Final Rejection
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the limitations “a support member” as recited in claims 1,9 and 16 line 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Therefore, the limitations “a first direction” as recited in claim 1,17, line 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
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. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s claim 16 recites the limitations “data processing hardware” in line 5, “memory hardware” in line 6, “monitoring, using the opto-electrical sensor” in line 9, “detecting, using the opto-electrical sensor” in line 11 and “transmitting the dispensing signal,” as recited in line 15 are not disclosed in the provided specifications. The disclosure of the recited elements or the corresponding structure elements are not found in the specifications in a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had procession of the claimed elements as the time of the invention.
Therefore, the limitations as recited are new matter. Thus, claims 16-20 are not treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “data processing hardware” in line 5, “memory hardware” in line 6, “monitoring, using the opto-electrical sensor” in line 9, “detecting, using the opto-electrical sensor” in line 11 and “transmitting the dispensing signal to a central controller,” as recited in line 15. It is unclear as to what specifically is a data processing hardware, memory hardware, monitoring, using the opto-electrical sensor, detecting, using the opto-electrical sensor and transmitting the dispensing signal to a central controller since the specification do not disclose the said structures in the disclosure. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Beilenhoff (US 2009/0212064 A1).
Referring to claims 1 and 9. Beilenhoff discloses a merchandise dispensing system (10; Figure 1) comprising:
one or more dispensers (dispenser of 10) extending from a front end (front end adjacent to member 16; Figure 1) to a rear end (rear end adjacent to member 14; Figure 10) spaced from the front end, each of the one of more dispensers (dispenser of 10) including:
a support member (52; Figure 10) extending in a first direction (direction from the back towards end 16) from a first end (end opposite 16) fixed at the rear end (rear end adjacent to member 14; Figure 10) to a second end (end 16) spaced from the first end and configured to support a merchandise item (24);
a dispensing member (20) attached to the support member (52; Figure 10) and operable to selectively bias (move toward the front 16) the merchandise item (24) in the first direction (direction from the back towards end 16) with respect to the support member (52; Figure 10); and
a housing (40) attached to the dispensing member (20) and having a backside facing the second end of the support member (52; Figure 10), the housing (40) including
(i) a sensor operable to monitor a space between the backside of the housing and the second end of the support member to detect when a merchandise item is dispensed (placing a sales sensor in the region of the turning point 43 between the lower groove section 42 and the upper groove section 44; Para. [0062]), and
(ii) an electronic controller (control board; not shown) operable to generate a first dispensing signal when the sensor detects a merchandise item is dispensed (as a result of which certain control combinations result, depending, for example, on the direction of movement of the chain 18, with which certain states of the chain 18 can be detected, for example its advancing or return movement; Para. [0063]).
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 2-5,8,10-13,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beilenhoff (US 2009/0212064 A1) in view of in view of Siegel (US 8,260,456).
Referring to claims 2,10, 17 and 20. Beilenhoff discloses a merchandise dispensing system (10; Figure 1) comprising a sensor for monitor a space between the backside of the housing.
Beilenhoff does not specifically wherein the sensor is an opto-electric sensor attached to the backside of the housing and faces the second end of the support member.
Siegel discloses a retail shelf monitoring system (Figure 17) wherein the sensor (284 and 282) is an opto-electric sensor attached to the backside of the housing and faces the second end of the support member (Col.13 lines 15-24).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Beilenhoff to include the sensor as being an opto-electric sensor attached to the backside of the housing and faces the second end of the support member as taught by Siegel because and optical sensor would be able to detect movement of the stored product thus detecting a dispensing event.
Referring to claims 3 and 11. Siegel discloses a retail shelf monitoring system (Figure 17) wherein further comprising a central controller (32; Figure 1) in electrical communication with the electronic controller (microprocessor control) and operable to receive the first dispensing signal (dispensing single from the sensor).
Referring to claims 4,12 and 19. Siegel discloses a retail shelf monitoring system (Figure 17)
wherein the central controller (32) is operable to generate at least one of an audio indication (48) or a visual indication (40) upon receipt of the first dispensing signal (actuated by detection of a dispensing event).
Referring to claims 5, 13 and 16. Siegel discloses a retail shelf monitoring system (Figure 17)
wherein the one or more dispensers (12; consisting of a plurality of dispensers) include a first dispenser (60; Figure 2) having a first electronic controller (internal microprocessor control of first dispenser) in communication with the central controller (32) and a second dispenser (second dispenser 60; Figure 2) having a second electronic controller (second internal microprocessor control) in communication with the central controller (12).
Referring to claims 8 and 15. Siegel discloses a retail shelf monitoring system (Figure 17) wherein each of the one or more dispensers (12; consisting of a plurality of dispensers) further includes a battery disposed within the housing and configured to power the electronic controller and the sensor (such systems must be, for the most part, battery powered, thus entailing a design that minimizes power without sacrificing effectiveness and reliability; Col. 1 lines 55-56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,7,14,18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See modified rejections above including all newly amended limitations.
Applicant’s arguments to the drawing objections are not persuasive. Applicant argues the limitations “a support member” and “a first direction” are disclosed in the specifications and provides either an alternative name for the said elements or a description of the elements. However, the specifications do not positively recite a specific element number for the said objected elements. Since, there are no specific element numbers in the specification to refer to the structural members in questions, the claims remain objected. The applicant should indicate where in the specifications there is a disclosure reciting “a support member” and “a first direction” as a numeral found in the drawings.
In a similar manner Applicant’s claim 16 recites the limitations “data processing hardware” in line 5, “memory hardware” in line 6, “monitoring, using the opto-electrical sensor” in line 9, “detecting, using the opto-electrical sensor” in line 11 and “transmitting the dispensing signal,” as recited in line 15 are not disclosed in the provided specifications. The disclosure of the recited elements or the corresponding structure elements are not found in the specifications in a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had procession of the claimed elements as the time of the invention. Therefore, the limitations are indicated as new matter. Thus, claims 16-20 are not treated on the merits.
Applicant argues” Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art of record fails to teach, suggest, or disclose a merchandise dispensing system including one or more dispensers extending from a front end to a rear end spaced from the front end, each of the one or more dispensers including (a) a support member extending in a first direction from a first end fixed at the rear end to a second end spaced from the first end and configured to support a merchandise item.”
In view of the Examiner, the reference of Beilenhoff discloses one or more dispensers (dispenser of 10) extending from a front end (front end adjacent to member 16; Figure 1) to a rear end (rear end adjacent to member 14; Figure 10) spaced from the front end, each of the one of more dispensers (dispenser of 10) including:
a support member (52; Figure 10) extending in a first direction (direction from the back towards end 16) from a first end (end opposite 16) fixed at the rear end (rear end adjacent to member 14; Figure 10) to a second end (end 16) spaced from the first end and configured to support a merchandise item (24);
a dispensing member (20) attached to the support member (52; Figure 10) and operable to selectively bias (move toward the front 16) the merchandise item (24) in the first direction (direction from the back towards end 16) with respect to the support member (52; Figure 10); and
a housing (40) attached to the dispensing member (20) and having a backside facing the second end of the support member (52; Figure 10). Thus, the limitations as claimed are disclosed by the cited references.
It is suggested the Applicant include additional structure to overcome the cited references or included the indicated the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights