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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
U.S. Patents Section Cite No 5 contained a typo under the Patent Number column of “45879571”. This has been corrected by the Examiner to “4589571” to facilitate consideration of submitted reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(b)(1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “top 13” of Page 5, line 17.
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. Alternatively, the Applicant is allowed to delete the reference character(s) from the description instead of adding them to the drawing(s). 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. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Hartman (US 2016/0155127 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hartman discloses:
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”], 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.”]
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 2016/0155127 A1) in view of Rawlins (US 6422417 B1).
Regarding claim 2, while Hartman 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 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 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 lacks:
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 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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 2016/0155127 A1) in view of O’Shea et al. (CA 3232645 A1).
Regarding claim 4, while 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. With respect to these limitations, O’Shea et al. teaches:
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”].
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. 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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 2016/0155127 A1) in view of Jafa et al. (US 2021/0398188 A1).
Regarding claim 10, while Hartman 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 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 2016/0155127 A1) in view of Pascoe (AU 2015101780 A4).
Regarding claim 11, while Hartman 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.
Independent Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman (US 2016/0155127 A1) in view of Rawlins (US 6422417 B1), O’Shea et al. (CA 3232645 A1), Jafa et al. (US 2021/0398188 A1), and Pascoe (AU 2015101780 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hartman teaches and anticipates:
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 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, the dispenser mechanism being configured to dispense the selected product to the lower section of the interior of the cabinet [See Para. 0023 “receive the particular selected regulated product in much the same way a traditional vending machine operates”, claim 1 “dispense a regulated product selected by a prospective consumer”, and Para. 0044, “basic functions of a vending machine, namely product section, payment, and product dispensing”];
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”];
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”], 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 payment receiver being mounted on the exterior of the cabinet, the payment receiver being operatively coupled to the processor [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”], the payment receiver comprising:
a card reader being configured to receive payment data from a payment card [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 107];
a bill receiver being configured to receive banknotes and detect indicia of authenticity of the banknotes [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 106];
and a coin receiver being configured to receive coinage and detect indicia of authenticity of the coinage [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 110];
While Hartman teaches a cabinet with a door for accessing an interior of the cabinet [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 100 for depiction of basic vending machine cabinet], 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”], Hartman fails to explicitly teach a door having a lock for securing the door in a closed position.
However, Rawlins teaches:
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 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.
While Hartman teaches an exterior mounted selection input, coupled to a processor and configured to receive product selection data, with a keypad [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 103 and Para. 0043, “selection via a push button sector [sic] and display”], it fails to explicitly define the selection input as comprising specifically a touchscreen.
However, Jafa et al. teaches:
the selection input comprising a touchscreen [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 122, Para. 0041 “some vending machines may require a user to manually operate a touch-screen or other input device to make a product selection”, and Para. 0044];
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 to incorporate the teachings of Jafa et al. to substitute a touch-screen or a touch enabled display of any type known in the art in place of a non-touch enabled display. This substitution could be performed for the purpose of simplifying product selection, advertising available products, or even visually modernizing the selection and dispensation process.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to substitute the display of Hartman’s vending machine with the touch-screen of Jafa et al., 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 Jafa et al. because they are prior art in the same field of endeavor and would have recognized that the substitution would yield predictable results.
Hartman does not teach or disclose a humidifier mounted in the cabinet and coupled to the processor; a global positioning system module coupled to the processor and configured to receive location data; a transmitter coupled to the processor and configured to transmit location data; a holographic projector mounted on a top of the cabinet and coupled to the processor; and a window mounted in the door, comprising a transparent material comprising poly(methyl methacrylate).
However, O’Shea et al. teaches:
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”].
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. 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.
Furthermore, 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 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.
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”]; and
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.
Rawlins teaches what Hartman lacks:
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].
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
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 26 Nov 25
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655