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 Application
Claims 1-25 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of 1a, 2a, 3b, 4c, 5a, 6aq, 7a, 8b, 9b, 10b, 11a, 12a, and 13c in the reply filed on 05/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
restriction to a subspecies of group 3 is improper because paragraph [0033] of applicant’s specification does not recite “only one dispenser assembly” as asserted by the Examiner.
restriction to a subspecies of group 4 is improper because paragraph [0033] of applicant’s specification does not recite “only one arm” as asserted by the Examiner.
restriction to a subspecies of group 9 is improper because “opening extending into an interior of an edifice” as stated in subspecies a., is not mutually exclusive with “one or more back and sidewalls defining the recess as a cavity within a sidewall of an edifice” as stated in subspecies b. For example the edifice may have both an opening with an interior and a recess with sidewalls
the Examiner has not provided an example to support the determination that the inventions are distinct.
the claims do not present a serious burden for the examiner because they are not directed to distinct inventions. Because each of claims 1-25 is directed to the same invention, Applicant asserts that the election/restriction requirement is improper.
In response to (A), the arguments are considered persuasive and the restriction to a subspecies of group 3 is withdrawn.
In response to (B), the arguments are considered and are persuasive in-part. Applicant’s arguments pertain only to subspecies a. of group 4, and the subspecies a. of group 4 is withdrawn. Subspecies b. and c. of group 4 are maintained.
In response to (C), the arguments are considered persuasive and the restriction to a subspecies of group 9 is withdrawn.
In response to (D), the inventions defined by various combinations of subspecies as indicated in the election/restriction requirement dated 03/18/26 are distinct at least because of the mutually exclusive features indicated in the election/restriction requirement.
In response to (E), claims 1-25 are not directed to the same invention. At least claim 1 is broadly drawn to each of the subspecies indicated in the election/restriction requirement.
The requirement is deemed proper, except as indicated above, and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of applying prior art the following broadest reasonable interpretations are applied. The disclosure does not set forth uncommon, special, or otherwise explicit definitions for terms for which the following aforementioned broadest reasonable interpretations are provided. These broadest reasonable interpretations do not appear inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretations
In regards to claims 2 and 19,
the term chute is interpreted as: “a passage down or through which things may pass” as per the attached definition obtained on 09/29/26 from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.
the term flush is interpreted as: “directly abutting or immediately adjacent” as per the attached definition obtained on 09/29/26 from Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.
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.
In regards to claim 14, claim limitation “deployment mechanism” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “mechanism” and coupled with functional language “deployment” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier.
In regards to claim 15, claim limitation “locking mechanism” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “mechanism” and coupled with functional language “locking” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by a structural modifier
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
identify the following terms in the specification by reference to the drawings, designating the corresponding part or parts therein to which each term applies: “prongs”.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“[…] clamping surfaces that occlude a tube […]” (claims 3 and 24)
“[…] plurality of upper ridges […]” (of claims 3 and 24)
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 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 1-12 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.
As per claims 3 and 24, the limitation “[…] clamping surfaces that occlude a tube […]” is ambiguous because it conflicts with the drawings which depict a singular clamping surface that occludes a tube. This conflict renders the scope uncertain. A correction may include “[…] clamping surfaces that each occlude a tube […]”. For the purpose of applying prior art, claims 3 and 24 are interpreted according to the aforementioned suggested correction.
As per claims 14 and 15, claim limitation “deployment mechanism” (of claim 14) and claim limitation “locking mechanism” (of claim 15) each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functiosn. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further as per claim 14, the limitation “the operating” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. A correction may include deleting “the”.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and thus inherits the deficiencies thereof.
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, 5, 8, 13-15, 18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9352679 to Tollefson.
As per claims 1 and 18, Tollefson discloses a system (Fig. 1) for servicing frozen confections comprising:
a mobile edifice (1);
an arm (60) configured to be mounted to the mobile edifice, wherein the arm is configured to move between an open position (Fig. 2) and a closed position (Fig. 1);
a dispenser assembly (62) mounted to the arm (Fig. 2);
one or more tubes (58) configured to span a length of the arm and terminate at the dispenser assembly (Fig. 2), wherein the one or more tubes are configured to transport fluid along the length of the arm to the dispenser assembly (Col. 4, ln. 37-40).
As per claims 5, 8, and 20, Tollefson further discloses the arm comprises a plurality of arms (Fig. 7), wherein each arm comprises a mount (136) whereby each of the plurality of arms is mounted to the edifice (Fig. 4; Col. 8, Ln. 12-21), and wherein each arm is mounted to the edifice such that each arm maintains individual freedom of movement about an axis defined by the mount (Col. 8, ¶ 2; Fig. 7).
As per claims 13 and 23, Tollefson further discloses one or more tertiary dispensers (178) mounted externally on a sidewall of the mobile edifice (via 183 and 185) and not in fluid communication with the one or more tubes, wherein the one or more tertiary dispensers are configured to dispense one or more of a liquid topping (Col. 17, ln. 58-63).
As per claim 14, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Tollefson further discloses a deployment mechanism (132, 134), wherein operating the deployment mechanism causes the arm to move between the open position and the closed position (Col. 8, ¶ 1; Fig. 2).
As per claim 15, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Tollefson further discloses a locking mechanism (130, 100), wherein engaging the locking mechanism prevents the arm from moving between the open position and the closed position, and wherein disengaging the locking mechanism permits the arm to move between the open position and the closed position (Col. 6, ¶ 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9352679 to Tollefson in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 12, Tollefson discloses the claimed invention except for a tableware dispenser is mounted externally to a sidewall of the edifice. However, the office makes Official Notice that wall-mounted tableware dispensers are old and well known and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mount a tableware dispenser to any wall of the edifice, including externally and to a sidewall of the edifice, for reasons including to provide tableware to consumers of the confection obtained from the edifice of Tollefson.
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, 6-7, 16, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9352679 to Tollefson in view of US 4494600 to DeLau.
As per claims 2, 16, and 19, and as the examiner can understand the claims, Tollefson further discloses one or more reservoirs (56) mounted to a sidewall of the mobile edifice (Fig. 8), each comprising a liquid (Col. 4, Ln. 33-34), wherein the one or more reservoirs are in fluid communication with at least one of the one or more tubes (Col. 4, Ln. 33-36). The Tollefson-DeLau combination does not disclose a chute.
DeLau teaches a system comprising a reservoir (22) and a chute (11) filled with ice (28) such that the ice comes into contact with the tube and chills the liquid of the reservoir (Fig. 1) and the chute comprising an opening defined by a sidewall of the chute (pipe 16 feeds through opening of sidewall; Fig. 1), wherein the chute is positioned relative to the reservoir (Fig. 1) and an arm (21) such that the one or more tubes in fluid communication with the one or more reservoirs are fed through the opening of chute and to the arm (21). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify a chute according to the aforementioned teachings from DeLau to the edifice of Tollefson for reasons including to cool a liquid topping as it is feed from a reservoir to the dispenser assembly.
As per claims 6-7 and 21-22, Rupp further discloses a secondary dispenser (primary and secondary “dispensers” et al are part of the dispensing assembly) in fluid communication with one of the tubes and in fluid communication with a secondary reservoir (56) and in fluid communication with the arm (Fig. 2), and wherein the arm is in fluid communication with the chute (all tubes, including the tube passing through the chute, communicates with the arm).
Claims 3-4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9352679 to Tollefson in view of US 10130111 to Rupp et al.
As per claims 3-4 and 24, and as the examiner can understand the claims, Tollefson discloses the claimed invention except for the dispenser assembly comprising inter alia an upper portion comprising a plurality of channels formed within a sidewall of the upper portion and a lower portion comprising a plurality of prongs, et al.
Rupp teaches a system comprising a circular dispenser assembly (103) comprising:
an upper portion (201) comprising a plurality of channels (303) formed within a sidewall of the upper portion (Fig. 3) and a lower portion (202) comprising a plurality of prongs (403) that extend radially from the lower portion (Fig. 4);
wherein the lower portion is configured to couple to the upper portion by inserting an end of each of the plurality of prongs into a corresponding channel of the plurality of channels of the upper portion (Col. 6, ¶ 6);
wherein the upper portion includes a plurality of upper ridges (see Figure A, below) and each prong of the plurality of prongs of the lower portion includes a lower ridge (403c) that aligns with at least one of the upper ridges of the upper portion to form one or more clamping surfaces that occlude a tube that passes between the upper portion and the lower portion (Col. 6, Ln. 60-61; Fig. 2e);
PNG
media_image1.png
555
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 10130111, Fig. 3B - annotated
wherein each of the plurality of prongs of the lower portion comprises a push tab configured to be pressed such that pressing the push tab removes the occlusion of the tube that passes between the upper portion and the lower portion (Col. 7, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dispenser assembly of Tollefson according to the aforementioned teachings from Rupp for reasons including to provide a circular dispensing assembly.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9352679 to Tollefson in view of CN 106427744 to Wang et al. All references to CN 106427744 are made in this office action to the attached translation into english of CN 106427744 – CN106427744_machine translation.
As per claim 9, Tollefson discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in regards to claims 1 and 18. Tollefson does not disclose the arm is moved inside a recess of the edifice and flush with a sidewall of the edifice. Wong teaches an edifice (exhibition van) comprising an arm (18) moved inside a recess of the edifice and flush with a sidewall of the edifice (Fig. 4) behind a closable recess door (pg. 9, ¶ 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Tollefson according to the aforementioned teachings from Wang for reasons including to contain the arm entirely within the Edifice for security of the arm.
As per claim 10, Wong further discloses the opening position comprises an operation position whereby the arm is moved out of the recess of the edifice such that a distal end of the arm—i.e. the dispenser assembly of the Tollefson-Wong combination—is not within the recess of the edifice (Fig. 1 and 4).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9352679 to Tollefson in view of CN 106427744 to Wang et al in view of Official Notice. All references to CN 106427744 are made in this office action to the attached translation into english of CN 106427744 – CN106427744_machine translation.
As per claim 11, Wong further discloses the recess door configured to completely cover the recess of the edifice (Fig. 4; Pg. 9, ¶ 1). The Tellefson-Wong combination does not disclose exactly how the door is mounted to the edifice. The office makes Official Notice that door hinges are old and well known and it therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, to provide the recess door of Wong with a door hinge mount to the edifice in view of the aforementioned silence of the Tellefson-Wong combination regarding exactly how the door is mounted to the edifice.
Claims 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9352679 to Tollefson in view of US 4494600 to DeLau in view of US 4381846 to Heck.
As per claims 17 and 25, the Tollefson-DeLau combination discloses the claimed invention except for a nozzle configured to control flow of a liquid affixed to a terminal end of one or more of the one or more tubes. Heck teaches a system comprising a tube (18) feeding liquid from a reservoir (12) and a nozzle (20) affixed to a terminal end of the tube and configured with a check valve for controlling flow of liquid. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Tollefson-DeLau combination according to the aforementioned teachings from DeLau for reasons including to prevent flow into the tube from outside the tube.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 October 1, 2026
