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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 16 have been amended. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17-20 are as previously presented. Claim 2 has been cancelled. As such, claims 1, 3-7, and 11-20 are considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/26/2025 have been entered. All previously set forth objections, to the claims and specification have been overcome and are herein withdrawn.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that “Koretz et al. teaches a wine system with digital cameras that are fixed to a frame or casing of a cabinet,” such that they have a static field of view that cannot be easily adjusted if a label is obscured or a glare is present (Remarks/Arguments: p. 14 para. 2). The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. Koretz et al. discloses that the location of the cameras can be in any configuration (Koretz: paras. 0043-0044, describing that the cameras can be multiple cameras and that the enclosure may be of any configuration). Furthermore, Koretz discloses an alternative means for changing the view angle of the image sensor (Koretz: paras. 0043-0044, wherein a rotating mechanism rotates the bottle for different points of views of the label(s), and discloses that different locations of the camera(s) may be used). Thus, rearranging the camera(s) to be located on the door for the purpose of adjusting a view angle is a matter of design choice and the cameras of Koretz et al. are capable of being relocated which an expectation of adjusting a viewing angle in reference to a point on the label. The rejection is herein maintained.
Second, applicant argues that a camera mounted to a door which can have a view angle changed by changing the angle of the door “provide[s] an unexpected technical benefit” (Remarks/Arguments p. 15 para. 1). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Locating the image sensor on the door of the cabinet “such that an angle of view of the image sensor is adjusted by a movement of the door,” (Remarks/Arguments p. 16 para. 1) is not an unexpected result, as the inherent movement of the door with the attached and rearranged image sensor will vary a view angle of said image sensor. When utilizing the cameras of Koretz et al., which are capable of being moved, in conjunction with the door of Koretz et al. (which can be opened/closed and arranged anywhere on the enclosure) the movement of the camera via the door is inherent to the combination. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Third, applicant argues that the abovementioned features solve the issue of when a “vision sensor parts fails to extract characters or symbols included in the label image” (Remarks/Arguments p. 16 para. 1). The examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., when a vision sensor part fails to extract characters or symbols included in the label image) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such the rejection is maintained.
Fourth, applicant argues that “the wine dispensing devices of Koretz et al. and Jarrousse et al.)” could not be combined with “the beverage warehouse storage device of Liu et al.,” alleging that Liu is non-analogous art (Remarks/Arguments p. 19 para. 1) to Koretz et al. in view of Jarrousse et al. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both applicant, Koretz, Jarrousse, and Lin define a cabinet for storing wine bottles. As such the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koretz et al. (US 20170349868 A1) in view of Jarrousse et al. (US 20160175783 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koretz discloses a wine storage device comprising: a cabinet having a storage space (built-in cabinet casing 114) in which a wine bottle is received (para. 0031 and Fig. 1C); an image sensor (camera 130) configured to capture an image of a label of the wine bottle (para. 0043); a controller (computer system 310 and 142, paras. 0068-0070 and 0045) configured to extract information about wine contained in the wine bottle based on the image of the label captured by the image sensor (paras. 0045-46); a dispensing head (spout 106) provided on the cabinet and configured to dispense the wine contained in the wine bottle (para. 0037), wherein the cabinet comprises a door configured to open and close the storage space (para. 0033, wherein a door is used for opening and closing the enclosure).
However, Koretz remains silent to the image sensor is positioned on an inner surface of the door facing the storage space such that an angle of view of the image sensor is adjusted by a movement of the door. Instead, Koretz discloses the image sensor (cameras 130, shown in diagram fig. 1f, paras. 0043-0044, wherein camera 130 is disposed internal to the enclosure) disposed withing the enclosure. The courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and prior art is the location of the part, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, provided the location of the part within the claims does not provide an unexpected result. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) (discussing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the camera to be located on the door. It appears that applicant has placed no criticality on the location of the image sensor (refer to applicant’s Specification, para. 101-103, which describes that the vision sensor part, analogous to the image sensor, “may be disposed on an inner surface of the door…” and is used to “obtain an image” of the wine label/bottle). Furthermore, in placing the image sensor on the door of the cabinet, the angle of view of the image sensor is inherently adjusted by the movement of the door.
Additionally, Koretz remains silent to a contact space in which the wine is in contact with outside air being defined inside the dispensing head; and an aerator provided in the dispensing head and having at least one discharge hole through which the wine is discharged to the contact space, the controller being further configured to adjust at least any one of a size of the at least discharge hole, a length of the at least one discharge hole, a number of the at least one discharge hole through which the wine is discharged, or an output direction of the wine from the at least one discharge hole.
Jarrousse teaches a contact space in which the wine is in contact with outside air being defined inside the dispensing head (inner area of aeration means 6, para. 0068); and an aerator (aeration means 6) provided in the dispensing head and having at least one discharge hole (outlet 4) through which the wine is discharged to the contact space, the controller being further configured to adjust at least any one of a size of the at least discharge hole, a length of the at least one discharge hole, a number of the at least one discharge hole through which the wine is discharged, or an output direction of the wine from the at least one discharge hole (paras. 0075, 0076, and 0086, wherein control means 15b is capable of adjusting the aeration rate based on data of the wine). By changing the height of closure member 12, the effective length of the at least one discharge hole is adjusted. Additionally, in ref. to Jarrousse, para. 0086, control means 145 can alter the desired aeration rate based on data, which can change the length of the at least one discharge hole (paras. 0026 and 0075-0076).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the aspects of the controller adjusted aerator with the wine storage device. In combination, the modified device is capable of providing an optimized preparation of a wine via ideal aeration and temperature as a result of the data provided by the image sensor.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, the already modified device teaches the image sensor rotates with the door, an angle of view of the image sensor toward the storage space changes, and the wine storage device further comprises a display device that presents an indication of whether the controller is able to extract the information about the wine based on the image of the label captured by the image sensor at a particular angle of view (Koretz: para. 0044).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein; the dispensing head includes a main dispensing pipe, when the aerator is deactivated, the wine is dispensed through only the main dispensing pipe of the dispensing head and without passing through the discharge hole, and when the aerator is activated, the wine is dispensed either through only the discharge hole or through both with the main dispensing pipe and the discharge hole (Jarrousse: para. 0074-0076, wherein the air intake has three position which automatically opens or closes off the air intake, thus activating and deactivating aeration).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Koretz further discloses a communication interface (communication between computer system 142 and network 147), wherein the communication interface exchanges information with an external server and exchanges information with a user terminal wirelessly connected to the communication interface (para. 0045 and 0046).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Koretz further discloses a gas tank (included in the atmospheric regulation device 244, para. 0075) configured to store an inert gas (nitrogen or argon, for example, para. 0161) that is delivered into the wine bottle to prevent oxidation of the wine within the wine bottle (para. 0075).
Regarding claim 16, Koretz discloses a method of dispensing wine using a wine storage device, the method comprising: obtaining, by an image sensor (camera 130), an image of a label of a wine bottle received in a cabinet of the wine storage device (fig. 1f and para. 0043); extracting, by a controller (via computer system 142 comprising computing devices 310 or 320), at least one of characters or symbols from the image of the label obtaining (paras. 0045 and 0046), by the controller, information based on the extracted at least one of the characters or the symbols supplying the wine contained in the wine bottle to a dispensing head (para. 0046), wherein the cabinet comprises a door configured to open and close a storage space (para. 0033, wherein a door is used for opening and closing the enclosure), however, Koretz remains silent to obtaining the image comprises photographing the label using the image sensor disposed on an inner surface of the door facing the storage space while adjusting an angle of view of the image sensor by a movement of the door.
Instead, Koretz teaches obtaining the image comprises photographing the label using the image sensor disposed on an inner surface (para. 0043, wherein a camera 130 disposed within the enclosure captures images of the wine label(s)). The courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and prior art is the location of the part, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, provided the location of the part within the claims does not provide an unexpected result. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) (discussing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the camera to be located on the door. It appears that applicant has placed no criticality on the location of the image sensor (refer to applicant’s Specification, para. 101-103, which describes that the vision sensor part, analogous to the image sensor, “may be disposed on an inner surface of the door…” and is used to “obtain an image” of the wine label/bottle). Furthermore, in placing the image sensor on the door of the cabinet, the angle of view of the image sensor is inherently adjusted by the movement of the door.
Additionally, Koretz remains silent to aerating the wine dispensed by an aerator in the dispensing head and adjusting an intensity of the aerating based on the information about the wine.
Jarrousse teaches aerating the wine dispensed by an aerator in the dispensing head and adjusting an intensity of the aerating based on the information about the wine (para. 0086).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aspects of the controller adjusted aerator with the device of Koretz. In combination, the modified device is capable of providing an optimized preparation of a wine via ideal aeration and temperature as a result of the data provided by the image sensor.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Koretz further discloses receiving and storing a user input (via touchscreen 102 in conjunction with computer system 142), but remains silent to wherein the aerating intensity is adjusted further based on the user input. Jarrousse teaches the aerating intensity is adjusted further based on the user input (para. 0098). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instructions in which the computer processes via the touchscreen (medium for user input) as the computer, which is capable of processing instructions for dispensing the wine, is since capable of acting upon instructions for adjusting the aerating intensity (Koretz: paras. 0045, 0046, and more specifically, 0047 wherein the computer system is adapted to control the gas delivery system).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Koretz further discloses adjusting at least one of a temperature or an acidity of the wine according to the information about the wine when the wine is dispensed through the dispensing head (paras. 0022, 0041-0042, 0047, and 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Koretz further discloses outputting information related to an extraction failure through a display device provided in the cabinet when the controller is unable to extract the at least one of the characters or the symbols from the image of the label (para. 0044, wherein the indicator shows a condition in which the image sensor can successfully extract the at least one of the characters or symbols from the image of the label), and wherein obtaining the information about the wine based on the extracted at least one of the characters or the symbols includes: comparing the extracted at least one of the characters or the symbols with information stored in a memory of the wine storage device and obtaining the information about the wine from the memory when the extracted at least one of the characters or the symbols corresponds to the information stored in the memory: and when the extracted at least one of the characters or the symbols does not correspond to the information stored in the memory, supplementing the information stored in the memory with additional information about the wine that is at least one of received from an external server device or input by a user (paras. 0045-0046).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koretz et al. (US 20170349868 A1) and Jarrousse et al. (US 20160175783 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Liu et al. (CN 105318660 A).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Koretz discloses the cabinet but remains silent an actuator provided in the cabinet and configured to raise and lower the wine bottle, wherein the controller is further configured to manage the actuator based on a user input. Liu teaches an actuator (movement actuator 90) provided in the cabinet and configured to raise and lower the wine bottle (translation: p. 7 paras. 2-3), wherein the controller is further configured to manage the actuator based on a user input (translation: p. 9 para. 4). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of claim 1 to include an automatic lifting mechanism. In doing so, an added convenience is provided to the user which tracks and moves the wine bottles based on data pertaining to them (Liu, translation: p. 6 para. 6-8).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Koretz further discloses further comprising: a cooling device (thermal regulation device 242, para. 0074) provided in the cabinet and configured to adjust a temperature of the storage space (regulated a temperature, para. 0074), and a support on which a bottom surface of the wine bottle is seated and provided at a bottom of the storage space, the support being configured to be at least one of moved vertically or rotated at angle at which the label is directed being adjusted based on the support being rotated (rotating mechanism, para. 0044), however, remains silent to a height of the label being adjusted based on the support being moved vertically and an angle at which the label is directed being adjusted based on the support being rotated. Liu teaches the support being moved vertically (translation: p. 7 paras. 2-3). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of claim 1 to combine both the rotation and lifting mechanism. In doing so, the device can ensure that both labels (front and back) can be photograph and at the correct orientation (Koretz: para. 0044).
Claims 12, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koretz et al. (US 20170349868 A1) and Jarrousse et al. (US 20160175783 A1), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Fiset (US 20110143000 A1).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device discloses the main control part controller but remains silent to a spectral sensor provided in the cabinet, wherein the spectral sensor measures spectral attributes of light from the wine and provides information about the light to the main control part controller. Fiset teaches a spectral sensor (spectroscopy within photonic beverage processing system, para. 0117) provided in the cabinet, wherein the spectral sensor measures spectral attributes of light from the wine and provides information about the light (para. 0117). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of claim 1 to include a photonic beverage processing system. In doing so, one having skill in the art is capable of effectively and repeatable controlling the processing parameters of the beverage utilizing data pertaining to the wine, further improving the wine for user preferences (Fiset: para. 0033).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 12, the already modified device further teaches wherein the spectral sensor is provided at one or more of a transparent dispensing pipe (Fiset: translucent tubing for photonic processing of flowing fluid 54) through which the wine is dispensed or a transparent measuring tank in which a portion of the wine is temporarily stored, the spectral sensor part being configured to measure the spectral attributes of the light from portions of the wine present in the one or more of the transparent dispensing pipe or the transparent measuring tank (Fiset: para. 0117).
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, the already modified device further teaches detecting, by a spectral sensor (Fiset: photonic beverage processing system), attributes of light from the wine determining, by the controller and based on the attributes of light detected the spectral sensor, at least one a sugar content, an acidity level, an alcohol concentration, or a tannin concentration of the wine (Fiset: detecting pH, para. 0117).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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 S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754