products, such as loose cannabis, pre-rolled cannabis products, or other products can benefit from an environment with a controlled humidity” and “it may be desirable to control a humidity level within a product package or container in which such products or items are stored”, as well as “All of the components of the humidity control device may be food grade, and the package or container may also include a consumable product”, “Various embodiments may be used with cannabis, hemp and cannabis and hemp products”, “the solution does not form large crystals within its matrix as it releases water vapor to the product, such as tobacco, cannabis, or hemp products”, “may improve the qualities and preservation of products, such as tobacco, cannabis and hemp and their products”, “providing appropriate levels of relative humidity in the environment in which the tobacco, cannabis or hemp is stored”, “Various embodiments of the humidity control device used with smokable products such as tobacco, cannabis and hemp and their products”, and “the product stored in the containers is cannabis”, and numerous other mentions throughout the reference].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartman with the teachings of O’Shea et al. for the purpose of regulating the humidity of the storage location of the cannabis products, specifically the interior of the vending machine cabinet, via various products or methods outlined in, but not limited to, O’Shea et al, with the intended use of maintaining humidity for cannabis products. For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, cannabis is the shorthand for the scientific name of the plant genus Cannabis sativa, while marijuana is a specific term for a drug preparation from said plant. Therefore, marijuana is included under the term cannabis and thus can be used interchangeably in this context.
Before the expected filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and able to apply said teaching to prevent spoilage, damage, and/or loss of efficacy or freshness of the product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, Hartman discloses:
The vending machine of claim 1, further comprising a selection input being mounted on the exterior of the cabinet, the selection input being operatively coupled to the processor, the selection input being configured to receive selection data for selecting one of the plurality of products for dispensing [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 103 and Para. 0043, “selection via a push button sector [sic] and display”].
Regarding Claim 6, Hartman discloses:
The vending machine of claim 1, further comprising a payment receiver being mounted on the exterior of the cabinet, the payment receiver being operatively coupled to the processor, the payment receiver being configured to receive payment for the selected product [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 106, 107, and 110, Para. 0044, “traditional features such as a features [sic] capable of accepting cash and credit cards, dispensing change…”, and Para. 0023, “the smart vending machine may allow the prospective consumer to proceed to pay for, and receive the particular selected regulated product in much the same way a traditional vending machine operates”].
Regarding Claim 7, Hartman discloses:
The vending machine of claim 6, wherein the payment receiver comprises a card reader being configured to receive payment data from a payment card [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 107].
Regarding Claim 8, Hartman discloses:
The vending machine of claim 6, wherein the payment receiver comprises a bill receiver being configured to receive banknotes and detect indicia of authenticity of the banknotes [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 106].
Regarding Claim 9, Hartman discloses:
The vending machine of claim 6, wherein the payment receiver comprises a coin receiver being configured to receive coinage and detect indicia of authenticity of the coinage [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 110].
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20160155127 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hartman) in view of O'Shea et al. (CA 3232645 A1, hereinafter referred to as O'Shea) and further in view of Rawlins (US 6422417 B1, hereinafter referred to as Rawlins).
Regarding Claim 2, while Hartman in view of O’Shea discloses features of a “traditional vending machine” such as a cabinet, it does not explicitly disclose a door secured via a lock for accessing the cabinet interior. With respect to these limitations, Rawlins, directed to the same field of endeavor — vending/dispensing machines — teaches:
the cabinet has a door for accessing an interior of the cabinet, the door having a lock for securing the door in a closed position [See at least Fig. 1, Ref Numerals 64 and 66 and Col. 3, lines 62-64.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hartman in view of O’Shea to incorporate the teachings of Rawlins to utilize a lockable door to access the interior of the cabinet “to permit removal and insertion”. The access door(s) with a locking means allows for authorized access and security of high-value and/or regulated products stored therein. For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “a lock for securing the door” is construed as any mechanically or electronically operated mechanism for the purpose of prohibiting access by unauthorized entities.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the knowledge of the components and their functions as well as the capacity for using a lockable door, and one could have reasonably expected the components to function as intended.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Rawlins because they are known art in the same field of endeavor and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Hartman teaches:
the dispenser mechanism being configured to dispense the selected product to the lower section of the interior of the cabinet; [See Para. 0044, “basic functions of a vending machine, namely product section, payment, and product dispensing” and claim 1, “dispense a regulated product selected by a prospective customer”] and
the door having an access slot in a lower portion of the door, the access slot facilitating access to a lower section of the interior of the cabinet through the access slot [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 108 and Para. 0023 “receive the particular selected regulated product in much the same way a traditional vending machine operates”].
Regarding Claim 12, while Hartman in view of O’Shea discloses a preferred embodiment featuring “a plurality of windows through which a prospective consumer can view and select among the available regulated products” [See at least Fig. 1 Ref. Numeral 109 and Para. 0043], it fails to explicitly disclose the material of the viewing window(s).
However, Rawlins teaches what Hartman and O’Shea lack:
a window being mounted in the door, the window comprising a transparent material such that the interior of the cabinet is viewable from outside the cabinet through the window, the transparent material comprising poly(methyl methacrylate) [See at least Fig. 1 Ref. Numerals 36 and 46, and Col. 3, lines 33-35 and 43-45, and Col. 4, lines 28-31, “Plexiglass” is equivalent to poly(methyl methacrylate].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hartman in view of O’Shea to incorporate the teachings of Rawlins and substitute a “Plexiglass sheet” in place of a window made of materials such as, but not limited to, glass or various plastic compounds commonly seen in vending machines. This substitution is known to yield greater strength, impact resistance, and security while maintaining transparency and interior visibility, and would be desired for the purpose of securing high-value/regulated products inside of the vending machine while maintaining interior cabinet viewability. For the purpose of examination and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, “transparent material comprising poly(methyl methacrylate)” is known as an organic compound used to produce methacrylate resins and plastics, commonly known as acrylic, Plexiglas(s), or Lucite, and is being construed as used interchangeably with those names.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to substitute the unknown material of Hartman’s viewing window with the Plexiglass sheet of Rawlins, and one could have reasonably expected the components to function as intended.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Rawlins because they are known art in the same field of endeavor and would have recognized that the substitution would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20160155127 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hartman) in view of O'Shea et al. (CA 3232645 A1, hereinafter referred to as O'Shea) and further in view of Jafa et al. (US 20210398188 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jafa).
Regarding Claim 10, while Hartman in view of O’Shea discloses a “smart vending machine” featuring an “antenna for wireless electromagnetic communication with an external database…” [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 104, and Para 0045], it does not explicitly disclose a global positioning system or a transmitter to transmit the location data from said system. However, Jafa et al., directed to the same field of endeavor — vending/dispensing machines — teaches:
a global positioning system module being operatively coupled to the processor, the global positioning system being configured to receive location data indicative of a location of the cabinet; [See at least Fig. 4 Ref. Numeral 140, Fig. 9, Ref. Numerals 130 and 911, Fig. 10, Ref. Numerals 1000 and 1010, and Fig. 15 Ref. Numerals 1504 and 1506, as well as Para. 0012, Para. 0014, Para. 0073, “In some embodiments, vending machine may include a geolocation unit, such as global positioning system (GPS) unit, in order to determine the location of vending machine”, Para. 0085, and Para. 0100 “Processor device may be a special purpose or general purpose processor device”, and claim 12 “receiving location information at the vending machine”] and
a transmitter being operatively coupled to the processor, the transmitter being configured to transmit the location data to a remote electronic device via a communications network [See at least Fig. 4, Ref. Numerals 140, 119, and 450, and Fig. 15, Ref. Numerals 1504, 1506, 1524, and 1526, as well as Para. 0051 “Control unit may further be in communication with a transceiver or other communication device for communicating with a computer, server, or cloud, located remotely from vending machine”, Para. 0100 “Processor device is connected to a communication infrastructure, for example, a bus, message queue, network, or multi-core message-passing scheme”, and Para. 0105 “Communication path carries signals and may be implemented using wire or cable, fiber optics, a phone line, a cellular phone link, an RF link or other communication channels”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hartman in view of O’Shea with the teachings of Jafa et al. for the purpose of determining geolocation data via a global positioning system module and operatively couple it to a transmitter via a processor to communicate via a communications network.
Before the effective filling date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and able to apply said teaching to use the location data for security, theft deterrence, maintenance, localized recommendations, etc. and have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 20160155127 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hartman) in view of O'Shea et al. (CA 3232645 A1, hereinafter referred to as O'Shea) and further in view of Pascoe (AU 2015101780 A4, hereinafter referred to as Pascoe).
Regarding Claim 11, while Hartman in view of O’Shea discloses product display, customer interaction, and advertising using a “smart” system, it fails to disclose any reference to features such as a holographic projector. However, with respect to these limitations, Pascoe, directed to the same field of endeavor — vending/dispensing machines — teaches:
a holographic projector being mounted on a top of the cabinet, the holographic projector being operatively coupled to the processor, the holographic projector being operable to emit a three-dimensional image above the cabinet [See Abstract, Summary of Invention, Advantageous Effects of Invention “Device is designed to promote the product within the vending machine with holographic display fixed the top [sic]”, and claim 1 “3-sdide [sic] holographic display”]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine what Pascoe teaches with Hartman to mount a holographic projector to a vending machine cabinet for emission of a three-dimensional image on or near the cabinet of said vending machine. Additionally, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to know that the projector must be operatively coupled to a processor for basic functionality as well as control of the displayed image.
Before the effective filing date, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and able to combine said teachings in order to enhance product display and/or advertising for said vending machine.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to F Jervis whose telephone number is (571) 272-2950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0730 - 1530.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/F JERVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3655 16 Apr 2026
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
