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 .
Claim Interpretation
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:
cup support in claims 1-2 and 4;
cup-seating mechanism in claims 1-2 and 4;
shield delivery mechanism in claim 6 and 8.
Three prong test:
Prong I: cup support (Generic place holder).
Prong II: to receive a cup (Function).
Prong III: No structure.
Prong I: shield delivery mechanism (Generic place holder).
Prong II: to form a shield that prevents splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into the cup (Function).
Prong III: No structure.
Prong I: cup-seating mechanism (Generic place holder).
Prong II: to predictably seat the cup in the cup support (Function).
Prong III: No structure.
Regarding the cup support, the examiner will use Figure 5C and 6C element 174 to interpret this claim language, which shows a device that grabs and moves the cup from one area to another”. The examiner will use this citation to interpret the claim.
Regarding the cup-seating mechanism the specification recites “In embodiments, the cup-seating mechanism includes a plunger. “ in ¶0055. The examiner will use this citation to interpret this claim language.
Regarding shield delivery mechanism the specification recites “Air is delivered to shield delivery mechanism 176c through a corresponding air delivery tube 176d at a velocity that is high enough to form air curtain 176e. In alternative embodiments, shield delivery mechanism 176c could be used alone (i.e., without laser-transparent surface 176b) to prevent splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into cup 156, as well as airborne particulates, from coming into direct contact with laser engraver 176.” In ¶0133. The examiner will use this citation to interpret this claim language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification states “In alternative embodiments, shield delivery mechanism 176c could be used alone (i.e., without laser-transparent surface 176b) to prevent splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into cup 156, as well as airborne particulates, from coming into direct contact with laser engraver 176.” In ¶0133. The specification fails to explain how the shield delivery mechanism functions within the shroud. Specifically, how the air is used within or expressed out of the shield delivery mechanism to from a “laser-transparent surface”. Additional structure is needed for this limitation.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 6 and 8 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.
In claim 5 and 6, the limitation of “the shroud comprises a shield delivery mechanism” seems unclear. While the specification discloses “In alternative embodiments, shield delivery mechanism 176c could be used alone (i.e., without laser-transparent surface 176b) to prevent splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into cup 156, as well as airborne particulates, from coming into direct contact with laser engraver 176.” in ¶0113, the specification does not provide information about how the shield delivery mechanism makes the shield that protects the laser from the possible splashes from the cup.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190352161 A1 – Knight in view of US 4531342 A – Wittenborg and US 20110267416 A1 – Yohn.
Regarding claim 1, Knight is directed towards an automated beverage dispenser. Knight does teach a cup support configured to receive a cup ([0017] a cup support 26); a cup-seating mechanism configured to predictably seat the cup in the cup support ([0017] The cup slide 24 has a cup support 26 that receives a cup 2 released from one of the storage chambers 22.);
Knight does not expressly teach a laser configured to mark information about the beverage ordered by the customer directly onto the cup at the same time as the beverage is being dispensed into the cup.
Wittenborg is directed towards a cup dispenser. Wittenborg does teach marking information about the beverage ordered by the customer directly onto the cup (Col. 5 Ln. 11-13] the cup passes a stamping means 26 providing the cup with a mark or the like characteristic of the beverage in question.).
The combination of the stamping means of Wittenborg with the automated beverage dispenser of Knight allows the cup with the beverage in it to be quickly identified.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knight to include marking information about the beverage ordered by the customer directly onto the cup because the combination of Wittenborg with the automated beverage dispenser of Knight allows the cup with the beverage in it to be quickly identified.
Yohn is directed towards an laser for marking. Yohn does teach a laser (Figures 1A and 1B, [0035] The printing system 10 includes a laser 12 for producing a printing beam 14.).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution the laser of Yohn with the Marking device of Wittenborg.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Although Knight, Wittenborg, Yohn does not expressly teach the marking taking place at same time as the beverage is being dispensed into the cup.
The timing of when the cup can be marked is limited to before, after, or during the poring process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform the marking taking place at same time as the beverage is being dispensed into the cup and to incorporate it into the system of Knight, Wittenborg, and Yohn since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., mark the cup before, after, or during pouring process.) to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Knight, Wittenborg, and Yohn does teach the limitations of claim 1. Knight does teach the cup support (26) brings the cup to a location below the cup-seating mechanism (20) and the cup-seating mechanism moves from a first position to a second position to predictably seat the cup in the cup support (Figure 3 shows the cups being moved from the top of the cup dispenser 20 to the bottom and then to the cup support 26 ).
Regarding claim 10, Knight does teach dispensing a cup which is appropriate to contain the beverage ordered by the customer ([0016] The main controller 80 receives an order to be fulfilled and dispenses an appropriately sized cup 2 from the storage chambers 22 to the cup holder 42 via a cup dispenser 20.); For the rest of the limitations see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Knight, Wittenborg, and Yohn does teach the limitations of claim 10. See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190352161 A1 – Knight, US 4531342 A – Wittenborg and US 20110267416 A1 – Yohn as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20230162555 A1 – Redmond.
Regarding claim 3, Knight, Wittenborg, and Yohn does teach the limitations of claim 2. Knight, Wittenborg, and Yohn does not expressly teach wherein the cup-seating mechanism comprises a plunger.
Redmond is directed towards an cup dispenser. Redman does teach wherein the cup-seating mechanism comprises a plunger ([0046] FIG. 2, a spring 206 coupled to plunger 204 is used to bias plunger 204 (and accordingly the stack of cups 208) towards discharge opening 210.).
The combination of the plunger of Redmond and the automated beverage dispenser because the plunger aids the stack of cups towards the second position of the cup holder of Knight.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knight to include the cup-seating mechanism comprises a plunger because the plunger of Redman with the automated beverage dispenser of Knight for the purpose of more accuracy when placing the cups from the stack to the holder of knight.
Regarding claim 12, Knight, Wittenborg, and Yohn does teach the limitations of claim 11. See the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4-6, 8, 13-15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110267416 A1 – Yohn in view of US 20190352161 A1 – Knight and US 4531342 A – Wittenborg.
Regarding claim 4, Yohn does teach a laser (Figures 1A and 1B, [0035] The printing system 10 includes a laser 12 for producing a printing beam 14.) and a shroud configured to protect the laser against splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into the cup ([0056] The combined beams then pass through a protective window 64 before passing to the product 22.).
Yohn does not expressly teach a cup support configured to receive a cup and to mark information about the beverage ordered by the customer directly onto the cup.
Knight does teach a cup support configured to receive a cup (26).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yohn to include a cup support configured to receive a cup because the cup support of Knight with the laser of Yohn will allow the cup to be transmitted from one position to another.
Wittenborg is directed towards a cup dispenser. Wittenborg does teach marking information about the beverage ordered by the customer directly onto the cup (Col. 5 Ln. 11-13] the cup passes a stamping means 26 providing the cup with a mark or the like characteristic of the beverage in question.).
The combination of the stamping means of Wittenborg with the automated beverage dispenser of Knight and the laser of Yohn allows the cup with the beverage in it to be quickly identified.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yohn and Knight to include marking information about the beverage ordered by the customer directly onto the cup because the combination of Wittenborg with the automated beverage dispenser of Knight and laser of Yohn allows the cup with the beverage in it to be quickly identified.
Although Knight, Wittenborg, Yohn does not expressly teach the marking taking place at same time as the beverage is being dispensed into the cup.
The timing of when the cup can be marked is limited to before, after, or during the poring process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform the marking taking place at same time as the beverage is being dispensed into the cup and to incorporate it into the system of Knight, Wittenborg, and Yohn since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., mark the cup before, after, or during pouring process.) to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 4. Yohn does teach the shroud comprises a laser-transparent surface located between the cup and the laser. ([0056] The combined beams then pass through a protective window 64 before passing to the product 22.).
Regarding claim 6, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 4. Yohn does teach the shroud comprises a shield delivery mechanism which is configured to form a shield that prevents splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into the cup from coming into direct contact with the laser. ([0042] The printing system 10 includes a printing beam exit member 32 through which the printing beam 14 exits the housing 16. The printing beam exit member 32 can be as simple as an opening in the housing 16 or an immobile window mounted in the housing 16. In another embodiment, the printing beam exit member 32 can be moved relative to the housing 16 as illustrated by the arrow labeled A. In this embodiment, the printing beam 14 can be manually aimed toward a particular position on the material 20 by manipulating the printing beam exit member 32.).
Regarding claim 8, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 5. Yohn does teach the shroud further comprises a shield delivery mechanism which is configured to form a shield that prevents splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into the cup from coming into direct contact with the laser-transparent surface. ([0042] The printing system 10 includes a printing beam exit member 32 through which the printing beam 14 exits the housing 16. The printing beam exit member 32 can be as simple as an opening in the housing 16 or an immobile window mounted in the housing 16. In another embodiment, the printing beam exit member 32 can be moved relative to the housing 16 as illustrated by the arrow labeled A. In this embodiment, the printing beam 14 can be manually aimed toward a particular position on the material 20 by manipulating the printing beam exit member 32.).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 4 cover all the limitations besides, dispensing a cup which is appropriate to contain the beverage ordered by the customer.
Yohn does not expressly teach dispensing a cup which is appropriate to contain the beverage ordered by the customer.
Knight does teach dispensing a cup which is appropriate to contain the beverage ordered by the customer ([0016] The main controller 80 receives an order to be fulfilled and dispenses an appropriately sized cup 2 from the storage chambers 22 to the cup holder 42 via a cup dispenser 20.);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yohn to include dispensing a cup which is appropriate to contain the beverage ordered by the customer because the controller selecting the cup size for marking with the laser of Yohn.
Regarding claim 14, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 13. Yohn does teach the shroud comprises a laser-transparent surface located between the cup and the laser. ([0056] The combined beams then pass through a protective window 64 before passing to the product 22.).
Regarding claim 15, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 13. Yohn does teach the shroud comprises a shield delivery mechanism which is configured to form a shield that prevents splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into the cup from coming into direct contact with the laser. ([0042] The printing system 10 includes a printing beam exit member 32 through which the printing beam 14 exits the housing 16. The printing beam exit member 32 can be as simple as an opening in the housing 16 or an immobile window mounted in the housing 16. In another embodiment, the printing beam exit member 32 can be moved relative to the housing 16 as illustrated by the arrow labeled A. In this embodiment, the printing beam 14 can be manually aimed toward a particular position on the material 20 by manipulating the printing beam exit member 32.).
Regarding claim 16, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 14. Yohn does teach the shroud further comprises a shield delivery mechanism which is configured to form a shield that prevents splashes of the beverage that occur during the process of preparing and delivering the beverage into the cup from coming into direct contact with the laser-transparent surface. ([0042] The printing system 10 includes a printing beam exit member 32 through which the printing beam 14 exits the housing 16. The printing beam exit member 32 can be as simple as an opening in the housing 16 or an immobile window mounted in the housing 16. In another embodiment, the printing beam exit member 32 can be moved relative to the housing 16 as illustrated by the arrow labeled A. In this embodiment, the printing beam 14 can be manually aimed toward a particular position on the material 20 by manipulating the printing beam exit member 32.).
Claims 7, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110267416 A1 – Yohn, US 20190352161 A1 – Knight and US 4531342 A – Wittenborg. as applied to claims 6 and 8, respectfully above, and further in view of US 6576871 B1 - Jendick.
Regarding claim 7, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 6. Yohn does not expressly teach the shield comprises an air curtain.
Jendick is directed towards an laser marking unit. Jendick does teach the shield comprises an air curtain ([Col.1 Ln. 39-44] In a laser engraving apparatus disclosed in EP-A1-0 085 484, a not further described air-curtain arrangement is used in connection with a depending bellow intermediate a laser unit and an underlying engraving area to prevent ingress of dust into the laser unit.).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of air curtain of Jendick for the exit member of Yohn.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 8. See the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, Yohn, Knight and Wittenborg does teach the limitations of claim 16. See the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150351581 A1 – Li teaches a coffee maker with a laser for marking a pod.
US 20140242239 A1 – Boggavarapu teaches a laser marking device for a bean bag for coffee processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights