DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-25 remain pending in the application.
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 limitation(s) is/are: positioning mechanism in claims 1-20.
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. Para 0041 describes the positioning mechanism as “The positioning mechanism 230 may comprises at least one of the following: a rotary positioning mechanism, a robotic manipulating mechanism, a linear positioning mechanism, a multilevel positioning mechanism, a combination thereof, and/or the like.”
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
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, 6, 8-12, 15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGP# 20130240079 of Petrini (henceforth Petrini) in view of USPGP# 20140232045 of Winzinger (henceforth Winzinger) and USPGP# 20050276883 of Jeffrey et al. (henceforth Jeffrey).
Regarding claim 1, Petrini teaches
an apparatus (Petrini; 10) comprising:
a liquid container (Petrini: 116) structured to hold a liquid (Petrini: water, para 0072)
a nozzle fluidly (Petrini: 38) connected to the liquid container;
a pump (Petrini: 146) structured to pump an amount of the liquid from the liquid container (Petrini: para 0071-0073, fig. 13)
a positioning mechanism (Petrini: rotating device for rotating the element 30 as described in para 0038) disposed on a base frame (Petrini: frame on which 30 is mounted, see fig. 6) and structured to move a user container holder (Petrini: cavities for bottle in 30) distinctly from, relative to, and around the base frame (Petrini: para 0038);
a controller (Petrini: “computer control means” para 0057) structured to:
align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the nozzle (Petrini: para 0038); and
dispense, via the pump, the amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Petrini: para 0071-0073).
Petrini does not explicitly teach
the positioning mechanism is disposed on a circular carousel and structured to move a user container holder distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel.
Winzinger teaches
an apparatus (Winzinger; 101, 200, 300, 400) comprising: a positioning mechanism (Winzinger: rotating device for rotating the elements 101R, 205, 305, 405, motors for moving grippers of the respective carousels (para 0026-0027) and the intermediate transfer star wheels and belts 15, 19, 202, 203, 302, 303, 402, 403) disposed on a circular carousel (Winzinger: 101, 205, 305, 405) and structured to move a user container holder (Winzinger: grippers for the carousels 101, 205, 305, 405) distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel; a controller (Winzinger: “control unit” para 0027) structured to: align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with a nozzle (Winzinger: 219, para 0112); and dispense an amount of a liquid through the nozzle and into a user container held by the user container holder (Winzinger: para 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Petrini with a circular carousel as taught by Winzinger in order to allow simultaneous processing of multiple containers (Winzinger: para 0012). This makes the apparatus more efficient.
The combination of Petrini and Winzinger does not teach the first pump is a measuring pump which dispenses a measured amount of fluid.
Measuring pumps were well known in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, Jeffrey a dispensing system, including a measuring pump (Jeffrey: 20 or 22 in) configured to pump a measured amount of liquid (Jeffrey: para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the pump of Petrini with a measuring pump as taught by Jeffrey in order to allow precise dispensing of liquids into the container, this reduces wastage and allows for monitor of the amount of liquid used (Jeffrey: para 0080). Additionally, use of measuring pumps taught by Jeffrey prevents the dispensed product from contacting the pump components. This assists in minimizing the need for any cleaning of the pump, and minimizes the possibility of contamination of the dispensed products from the pump components (Jeffrey: para 0080).
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches
wherein: the circular carousel is a multilevel carousel (Winzinger: para 0022, see also para 0051, 0105, 0122); and the positioning mechanism is further structured to move the user container holder between different levels of the multilevel carousel (Winzinger: see figs. 5-9 and 18a-b, see also para 0022, 0051, 0105 and 0122 which all describe the feed and exit of the containers at different levels by grippers of the respective carousels).
Regarding claim 3, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches a second liquid container (Petrini: 132) structured to hold a second liquid (Petrini: chlorine solution); a second nozzle (Petrini: 54, para 0066) fluidly connected to the second liquid container; and a second pump (Petrini: 134) structured to pump a second amount of the second liquid from the second liquid container (Petrini: para 0073); wherein the controller is further structured to: align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the second nozzle (Petrini: para 0038); and dispense, via the second measuring pump, the second amount of the second liquid from the second liquid container, through the nozzle, and into the user container (Petrini: para 0071-0073).
The combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not teach the second pump is a measuring pump configured to dispense a measured amount of second liquid.
Measuring pumps were well known in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, Jeffrey a dispensing system, including a measuring pump (Jeffrey: 20 or 22 in) configured to pump a measured amount of liquid (Jeffrey: para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the second pump of Petrini with a second measuring pump as taught by Jeffrey in order to allow precise dispensing of liquids into the container, this reduces wastage and allows for monitor of the amount of liquid used (Jeffrey: para 0080). Additionally, use of measuring pumps taught by Jeffrey prevents the dispensed product from contacting the pump components. This assists in minimizing the need for any cleaning of the pump, and minimizes the possibility of contamination of the dispensed products from the pump components (Jeffrey: para 0080).
Regarding claim 6, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches a labeling module (Petrini: para 0055) structured to label the user container.
Regarding claim 8, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches a point-of-sale module (Petrini: 14) configured to: accept an order from a user (Petrini: para 0049); receive payment from the user for the order (Petrini: para 0049); or generate production instructions configured to fill the order (Petrini: para 0060).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches wherein the measuring pump is a peristaltic pump (Jeffery: para 0080).
Regarding claim 10, Petrini teaches a method comprising:
moving, via a positioning mechanism (Petrini: rotating device for rotating the element 30 as described in para 0038) disposed on a base frame (Petrini: frame on which 30 is mounted, see fig. 6), a user container holder (Petrini: cavities for bottle in 30) distinctly from, relative to, and around the base frame to align the user container holder with a nozzle ((Petrini: 38) that is fluidly connected to a liquid container (Petrini: 116) storing a liquid (Petrini: water, para 0072);
dispensing, via a pump (Petrini: 146), an amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Petrini: para 0071-0073); and
vending the user container (Petrini: para 0061, 006-0064).
Petrini does not explicitly teach
the positioning mechanism is disposed on a circular carousel and structured to move a user container holder distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel.
Winzinger teaches
a method comprising: moving, via a positioning mechanism (Winzinger: rotating device for rotating the elements 101R, 205, 305, 405, motors for moving grippers of the respective carousels (para 0026-0027) and the intermediate transfer star wheels and belts 15, 19, 202, 203, 302, 303, 402, 403) disposed on a circular carousel (Winzinger: 101, 205, 305, 405), a user container holder (Winzinger: grippers for the carousels 101, 205, 305, 405) distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel to align the user container holder with a nozzle ((Winzinger: 219, para 0112); dispensing an amount of the liquid through the nozzle and into a user container held by the user container holder (Winzinger: para 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the method of Petrini with a circular carousel as taught by Winzinger in order to allow simultaneous processing of multiple containers (Winzinger: para 0012). This makes the method more efficient.
The combination of Petrini and Winzinger does not teach the first pump is a measuring pump which dispenses a measured amount of liquid.
Measuring pumps were well known in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, Jeffrey a dispensing system, including a measuring pump (Jeffrey: 20 or 22 in) configured to pump a measured amount of liquid (Jeffrey: para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the pump of Petrini with a measuring pump as taught by Jeffrey in order to allow precise dispensing of liquids into the container, this reduces wastage and allows for monitor of the amount of liquid used (Jeffrey: para 0080). Additionally, use of measuring pumps taught by Jeffrey prevents the dispensed product from contacting the pump components. This assists in minimizing the need for any cleaning of the pump, and minimizes the possibility of contamination of the dispensed products from the pump components (Jeffrey: para 0080).
Regarding claim 11, as shown in claim 10, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches wherein the circular carousel is a multilevel carousel and the method further comprises: moving, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder between different levels of the multilevel carousel (Winzinger: see figs. 5-9 and 18a-b, see also para 0022, 0051, 0105 and 0122 which all describe the feed and exit of the containers at different levels by grippers of the respective carousels).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in claim 10, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches moving, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder around the circular carousel to align the user container holder with a second nozzle (Petrini: 54, para 0038, 0066) that is fluidly connected to a second liquid container (Petrini: 132) storing a second liquid (Petrini: chlorine solution); and dispensing, via a second pump (Petrini: 134), a second amount of the second liquid from the second liquid container, through the second nozzle, and into the user container (Petrini: para 0071-0073).
The combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not teach the second pump is a measuring pump configured to dispense a measured amount of second liquid.
Measuring pumps were well known in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, Jeffrey a dispensing system, including a measuring pump (Jeffrey: 20 or 22 in) configured to pump a measured amount of liquid (Jeffrey: para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the second pump of Petrini with a second measuring pump as taught by Jeffrey in order to allow precise dispensing of liquids into the container, this reduces wastage and allows for monitor of the amount of liquid used (Jeffrey: para 0080). Additionally, use of measuring pumps taught by Jeffrey prevents the dispensed product from contacting the pump components. This assists in minimizing the need for any cleaning of the pump, and minimizes the possibility of contamination of the dispensed products from the pump components (Jeffrey: para 0080).
Regarding claim 15, as shown in claim 10, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches labeling, via a labeling module, the user container (Petrini: para 0055).
Regarding claim 17, as shown in claim 10, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches at least one of: accepting, via a point-of-sale module (Petrini: 14), an order from a user (Petrini: para 0049); receiving, via a point-of-sale module, payment from a user for an order (Petrini: para 0049); or generating, via a point-of-sale module, production instructions structured to fill an order (Petrini: para 0060).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in claim 10, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches the measuring pump is a peristaltic pump (Jeffery: para 0080).
Regarding claim 19, Petrini teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (Petrini: inherent in computer means in order to control the function as described at least in para 0057) that when loaded into at least one processor (Petrini: inherent in computer means in order to control the function as described at least in para 0057) cause the at least one processor to:
move, via a positioning mechanism (Petrini: rotating device for rotating the element 30 as described in para 0038) disposed on a base frame (Petrini: frame for supporting 30, see fig. 6), a user container holder (Petrini: cavities for bottle in 30) distinctly from, relative to, and around the base frame to align the user container holder with a nozzle ((Petrini: 38) that is fluidly connected to a liquid container (Petrini: 116) storing a liquid (Petrini: water, para 0072);
dispense, via a pump (Petrini: 146), an amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Petrini: para 0071-0073); and
vend the user container (Petrini: para 0061, 006-0064).
Petrini does not explicitly teach
the positioning mechanism is disposed on a circular carousel and structured to move a user container holder distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel.
Winzinger teaches
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (Winzinger: “control unit” para 0027 inherent in computer means in order to control the function as described at least in para 0027) that when loaded into at least one processor (Winzinger: inherent in computer means in order to control the function as described at least in para 0027) cause the at least one processor to: move, via a positioning mechanism (Winzinger: rotating device for rotating the elements 101R, 205, 305, 405, motors for moving grippers of the respective carousels (para 0026-0027) and the intermediate transfer star wheels and belts 15, 19, 202, 203, 302, 303, 402, 403) disposed on a circular carousel (Winzinger: 101, 205, 305, 405), a user container holder (Winzinger: grippers for the carousels 101, 205, 305, 405) distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel to align the user container holder with a nozzle ((Winzinger: 219, para 0112); dispensing an amount of the liquid through the nozzle and into a user container held by the user container holder (Winzinger: para 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the method of Petrini with a circular carousel as taught by Winzinger in order to allow simultaneous processing of multiple containers (Winzinger: para 0012). This makes the method more efficient.
The combination of Petrini and Winzinger does not teach the first pump is a measuring pump which dispenses a measured amount of liquid.
Measuring pumps were well known in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, Jeffrey a dispensing system, including a measuring pump (Jeffrey: 20 or 22 in) configured to pump a measured amount of liquid (Jeffrey: para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the pump of Petrini with a measuring pump as taught by Jeffrey in order to allow precise dispensing of liquids into the container, this reduces wastage and allows for monitor of the amount of liquid used (Jeffrey: para 0080). Additionally, use of measuring pumps taught by Jeffrey prevents the dispensed product from contacting the pump components. This assists in minimizing the need for any cleaning of the pump, and minimizes the possibility of contamination of the dispensed products from the pump components (Jeffrey: para 0080).
Regarding claim 20, Petrini teaches
an apparatus (Petrini; 10) comprising:
a liquid container (Petrini: 116) structured to hold a liquid (Petrini: water, para 0072)
a nozzle fluidly (Petrini: 38) connected to the liquid container;
a pump (Petrini: 146) structured to pump an amount of the liquid from the liquid container (Petrini: para 0071-0073, fig. 13)
a positioning mechanism (Petrini: rotating device for rotating the element 30 as described in para 0038) disposed on a base frame (Petrini: frame on which 30 is mounted, see fig. 6) and structured to move a user container holder (Petrini: cavities for bottle in 30) distinctly from, relative to, and around the base frame (Petrini: para 0038);
a controller (Petrini: “computer control means” para 0057) structured to:
align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the nozzle (Petrini: para 0038); and
dispense, via the pump, the amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Petrini: para 0071-0073).
Petrini does not explicitly teach
the positioning mechanism is disposed on a circular carousel and structured to move a user container holder distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel.
Winzinger teaches
an apparatus (Winzinger; 101, 200, 300, 400) comprising: a positioning mechanism (Winzinger: rotating device for rotating the elements 101R, 205, 305, 405, motors for moving grippers of the respective carousels (para 0026-0027) and the intermediate transfer star wheels and belts 15, 19, 202, 203, 302, 303, 402, 403) disposed on a circular carousel (Winzinger: 101, 205, 305, 405 and the various stations disposed around each of the circular carousels, see para 0111 and 0121) and structured to move a user container holder (Winzinger: grippers for the carousels 101, 205, 305, 405) distinctly from, relative to, and around the circular carousel; a controller (Winzinger: “control unit” para 0027) structured to: align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with a nozzle (Winzinger: 219, para 0112); and dispense an amount of a liquid through the nozzle and into a user container held by the user container holder (Winzinger: para 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of Petrini with a circular carousel as taught by Winzinger in order to allow simultaneous processing of multiple containers (Winzinger: para 0012). This makes the apparatus more efficient.
The combination of Petrini and Winzinger does not teach the first pump is a measuring pump which dispenses a measured amount of fluid.
Measuring pumps were well known in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, Jeffrey a dispensing system, including a measuring pump (Jeffrey: 20 or 22 in) configured to pump a measured amount of liquid (Jeffrey: para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the pump of Petrini with a measuring pump as taught by Jeffrey in order to allow precise dispensing of liquids into the container, this reduces wastage and allows for monitor of the amount of liquid used (Jeffrey: para 0080). Additionally, use of measuring pumps taught by Jeffrey prevents the dispensed product from contacting the pump components. This assists in minimizing the need for any cleaning of the pump, and minimizes the possibility of contamination of the dispensed products from the pump components (Jeffrey: para 0080).
The combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches move, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder around the circular carousel to align the user container holder with a second nozzle (Petrini: 54, para 0038, 0066) that is fluidly connected to a second liquid container (Petrini: 132) storing a second liquid (Petrini: chlorine solution); and dispensing, via a second pump (Petrini: 134), a second amount of the second liquid from the second liquid container, through the second nozzle, and into the user container (Petrini: para 0071-0073).
The combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not teach the second pump is a measuring pump configured to dispense a measured amount of second liquid.
Measuring pumps were well known in the art of dispensing before the effective filing date of the invention. For example, Jeffrey a dispensing system, including a measuring pump (Jeffrey: 20 or 22 in) configured to pump a measured amount of liquid (Jeffrey: para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the second pump of Petrini with a second measuring pump as taught by Jeffrey in order to allow precise dispensing of liquids into the container, this reduces wastage and allows for monitor of the amount of liquid used (Jeffrey: para 0080). Additionally, use of measuring pumps taught by Jeffrey prevents the dispensed product from contacting the pump components. This assists in minimizing the need for any cleaning of the pump, and minimizes the possibility of contamination of the dispensed products from the pump components (Jeffrey: para 0080).
Regarding claim 21, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches
wherein the positioning mechanism is driven independently of the circular carousel (Winzinger: part of the positioning mechanism is interpreted to be the drive system for rotating the grippers of 101, 205, 305, or 405. As described in para 0111, for example, the circular carousel 205 can have multiple filling stations along which the grippers are moved along independent of the filling stations).
Regarding claim 22, as shown in claim 2, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches
wherein the positioning mechanism comprises a rotary positioning mechanism (drive system for rotating the grippers of 101, 205, 305, or 405) configured to rotate the user container holder about a central axis of the circular carousel (para 0091 and 101U in fig. 2, para 0111 and 205U in fig. 13, para 0121 and 305U in fig. 17A, 405U in fig. 17B)
Regarding claim 23, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches
wherein the positioning mechanism moves the user container holder along a path that conforms to a circumference of the circular carousel (Winzinger: drive system for rotating the grippers of 101, 205, 305, or 405 rotates the grippers along a path that conforms to a circumference of the circular carousel, see figs. 2, 13, 17A and 17B).
Regarding claim 24, as shown in claim 23, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches
wherein the path traces the circumference of the circular carousel (Winzinger: drive system for rotating the grippers of 101, 205, 305, or 405 rotates the grippers along a path that traces the circumference of the circular carousel, see figs. 2, 13, 17A and 17B).
Regarding claim 25, as shown in claim 24, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery teaches
wherein the path extends along at least half of the circumference of the circular carousel (Winzinger: see figs. 2, 13, 17A and 17B).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery in view of USPGP# 20130338821 of Igarashi (henceforth Igarashi).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not teach a fluid quantity sensor structured to measure a level of the liquid in the liquid container.
Igarashi teaches a fluid quantity sensor (Igarashi: 8) structured to measure a level of the liquid in a liquid container (Igarashi: 376). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add a fluid quantity sensor to the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery as taught by Igarashi in order to provide the predictable result of providing an alert (or notifying the control means) when material in the liquid container reaches a low level This prevents inaccurate mixing/filling of various liquids which in turns improves quality and reliability of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, as shown in claim 10, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not teach measuring, via a fluid quantity sensor, a level of the liquid in the liquid container.
Igarashi teaches a fluid quantity sensor (Igarashi: 8) that measures a level of the liquid in a liquid container (Igarashi: 376). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add a fluid quantity sensor to the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery as taught by Igarashi in order to provide the predictable result of providing an alert (or notifying the control means) when material in the liquid container reaches a low level This prevents inaccurate mixing/filling of various liquids which in turns improves quality and reliability of the apparatus.
Claims 5, 7, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery in view of USPGP# 20150191266 of Holmes et al. (henceforth Holmes).
Regarding claim 5, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not teach a fluid quantity sensor structured to measure a level of the liquid in the user container.
Holmes teaches a similar apparatus (Holmes; 100) comprising:
a liquid container (Holmes: 111) structured to hold a liquid (Holmes: vaping liquids)
a nozzle fluidly (Holmes: 26) connected to the liquid container;
a measuring pump (Holmes: 105) structured to pump a measured amount of the liquid from the liquid container (Holmes: para 054, 0075-0076)
a positioning mechanism (Holmes: 4, 11, 75) structured to move a user container holder (Holmes: 8);
a controller (Holmes: 20, 103) structured to:
align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the nozzle (Holmes: para 0070-0071);
dispense, via the pump, the amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Holmes: para 0070-0076, 0080); and
a fluid quantity sensor (Holmes: 72) structured to measure a level of the liquid in the user container (Holmes: para 0054, 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add a fluid quantity sensor to the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery as taught by Holmes in order to accurately dispense the desired amount of fluid into the user container during filling (Holmes: para 0054). This prevents wastage (i.e. due to overfilling) and lack of user satisfaction (i.e. due to underfilling).
Regarding claim 7, as shown in claim 6, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further structured to: align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the labeling module.
Holmes teaches a similar apparatus (Holmes; 100) comprising:
a liquid container (Holmes: 111) structured to hold a liquid (Holmes: vaping liquids)
a nozzle fluidly (Holmes: 26) connected to the liquid container;
a measuring pump (Holmes: 105) structured to pump a measured amount of the liquid from the liquid container (Holmes: para 054, 0075-0076)
a positioning mechanism (Holmes: 4, 11, 75) structured to move a user container holder (Holmes: 8);
a controller (Holmes: 20, 103) structured to:
align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the nozzle (Holmes: para 0070-0071);
dispense, via the pump, the amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Holmes: para 0070-0076, 0080); and
a labeling module (Holmes: 21) structured to label the user container; wherein the controller is further structured to: align, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the labeling module (Holmes: para 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the positioning mechanism of the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery to align the user container with the labeling module as taught by Holmes in order to minimize the number of devices needed to perform the various tasks (i.e. rather than having two different positioning mechanism for labelling and cleaning; the same positioning mechanism can be used to transport between cleaning and labelling modules). This reduces the overall cost of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, as shown in claim 10, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not teach measuring, via a fluid quantity sensor, a level of the liquid in the user container.
Holmes teaches a method comprising:
moving, via a positioning mechanism (Holmes: 11), a user container holder (Holmes: 8, 75) to align the user container holder with a nozzle ((Holmes: 26) that is fluidly connected to a liquid container (Holmes: 111) storing a liquid (Holmes: vaping liquids);
dispensing, via a measuring pump (Holmes: 105), a measured amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Holmes: para 0054, 0075-0076);
vending the user container (Holmes: para 0075, through exit portal 13); and
measuring, via a fluid quantity sensor (Holmes: 72), a level of the liquid in the user container (Holmes: para 0054, 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add a fluid quantity sensor to the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery as taught by Holmes in order to accurately dispense the desired amount of fluid into the user container during filling (Holmes: para 0054). This prevents wastage (i.e. due to overfilling) and lack of user satisfaction (i.e. due to underfilling).
Regarding claim 16, as shown in claim 15, the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery does not explicitly teach aligning, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the labeling module.
Holmes teaches a method comprising:
moving, via a positioning mechanism (Holmes: 11), a user container holder (Holmes: 8, 75) to align the user container holder with a nozzle ((Holmes: 26) that is fluidly connected to a liquid container (Holmes: 111) storing a liquid (Holmes: vaping liquids);
dispensing, via a measuring pump (Holmes: 105), a measured amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Holmes: para 0054, 0075-0076);
vending the user container (Holmes: para 0075, through exit portal 13); and
labeling, via a labeling module (Holmes: 21), the user container; aligning, via the positioning mechanism, the user container holder with the labeling module (Holmes: para 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the positioning mechanism of the combination of Petrini, Winzinger and Jeffery to align the user container with the labeling module as taught by Holmes in order to minimize the number of devices needed to perform the various tasks (i.e. rather than having two different positioning mechanism for labelling and cleaning; the same positioning mechanism can be used to transport between cleaning and labelling modules). This reduces the overall cost of the device used to implement the method.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, please refer to: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11 and 19 of USP# 11,178,914. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11 and 19 of USP# 11,178,914 anticipate claims 1-9 of the instant application. Please refer to the following table for the correspondence of claims between the present application and USP# 11,178,914
Application (18/387,634)Claims
USP# 11,178,914Claims
1
1, 6
2
8
3
6
4
2
5
3
6
11
7
11
8
9
9
19
Claims 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11 and 19 of USP# 11,178,914 in view of USPGP# 20150191266 of Holmes et al. Please refer to the following table for the correspondence of claims between the present application and USP# 11,178,914.
Application (18/387,634)Claims
USP# 11,178,914Claims
10
1, 6
11
8
12
6
13
2
14
3
15
11
16
11
17
9
18
19
19
1
20
6
Claims 10-20 of the instant application differ from claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11 and 19 of USP# 11,178,914 because these claims have the additional step of vending the user container.
Holmes teaches a method comprising: moving, via a positioning mechanism (Holmes: 11), a user container holder (Holmes: 8, 75) to align the user container holder with a nozzle ((Holmes: 26) that is fluidly connected to a liquid container (Holmes: 111) storing a liquid (Holmes: vaping liquids); dispensing, via a measuring pump (Holmes: 105), a measured amount of the liquid from the liquid container, through the nozzle, and into a user container held by the user container holder (Holmes: para 0054, 0075-0076); and vending the user container (Holmes: para 0075, through exit portal 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of USP# 11,178,914 with the additional step of vending the user container, as taught by Holmes, because doing so will allow the user to retrieve the filled container from the machine as soon as it filled. This makes the method more convenient as it allows the user to have immediate access to the container after it has been processed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/12/2026 have been fully considered:
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Applicant contends that Winzinger does not teach positioning mechanism (15, 19, 202, 203, 302, 303, 402, 403) that is disposed on the circular carousel (101, 205, 305, 405). Rather Winzinger teaches the positioning mechanism is adjacent/next to the circular carousel.
The positioning mechanism is being interpreted as having multiple parts, including rotating devices for rotating elements 101R, 205, 305, or 405, in addition to elements 15, 19, 202, 203, 302, 303, 402, 403. Since the rotating devices rotate elements 101R, 205, 305, or 405, at least some part of them is disposed on the circular carousels.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Applicant contends that Winzinger does not teach positioning mechanism moves a user container holder around the circular carousel.
The positioning mechanism is being interpreted as having multiple parts, including rotating devices for rotating elements 101R, 205, 305, or 405. At least the rotating devices of the positioning mechanism rotate the container holder (grippers for 101, 205, 305 or 405) around the circular carousel. Additionally, gripper elements of 202, 203, 302, 303, or 402, 403 move in the vicinity of the circular carousel and since around is defined as “near” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/around definition 1d, accessed 5/20/2026), the claims as recited are anticipated.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Applicant states that Examiner has not provided how to combine the gripper carousels of Winzinger with the carousel of Petrini.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, for example, Winzinger gripper carousels for transporting container holders around a circular carousel can modify the cavity based carousel of Petrini to allow simultaneous processing (simultaneous loading and unloading) of user containers.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Applicant argues that Winzinger is designed as a large scale bottle production plant while Petrini is designed as a small scale vending machine.
To one having ordinary skill in the art, having a high production vending machine would be desirable in order to meet demands, for example, in a high throughput vending area.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights