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 1-6 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed December 1, 2025. Claims 1, 3 and 6 were amended, claims 4 and 5 were left as previously presented, claim 7 is newly added and claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-7 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 27, 2026 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112 rejection have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is: “a bucket illuminating unit” and “imaging init” in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al. referred herein as Vaz (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0043272) in view of Li et al. referred herein as Li (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0342770).
As to claim 1, Vaz teaches an automatic vending machine comprising:
a box-shaped cabinet internally including a plurality of shelves spaced apart from each other in an up-down direction; (fig. 2, show a vending machine with shelves shaped as a box cabinet)
a product outlet provided at a lower portion of a front panel of the cabinet; (para 33)
a product discharging device provided on each of the plurality of shelves in the cabinet and configured to discharge a product loaded thereon forward; (para 33)
a bucket supported between the front panel and the plurality of shelves so as to be movable in the up-down direction and configured to receive the product discharged from the product discharging device, the automatic vending machine being configured to move the bucket having received the product to the product outlet, wherein the automatic vending machine comprises imaging units provided on the bucket to capture an image including a placement surface on which the product received is loaded in the bucket. (para 29, 33, 46-47 and fig. 1)
Vaz comprises 2 cameras. (para 47)
Vaz does not teach:
wherein one imaging unit is provided on one side of the bucket in a width direction and another imaging unit is provided on another side of the bucket in the width direction.
However, Li teaches:
wherein one imaging unit is provided on one side of the bucket in a width direction and another imaging unit is provided on another side of the bucket in the width direction. (para 53, 63 and fig. 5 items 120A)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to provide two cameras opposite to each other in Vaz as taught by Li. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that having two cameras on opposite sides of the vending machine makes it easier to identify the item to be dispensed.
As to claim 5, Vaz in view of Li teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Vaz further teaches:
a bucket illuminating unit provided at a predetermined part on a front panel side of the bucket in an orientation directed toward the placement surface and configured to illuminate the placement surface. (para 47)
As to claim 6, Vaz in view of Li teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Vaz further teaches:
wherein the bucket illuminating unit includes a plurality of light sources disposed in a line across an entire width of the bucket. (para 44-45 and 47)
As to claim 7, Vaz teaches an automatic vending machine comprising:
a box-shaped cabinet having a plurality of internal shelves spaced apart from each other in an up-down direction; (fig. 2, show a vending machine with shelves shaped as a box cabinet)
a product outlet provided at a lower portion of a front panel of the cabinet; (para 33)
a product discharging device provided on each of the plurality of internal shelves and configured to discharge a product loaded thereon forward; (para 33)
a bucket supported between the front panel and the plurality of internal shelves so as to be movable in the up-down direction and configured to receive the product discharged from the product discharging device, the automatic vending machine being configured to move the bucket having received the product to the product outlet, wherein the automatic vending machine comprises: an imaging unit that is provided on the bucket to capture an image including a placement surface on which the product received is loaded in the bucket; (para 29, 33, 46-47 and fig. 1)
Vaz comprises 2 cameras. (para 47)
Vaz does not teach:
a bucket illuminating unit provided at a predetermined part on a front panel side of the bucket in an orientation directed toward the placement surface and configured to illuminate the placement surface,
wherein the bucket illuminating unit includes a plurality of light sources disposed in a line across an entire width of the bucket.
However, Li teaches:
a bucket illuminating unit provided at a predetermined part on a front panel side of the bucket in an orientation directed toward the placement surface and configured to illuminate the placement surface, wherein the bucket illuminating unit includes a plurality of light sources disposed in a line across an entire width of the bucket. (para 53, 63 and fig. 5 items 120A)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to provide two cameras opposite to each other in Vaz as taught by Li. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that having two cameras on opposite sides of the vending machine makes it easier to identify the item to be dispensed.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al. referred herein as Vaz (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0043272) in view of Li et al. referred herein as Li (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0342770), further in view of Collins et al. referred herein as Collins (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0108222).
As to claim 3, Vaz in view of Li teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Vaz does not teach:
wherein the bucket has a width corresponding to a width of each of the plurality of shelves.
However, Collins teaches:
wherein the bucket has a width corresponding to a width of each of the plurality of shelves. (fig. 1 show that the conveyor shelf is the same width as the product shelf)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use a conveyor belt shelf having the same width as the dispensing shelf in Vaz as taught by Collins. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that having a conveyor box using the same width of the dispensing shelf would allow safe and secure arrival of the product to the user.
As to claim 4, Vaz in view of Li, further in view of Collins teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above.
Vaz further teaches:
wherein the plurality of shelves each include a plurality of the product discharging devices provided thereon in parallel in a width direction of each of the plurality of shelves, the bucket includes a product moving device in a form of a belt conveyor that moves the product in the width direction of the bucket, and an upper surface of an upper run of a belt of the product moving device forms the placement surface. (para 29-30, 39 and 66)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights