DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Application filed on January 26, 2024.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites one or more phrases that can be implied. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15, 17 & 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “respective staging surface” “respective shelf” and “respective row of condiment containers” in one or more instances. To improve clarity, it is required that these limitations refer back to the plurality of the respective components. For example, replacement of “respective shelf” with language such as “respective shelf of the plurality of shelves” is required.
Claim 1 recites “a respective shelf aligned with a respective staging surface”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a respective shelf aligned with the respective staging surface” is recommended.
Claim 1 appears to recite “respective staging surface” and “staging surface” interchangeably, with respect to a single staging surface. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “controller configured to control activation”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “controller configured to control the activation” is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “activate at least one conveyor to dispense at least one row of condiment containers” and “activate at least one actuator”. To improve clarity, replacement of these limitations with language such as “activate the at least one conveyor to dispense the respective row of condiment containers” and “activate the at least one actuator”, respectively, is recommended.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the request defines at least one condiment type and at least one condiment quantity; and activate at least one actuator based on the request to enable dispensing of at least one condiment container of the at least one condiment type and at least one condiment quantity”; which allows the condiment type and quantity to be the same or distinct condiments; and “dispensing of at least one condiment container” allows for dispensing condiment containers in a quantity distinct from the requested quantity. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with language such as “wherein the request defines a type and quantity of at least one condiment container of the condiment containers; and activate the at least one actuator based on the request to enable dispensing of the type and quantity of the at least one condiment container” is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “a respective vacuum cup”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a respective vacuum cup of the plurality of vacuum cups” is required.
Claim 3 appears to recite “at least a subset of the plurality of vacuum cups”, “the subset of the plurality of vacuum cups” and “the plurality of vacuum cups” interchangeably in the limitation “wherein the robotic arm is configured to: align at least a subset of the plurality of vacuum cups over at least one row of condiment containers stored in a reservoir; and in response to a transition of the subset of the plurality of vacuum cups to the activated state, align the plurality of vacuum cups over the at least one conveyor to enable depositing of the at least one row of condiment containers via a transition of the subset of the plurality of vacuum cups to the deactivated state”. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity.
Claim 3 recites “a respective vacuum cup configured to i) in an activated state, attach to a condiment container via suction, and ii) in a deactivated state, release the condiment container via suspension of the suction”; and “align…at least one row of condiment containers stored in a reservoir….to enable depositing of the at least one row of condiment containers”. As parent Claim 1 recites one or more features related to condiment containers and at least one row of condiment containers, to improve clarity, Claim 3 (and any dependent claims reciting related features) should be amended so as to distinguish the condiment containers from the reservoir from that of Claim 1. For example, “a condiment container” could be amended to recite “a stored condiment container”.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 4-8 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “a respective shelf” and “a respective staging surface”. As parent Claim 1 previously recites these features, to improve clarity, replacement of these limitations with “the respective shelf” and “the respective staging surface”, respectively, is recommended. Further, Claim 5 appears to recite “respective shelf” and “shelf” interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a respective vacuum cup”. As parent Claim 3 previously recites this feature, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “the respective vacuum cup” is recommended. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 7 & 8 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “the robotic arm further comprises at least one secondary vacuum cup configured to secure to a product divider disposed on top of the condiment container via suction when configured to an active state”. To improve clarity in reciting the suction with respect to the vacuum cup, replacement of “configured to secure to a product divider disposed on top of the condiment container via suction” with “configured to secure, via suction, to a product divider disposed on top of the condiment container” is recommended. Further, to improve clarity, replacement of the conditional phrase “when configured” with language such “after configuration” or similar is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “at least one quantity” and “the at least one quantity”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a quantity” and “the quantity”, respectively, is required.
Claim 9 recites “activate at least one of the conveyor and the actuator” and parent Claim 1 recites “at least one conveyor” and “at least one activator”. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity with respect to the number of conveyors and actuators claimed.
Claim 9 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in “at least one the plurality of shelves”.
Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is also objected to for being dependent on Claim 9.
Claim 10 appears to recite “at least one customer order” and “customer order” interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity.
Claim 10 recites “the at least one quantity and the at least one type of condiment” and “at least one quantity of at least one type of condiment” interchangeably. Consistency in terminology is required to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “a void for dispensing condiment containers”. As the claim previously recites condiment containers, to improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a void for dispensing the condiment containers” is recommended.
Claim 11 recites “plurality of condiment containers”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “a plurality of the condiment containers” is recommended.
Claim 11 recites “obtain a request to dispense at least one condiment container”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “obtain a request to dispense the subset of the plurality of condiment containers” is recommended.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12-15 are also objected to for being dependent on Claim 11. See related 35 USC 112 rejections below and correct appropriately.
Claim 12 recites “a respective conveyor” in one or more instances. To improve clarity, replacement of these limitations with “a respective conveyor of the plurality of conveyors” is required.
Claim 12 recites “a respective staging surface”. As parent Claim 11 encompasses embodiments with one staging surface, to improve clarity, it is recommended that Claim 12 positively recite wherein “the at least one staging surface comprises a plurality of staging surfaces” and “a respective staging surface of the plurality of staging surfaces”.
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of condiment containers” and “a subset of the plurality of condiment containers”. As this feature is previously recited in parent Claim 11, replacement of this limitation with “the plurality of condiment containers” and “the subset of the plurality of condiment containers” is recommended.
Claim 12 recites “activate at least one conveyor of the plurality of conveyors and/or at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators…to dispense”. It appears that activation of both the conveyor and actuator is required to dispense condiments. As such, replacement of “and/or” with “and” is required.
Claim 12 recites “to dispense the at least one condiment container”. To maintain consistency with parent Claim 11, replacement of this limitation with “to dispense the subset of the plurality of condiment containers” is recommended. Similar amendments are recommended with respect to this feature as recited in Claims 13 & 14.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 13-15 are also objected to for being dependent on Claims 12 & 13, respectively.
Claim 15 recites “a respective customer order”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “the customer order” is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 appears to have a typographical/grammatical error in “the second surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “aligning the additional row of condiment containers over the flat surface”. To improve clarity, replacement of this limitation with “after applying the suction, aligning the additional row of condiment containers over the flat surface” is recommended. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a respective shelf aligned with a respective staging surface and comprising: at least one conveyor configured to receive at least one row of condiment containers”. As recited, the limitation encompasses one or more embodiments where a shelf comprises a plurality of conveyors configured to receive one row of condiment containers; which is unclear.
Further, Claim 1 recites “at least one conveyor”, “at least one row”, “at least one actuator” and “at least one controller”; which in combination encompasses one or more embodiments with a limitless number of conveyors, rows, actuators and/or controllers; which is unclear.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 2-10 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 2 recites “a kitchen production apparatus (KPS)”. It is unclear what this limitation encompasses, and what is included and excluded. As such, the scope, metes and bounds of the claim is unclear.
Claim 2 recites “activate at least one conveyor to dispense at least one row of condiment containers”. As recited, the limitation encompasses one or more embodiments where the at least one controller is configured to activate a plurality of conveyors to dispense one row of condiment containers; which is unclear.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “activate the robotic arm to enable depositing of the at least one row of condiment containers on the at least one conveyor”; which encompasses one or more embodiments where the activation enables depositing of one row of condiment containers on a plurality of conveyors, which is unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 5 is also rejected for being dependent on Claim 4. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 5 recites “a top surface of the at least one conveyor is exposed to the robotic arm”; which encompasses one or more embodiments with a plurality of conveyors having a single top surface, which is unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 7 recites “the at least one conveyor is configured to engage a flat bottom surface of the condiment container”; which encompasses one or more embodiments with a plurality of conveyors configured to engage a single flat bottom surface of one container, which is unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim 8 is also rejected for being dependent on Claim 7. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 10 recites “the at least one controller further configured to…generate the at least one quantity and the at least one type of condiment based on the customer order”; which is unclear in combination with “an input device configured to receive user input defining a request to dispense at least one quantity of at least one type of condiment from the cabinet; the at least one controller further configured to: receive the request from the input device” as recited in parent Claim 9. How does the at least one controller both “receive” the request and “generate” the at least one quantity and the at least one type of condiment as instantly claimed.
Further, Claim 10 recites “wherein the user input defining the request comprises a selection of the at least one customer order”. It is unclear what this limitation refers to. What does “a selection” refer to?
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 11 recites “at least one conveyor configured to receive a plurality of condiment containers and, upon activation, advance a subset of the plurality of condiment containers onto the at least one staging surface; at least one actuator configured to, upon activation, advance the respective condiment container from the at least one staging surface into the dispenser chute”. As recited, the limitation encompasses one or more embodiments where the configuration is unclear. As a non-limiting example: how are a plurality of conveyors configured to advance condiment containers to one staging surface, or vice versa? Further, what does “the respective condiment container” refer to? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 12-15 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 11. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “determine….at least one quantity based at least in part on the request”. It is unclear which component’s quantity is determined. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 13-15 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 12. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 16 recites “laterally advancing a row of condiment containers from a flat surface onto at least one staging surface” and “advancing at least a subset of at least one row of condiment containers to an end of the staging surface”. It is unclear how many rows of condiment containers and how many staging surfaces are required. The limitations encompass one or more embodiments with a plurality of staging surfaces, and a plurality of rows. It is unclear how one row of condiment containers is advanced laterally to a plurality of staging surfaces. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claims 17-20 are also rejected for being dependent on Claim 16. The claims have been examined as best understood.
Claim 18 recites “applying suction to an additional row of condiment containers to enable repositioning”. It is unclear what is being enabled for repositioning. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 19 recites “a kitchen production apparatus (KPS)”. It is unclear what this limitation encompasses, and what is included and excluded. As such, the scope, metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
Claim 20 recites “determining a quantity of condiment containers in the subset of the row of condiment containers based on the customer order”. It is unclear what this limitation refers to. How is a quantity determined based on customer order as instantly claimed? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The claim has been examined as best understood.
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 2008/0011765).
With respect to Claim 1, Marquez discloses an apparatus for automatically dispensing condiment containers (Marquez: Sections [0003] & [0012]) comprising: a cabinet (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as non-limiting examples: “400”, “440”, “510A”, “510B”); a dispenser chute centrally aligned in front of a plurality of staging surfaces, wherein: an edge of a respective staging surface is adjacent to the dispenser chute; (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as non-limiting examples: staging surface such as “320” and dispenser chute such as “460”).
Marquez further teaches where the apparatus provides efficiency and minimizes waste (Marquez: Section [0011]), and teaches one or more embodiments where the cabinet comprises a plurality of dispensing modules, and one or more embodiments where the dispensing module is employed in a non-vertical/horizontal orientation (Marquez: Sections [0032] & [0041]-[0055]); where such an orientation provides for the cabinet comprising “a plurality of shelves”, wherein “the plurality of staging surfaces are vertically arranged”; and “a respective shelf aligned with a respective staging surface” (Marquez: Figures, as a non-limiting example: horizontal orientation of “310” as a shelf) as instantly and broadly claimed. In this orientation, Marquez further provides for the shelf of the dispensing module comprising at least one conveyor configured to receive at least one row of condiment containers and, upon activation, advance a respective row of condiment containers onto the staging surface (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as a non-limiting example: “318” as at least one conveyor as broadly claimed); at least one actuator configured to, upon activation, advance at least a subset of the respective row of condiment containers from the staging surface into the dispenser chute (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as a non-limiting example: “324” as at least one actuator as broadly claimed); and at least one controller configured to control activation of the at least one conveyor and the at least one actuator (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as a non-limiting example: “330” as at least one controller as broadly claimed).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above apparatus in combination with the associated features of the plurality of shelves, vertically arranged plurality of staging surfaces, respective shelf and controller, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above apparatus to include the associated features of the plurality of shelves, vertically arranged plurality of staging surfaces, respective shelf and controller as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide efficiency and minimize waste in condiment dispensing.
With respect to Claim 2, Marquez teaches the apparatus as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches “wherein: the at least one controller is further configured to: activate at least one conveyor to dispense at least one row of condiment containers onto the respective staging surface; receive a request from at least one of an input device or a kitchen production apparatus (KPS), wherein the request defines at least one condiment type and at least one condiment quantity; and activate at least one actuator based on the request to enable dispensing of at least one condiment container of the at least one condiment type and at least one condiment quantity” (Marquez: Sections [0035]-[0040] & [0051]-[0053]); wherein selection of a condiment type is considered to include selection of at least one of the condiment quantity).
With respect to Claim 9, Marquez teaches the apparatus as provided above with respect to Claim 1, and further teaches “an input device configured to receive user input defining a request to dispense at least one quantity of at least one type of condiment from the cabinet; the at least one controller further configured to: receive the request from the input device; and activate at least one of the conveyor and the actuator of at least one the plurality of shelves to enable dispensing of at least one condiment container based on the at least one quantity and the at least one condiment type” (Marquez: Sections [0035]-[0040] & [0053]); wherein selection of a condiment type is considered to include selection of at least one of the condiment quantity).
With respect to Claim 11, Marquez discloses an apparatus for automatically dispensing condiment containers (Marquez: Sections [0003] & [0012]), comprising: at least one staging surface adjacent to a dispenser chute; the dispenser chute defining a void for dispensing condiment containers under gravity (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as non-limiting examples: staging surface such as “320” and dispenser chute such as “460”).
Marquez further teaches where the apparatus provides efficiency and minimizes waste (Marquez: Section [0011]), and teaches one or more embodiments where the dispensing module comprises at least one conveyor configured to receive a plurality of condiment containers and, upon activation, advance a subset of the plurality of condiment containers onto the at least one staging surface (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as a non-limiting example: “318” as at least one conveyor as broadly claimed); at least one actuator configured to, upon activation, advance the respective condiment container from the at least one staging surface into the dispenser chute (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as a non-limiting example: “324” as at least one actuator as broadly claimed); and at least one controller configured to: obtain a request to dispense at least one condiment container; and activate the at least one conveyor and the at least one actuator based at least in part on the request (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as a non-limiting example: “330” as at least one controller as broadly claimed).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above apparatus in combination with the associated features of the conveyor, actuator and controller, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above apparatus to include the associated features of the conveyor, actuator and controller as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide efficiency and minimize waste in condiment dispensing.
With respect to Claim 12, Marquez teaches the apparatus as provided above with respect to Claim 11, and further teaches one or more embodiments where the apparatus comprises a plurality of dispensing modules (Marquez: Sections [0041]-[0055]); which provides for the apparatus such that “the at least one conveyor comprises a plurality of conveyors; a respective conveyor is configured to receive a plurality of condiment containers and, upon activation, advance a subset of the plurality of condiment containers onto a respective staging surface; the at least one actuator comprises a plurality of actuators, wherein each of the plurality of actuators is aligned with a respective conveyor; the at least one controller is configured to: determine at least one condiment type and at least one quantity based at least in part on the request; and activate at least one conveyor of the plurality of conveyors and/or at least one actuator of the plurality of actuators based at least in part on the at least one condiment type and the at least one quantity to dispense the at least one condiment container from the dispenser chute” (wherein selection of a condiment type is considered to include selection of at least one of the condiment quantity).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above apparatus in combination with the features of Claim 12, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above apparatus to include the additional features as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide efficiency and minimize waste in condiment dispensing.
With respect to Claim 16, Marquez discloses a method for automatically dispensing condiment containers (Marquez: Sections [0003] & [0012]) comprising: advancing condiment containers onto at least one staging surface; longitudinally advancing at least a subset of the condiment containers to an end of the staging surface to cause the subset of the condiment containers to fall into a dispenser chute (Marquez: Sections: [0029]-[0055]; Figures; as non-limiting examples: staging surface such as “320” and dispenser chute such as “460”).
Marquez further teaches where the method provides efficiency and minimizes waste (Marquez: Section [0011]), and teaches one or more embodiments where the dispensing module is employed in a non-vertical/horizontal orientation (Marquez: Sections [0032] & [0041]-[0055]); where such an orientation provides for “laterally” advancing “a row of” condiment containers from “a flat surface” onto at least one staging surface and advancing a subset of “at least one row” of condiment containers as instantly claimed. Marquez further teaches one or more embodiments wherein the method comprises receiving a request for at least one condiment container; and based on the request, advancing at least a subset of condiment containers to an end of the staging surface to cause the subset of the condiment containers to fall into a dispenser chute (Marquez: Sections [0035]-[0040] & [0053]).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with the associated features of laterally advancing a row of condiment containers and longitudinally advancing based on the request, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to include these features as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide efficiency and minimize waste in condiment dispensing.
With respect to Claim 17, Marquez teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 16, and further teaches one or more embodiments where the method comprises a plurality of dispensing modules having different condiment types (Marquez: Sections [0041]-[0055]); which provides for the method such that “wherein: the at least one staging surface comprises a first staging surface associated with a first condiment type and a second staging surface associated with a second condiment type; the request defines a quantity of the first condiment type and a second quantity of the second condiment type; and the method further comprises: longitudinally advancing a subset of a row of condiment containers of the first staging surface into the dispenser chute; and longitudinally advancing a second subset of a second row of condiment containers of the second surface into the dispenser chute” (wherein selection of a condiment type is considered to include selection of at least one of the condiment quantity).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the above method steps in combination with the features of Claim 17, in a single embodiment, as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the above method to include the additional features as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide efficiency and minimize waste in condiment dispensing.
With respect to Claim 19, Marquez teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 16, and further teaches one or more embodiments where the apparatus is placed in fast food kitchens, and where the request is received from remote terminals such as cash registers or other terminals (Marquez: Sections [0016] & [0051]-[0053]).
As such, although the reference fails to explicitly disclose the method steps in combination with wherein “the request is received from a kitchen production apparatus (KPS)” as instantly claimed, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized need in the art for methods of dispensing items in food establishments, including kitchens, and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions including the dispensing of items based on a request received from remote terminals in the food establishment. As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Marquez, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued dispensing based on a request received from a KPS as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
With respect to Claim 20, Marquez teaches the method as provided above with respect to Claim 16, and further teaches wherein the request comprises a customer order; and the method further comprises: determining a quantity of condiment containers in the subset of the condiment containers based on the customer order (Marquez: Sections [0035]-[0040] & [0053]); wherein selection of and dispensing a condiment type as taught is considered to include determining a quantity of condiment containers as instantly claimed. To the extent there is any difference between this feature as taught by Marquez and this feature as instantly claimed, the difference is considered minor and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez (US 2008/0011765), in view of Fortunato et al. (US 2018/0072555).
With respect to Claim 10, Marquez teaches the apparatus as provided above with respect to Claim 9, and further teaches the at least one controller further configured to: receive at least one customer order; generate the at least one quantity and the at least one type of condiment based on the customer order, wherein the user input defining the request comprises a selection of the at least one customer order (Marquez: Sections [0035]-[0040], [0052] & [0053]); wherein selection of a condiment type is considered to include selection of at least one of the condiment quantity).
The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose “the input device comprises a touchscreen display” and the at least one controller further configured to “cause rendering of the at least one customer order on the touchscreen display” as instantly claimed.
Fortunato teaches methods and apparatus for dispensing condiments therein, wherein the input device comprises a touchscreen display with a controller that causes rendering of at least one customer order on the touchscreen display as instantly claimed to improve ease of use and/or quickly and accurately dispense based on the customer request (Fortunato: Sections [0002], [0019] & [0045]-[[0050]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marquez with the aforementioned teachings of Fortunato to employ an input device comprising a touchscreen display with the at least one controller further configured to cause rendering of the at least one customer order on the touchscreen display as instantly claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve ease of use and/or quickly and accurately dispense based on the customer request. (Fortunato: Sections [0002], [0019] & [0045]-[[0050]).
With respect to Claims 13-15, Marquez teaches the apparatus as provided above with respect to Claim 12. The reference, however, fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus comprising the features as respectively claimed.
Fortunato teaches methods and apparatus for dispensing condiments therein, wherein the dispenser comprises a display and a controller configured as respectively claimed to improve ease of use and/or quickly and accurately dispense based on the customer request (Fortunato: Sections [0002], [0019] & [0045]-[[0050]). As such, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marquez with the aforementioned teachings of Fortunato to employ a display and a controller configured as respectively claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve ease of use and/or quickly and accurately dispense based on the customer request. (Fortunato: Sections [0002], [0019] & [0045]-[[0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 & 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the respective objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, including that of the base claim, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carter et al. (US 8,727,178) discloses an apparatus and a method comprising an automated condiment dispenser to dispense different types of prepackaged condiments based on user input. The reference, however, fails to disclose the apparatus and method in combination with at least the features of the robotic arm, vacuum cups, translating/aligning and suction, as respectively claimed in Claims 3-8 & 18.
Bertness et al. (US 2018/0072557) discloses an apparatus and a method comprising an automated condiment dispenser to dispense different types of condiments based on user input relying on a GUI. The reference, however, fails to disclose the apparatus and method in combination with at least the features of the robotic arm, vacuum cups, translating/aligning and suction, as respectively claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANURADHA AHUJA whose telephone number is (571)272-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ANURADHA AHUJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights