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 .
Claims 1-7 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on January 25, 2019.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 is: “Refrigeration Unit” in claim 4.
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.
Applicant is advised to change “refrigeration unit” to “refrigerator” in order to avoid invoking 112(f) along with both 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4-5 limitation “Refrigeration Unit” 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 function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “Refrigeration Unit” 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 function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, 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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze, US Application No. 6,131,622
Claim 1. Fritze teaches A product dispenser, comprising: a storage hopper; (Fritze, abstract, “bulk storage hopper”) a rotatable drum having paddles on a periphery thereof located at a bottom of the storage hopper, (Fritze, Fig. 4 51-53, Abstract "This controllable transfer assembly may include a drum 51 having a plurality (or series) of elevated areas 52 about the circumference 53 of the drum 51") and a drive motor connected to the rotatable drum; (Fritze, abstract, "A drive assembly 159 is provided to rotate the drum") the weighing/dispensing assembly includes a load cell and further includes or is connected to one or more dump doors on which product to be dispensed is adapted to accumulate, (Fritze, abstract, "A load cell 165 comprising a weight sensing assembly is arranged and configured to weigh the articles retained by the gate assembly.") the load cell detecting a weight of the product to be dispensed as it accumulates on the one or more dump doors; (Fritze, Col 6 Line 24-30 "By mounting the housing 101 on the guide 105, the downward force (e.g., the weight) of the articles residing in the accumulator area 36 resting on the accumulator doors 32 is translated to the housing. A load cell 165 (best seen in FIG. 6) is located generally beneath the housing and generally along the path of the linear guide 105 (shown schematically in FIG. 6)."
a controller configured to: a) actuate the drive motor to rotate the rotatable drum at a start of a dispensing cycle, (Fritze, abstract, "A controller 152… operates the drive assembly 159 to control the articles dispensed")
b) receive a signal from the load cell and determine a weight of the product accumulating on the one or more dump doors, (Fritze, abstract, "By monitoring the movement of the drum 51 and the weight of the transferred articles")
c) determine if a percentage of a product weight target preset value is reached for the product accumulating on the dump doors, (Fritze, abstract, Col 8 line 4-7 "If the doors are clear and the unit receives a weigh command, the state moves to state 202 to determine whether the full weight has been achieved.")
e) determine if a target weight is reached based on the signal from the load cell of the weight of the product accumulating on the one or more dump doors, (Fritze, Col 6 Line 24-30, Col 2 Line 3-8 “Weight Sensing means are arranged and configured to weigh the articles retained by the gate means in real time. A controller monitors the real time signal of the weight Sensing means and operates the drive means to control the articles dispensed into the accumulator area to a predetermined level.”)
f) deactivate the drive motor upon the target weight being detected, (Fritze, Col 2 Line 5-8 "A controller monitors the real time signal of the weight sensing means and operates the drive means to control the articles dispensed into the accumulator area to a predetermined level.")
and g) open the one or more dump doors such that accumulated product is dispensed. (Fritze, Col 2 Line 8-10 “It will be appreciated that the gate means may be Selectively opened automatically upon reaching the desired weight or may be operated by a user when desired.”)
While Fritze does not explicitly state upon the product weight target preset value being reached, starting a pulsing algorithm including sending alternating run and pause signals to the drive motor. Fritze does recite an adaptive algorithm with means of adjusting the speed of the drive motor through use of a controller in order to adjust for varying weights of different products in order to achieve a more accurate dispensing of the product into the hopper. Column 7, lines 45- Column 8 line 1, “The algorithm described herein may be made "adaptive" by modifying the maintenance of the "in flight" value. For example, this may be updated after each weighing by adding 1/10th of the final weight error… Essentially, the rate of weight gain would be compared to an ideal rate. If the current rate exceeded the desired rate, the motor drive would be reduced by an appropriate amount.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the already existing algorithm, to integrate a method of pulsing the driver motor through repeatedly turning the motor on and off in order to incrementally dispense a controlled amount of product in order to improve accuracy to reach the target weight.
Claim 2. Fritze teaches the product dispenser of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to detect a total dispense time from the start of the dispensing cycle, (Fritze, Col 2 Line 5-8 "A controller monitors the real time signal of the weight sensing means and operates the drive means to control the articles dispensed into the accumulator area to a predetermined level") and is further configured to signal a display if a dispense total time preset value is exceeded. (Fritze, Col 6, Line 66-67 "a diagnostic display 154 is provided as part of the controller board 151 for user diagnostic purposes.").
Claim 3. Fritze teaches the product dispenser of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to continue the pulsing algorithm including sending alternating run and pause signals to the drive motor if the target weight is not reached and the total dispense time is not exceeded. (Fritze, Col 7 Line 45 - Col 8 line 1, Col 7 line 35 "(38) SLOW LIMIT--The dispenser switches to slow dispense when the weight gets within this amount of TARGET.") Motivation the same as claim 1.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze, US Patent No. 6,131,622 in view of Koerner, US Patent Application Publication No. 20110101022 A1.
Claim 4. Fritze in view of Koerner teaches the product dispenser of claim 1, further comprising a housing and (Fritze, Col 5 Line 51 "The mechanical section 100 includes a housing", Field of invention "This invention relates generally to dispensing; more particularly to dispensing food items; and more particularly still to dispensing frozen food items into a food dispensing area with a manually placed cooking basket.") the hopper and the rotatable drum being located in the housing. (Fritze, Fig 4).
Fritze does not teach, but Koerner teaches a refrigeration unit for cooling, (Koerner, abstract, [0074] “The housing 94 is sized to house the refrigeration system 32.”)
Fritze and Koerner are analogous art for both teaching a food dispensing apparatus that comprises of a weighing system, hopper, and rotatable drum, for use in dispensing frozen food. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or combine the refrigeration system disclosed by Koerner with Fritzes’ disclosed invention in order to achieve predictable results by maintaining the quality and freshness of the frozen product being dispensed through use of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2143.01.
PNG
media_image1.png
621
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fritze, Figure 4
Claim 5. Fritze teaches the product dispenser of claim 4, wherein the product dispenser is a frozen food dispenser. (Fritze, Field of invention "particularly still to dispensing frozen food items"). Motivation the same as claim 4.
Claim 6. Fritze in view of Koerner teaches the product dispenser of claim 1, (Fritze, Col 6 Line 24-30) and the controller is configured to control the dispensing of product from each of the storage hoppers. (Fritze, abstract "A controller 152 monitors the load cell 165 and operates the drive assembly 159 to control the articles dispensed into the accumulator area 136 to a predetermined level.")
Fritze does not teach, but Koerner teaches wherein there are two of the storage hoppers,
two of the rotatable drums with respective ones of the drive motors, and two of the weighing/dispensing assemblies. (Koerner, Fig 13, [0081] “A particular advantage of food dispensing assembly 10 is that it includes two hoppers… When using a two hopper dispenser, the user can dispense food from two sources within the dispenser, thus providing twice the throughput of food volume as compared to a single hopper dispenser.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Koerner, Figure 13
Fritze and Koerner are analogous arts for both teaching a food dispensing apparatus that comprises of a weighing system, a hopper, and a rotatable drum, for use in dispensing frozen food. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the listed components of the system disclosed by Fritzes’ invention to incorporate the teachings seen in Koerner’s invention, in order to achieve predictable results by increasing the efficiency and rate of production through the use of an additional dispensing mechanism. See MPEP 2143.01.
Claim 7. Fritze in view of Koerner teaches the product dispenser of claim 1, (Fritze, Col 5 Table 1 "4. Wait for a known reference weight to be located on the weighing sensor. If not applied within predetermined time, the calibration cycle aborts and the system moves to steady weighing/dispensing operation.")
Fritze does not teach, but Koerner teaches further comprising a receptacle sensor configured to detect a receptacle being placed into a receiving position under the one or more dump doors, (Koerner, [0070] “the position sensor assembly 92 includes a sensor window 18 positioned along the stepped shelf 86, a sensor 100 positioned beneath the stepped shelf 86, and a sensor bracket 102 that retains the sensor 100 in a fixed position.”) Motivation the same as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wenzelberg, WO Application 2024213649 A1 teaches a food dispensing method from a canister.
Tanaka, US Application 2024023952 W teaches a system and method of moving a quantity of bulk food items within an automated cooking system.
Prusinowski, US Application 20240138596 A1 teaches a product dispenser using a storage hopper, a rotatable drum with paddles, located at a bottom of the storage hopper, and a drive motor connected to the rotatable drum.
Allegra, US Application 20190311568 A1 teaches an improved dispenser unit for dispensing bulk food items, using a cabinet with a hopper, product compartments, a deflector and flexible gate valve, a dispense assembly, and a control system.
Bruck, US Application 20140001199 A1, teaches a vending machine with an enclosure using two or more bin elements.
Rudesill, US Application 20060113324 A1, teaches a dispenser unit for dispensing bulk frozen food items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T BLENKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:15am-4:15pm; First Fri Off.
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.
/A.T.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights