DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 that there is nothing in Fritze that would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the entire problem of clogging can be eliminated by reversing the rotation of the motor after each dispensing cycle when no clogging has occurred.
Examiner notes that the claim language does not require reversing the direction of the motor after each cycle as asserted by Applicant. Instead, the claim language recites a series of steps (a) through (g) and step (g) merely recites repeating steps (b) through (e). Therefore, the step of reversing the direction of the motor is only required twice. Fritze’s general teaching of reversing the direction is if there is an indication a clog may occur allows for this reversal to occur twice over an arbitrary time cycle. Applicant is reminded that the transitional phrase “comprising” in a claimed apparatus or method is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” and is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore the claim allows for other method step that are unclaimed and gives no indication that the motor reversing direction must occur during each cycle.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not suggest reversing the motor direction when no clogging has occurred, Examiner points to ¶ [0066] which explicitly discloses that a clog need not actually occur for the controller to reverse direction but discloses that upon indication that a clog may occur the controller is programmed to reverse direction.
Applicant also argues on page 6 that Fritze specifically discloses reversing the motor when a clog has occurred for a pre-determined time and then sends a control signal to further rotate the motor in a normal direction. Examiner notes that again changing the direction back to the “normal” direction is in no way at odds with the claim language since the claim language is open ended and does not prevent the motor from returning to a “normal direction”.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the is no suggestion in Fritze to reverse motor direction to proactively prevent clogging, see In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“The test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.”). Application’s argument fails to adequately consider the skill of the ordinary artisan. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Examiner maintains that given the teachings of Fritze of generally reversing the motor rotation when there is an indication that an incidence of clogging may occur, the level or ordinary skill and creativity in the art, and the open-ended nature of the claims, the claims remain obvious in view of Fritze.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze et al. (US 2001/0040170; “Fritze”).
Regarding claim 1, Fritze discloses a product dispenser (figure 1:20) (¶ [0010]), comprising a storage hopper (figure 1:22) (¶ [0045]), a rotatable drum (figure 8A:114) having paddles (150a-i) on a periphery thereof (¶ [0066]) located at a bottom of the storage hopper (22) (see figure 4, ¶ [0063]), and a drive motor (138) connected to the rotatable drum (114) (¶ [0066]), a weighing/dispensing assembly (figure 2:60, 62, 66) located beneath the rotatable drum (114) (¶¶ [0049]-[0050]), the weighing/dispensing assembly (60, 62, 66) includes a load cell (66) (¶ [0050]) and further includes or is connected to one or more dump doors (62) on which product to be dispensed is adapted to accumulate (¶ [0050]), the load cell (66) detecting a weight of the product to be dispensed as it accumulates on the one or more dump doors (66) (¶ [0050]), a controller (142) (¶ [0049]) configured to: a) actuate the drive motor (138) to rotate the rotatable drum (114) in a rotational direction at a start of a dispensing cycle (¶ [0054]), b) receive a signal from the load cell (66) and determine a weight of the product accumulating on the one or more dump doors (62) (¶ [0055]), c) determine if a target weight is reached based on the signal from the load cell (66) of the weight of the product accumulating on the one or more dump doors (62) (¶ [0055]), d) deactivate the drive motor (138) upon the target weight being detected (¶ [0050]), e) open the one or more dump doors (62) such that accumulated product is dispensed (¶ [0050]), f) actuate the drive motor (138) to rotate the rotatable drum (114) in a rotational direction, opposite to the rotational direction of the drive motor (138) in step d) (¶ [0066]), and g) repeat steps b) – e) (¶¶ [0056]-[0057]).
Fritze discloses that it is known problem that dispensers may become clogged by clumps of products (¶ [0005]) and further discloses that the step of actuating the motor to rotate the drum in the opposite direction is triggered by a decrease in rotation speed or an increase in current indicating a clog (¶ [0066]).
While Fritze does not disclose actuating the motor in the opposite direction upon a start of a next dispensing cycle, one having ordinary skill and creativity in the art would readily infer that at least periodic reversal of the drum direction would mitigate clogs and that doing so at the beginning of a dispensing cycle would be one of a finite number of options available. Courts have ruled that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (when to reverse the motor direction), with a reasonable expectation of success (unclogging or preventing clogging of the dispenser) is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to reverse the direction of Fritze’s motor upon a start of a next dispensing cycle for the purpose of unclogging the dispenser for the benefit of preventing a clog from occurring during the middle of a cycle thereby avoiding an error in a cycle while simultaneously avoiding an unnecessary increase in current (see e.g. ¶ [0066]) which reduces wear and tear on the motor.
Regarding claim 2, Fritze discloses the controller (142) is further configured to: a1) detect a current to the drive motor, and a2) if the current to the drive motor exceeds a pre-set limit, reverse the rotational direction of the drive motor (138) and the rotatable drum (114) (¶ [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Fritze discloses the controller (142) is further configured to: a5) determine a reverse run time for step a2), and a6) if the reverse run time exceeds a preset limit, reverse the rotational direction of the drive motor (138) to rotate the rotatable drum (114) in an opposite rotational direction from step a2) (¶ [0066]).
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze in view of Dewald et al. (US 2013/0126042; “Dewald”).
Regarding claim 3, Fritze modified in the manner of the rejection of claim 1 discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends.
Fritze further discloses the controller (142) is further configured to: a3) detect a reverse rotational direction current to the drive motor (138) (¶ [0066]).
Fritze is silent to step a4).
In the same field of endeavor, Dewald teaches a food product dispenser wherein in the process of unjamming the dispenser by reversing the motor, wherein the controller is configured to detect if the current to the drive motor exceeds a pre-set limit, signal a display to show an error message (¶ [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to show an error message as taught by Dewald if the current to Fritze’s motor exceeds a pre-set limit in the reverse direction for the purpose of preventing damage to the motor (¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Fritze modified in the manner of the rejection of claim 1 discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends.
Fritze does not explicitly disclose deactivating the motor if the drive motor exceeds a pre-set limit.
In the same field of endeavor, Dewald teaches a food product dispenser wherein in the process of unjamming the dispenser by reversing the motor, wherein the controller is configured to deactivate the drive motor if the drive motor exceeds a pre-set limit in step a4) (¶¶ [0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to deactivate the dispensing motor as taught by Dewald if the current to Fritze’s motor exceeds a pre-set limit in the reverse direction for the purpose of preventing damage to the motor (¶¶ [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Fritz as modified in the manner of the rejection of claim 1 discloses all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Fritze discloses the controller (142) is further configured to detect the current to the drive motor (138) (¶ [0066]).
In the same field of endeavor, Dewald teaches a food product dispenser wherein in the process of unjamming the dispenser by reversing the motor, a7) if the current to the drive motor exceeds a pre-set limit, signal a display to show an error message (¶ [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to show an error message as taught by Dewald if the current to Fritze’s motor exceeds a pre-set limit in the reverse direction for the purpose of preventing damage to the motor (¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Fritz as modified by Dewald discloses all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends.
Dewald further teaches the controller is further configured to deactivate the drive motor in step a7) (¶¶[0068]-[0069]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritze in view of Messaros et al. (US 2017/0305644; “Messaros”).
Regarding claim 8, Fritze modified in the manner of the rejection of claim 1 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Fritze discloses that the change in rotational direction of the drum is initiated when the drum slows down or when the current to the drum exceeds a threshold which indicates a clog in the dispenser (¶ [0066]).
Fritze does not explicitly disclose that a change in the rotational direction of the rotatable drum re-distributes product at a bottom of the storage hopper that is in contact with a top of the rotatable drum, e.g. unclogging the dispenser, though one having ordinary skill and creativity in the art would easily deduce this is the purpose for reversing the direction of the drum.
Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor, Messaros teaches that it is known to reverse the direction of a rotating drum in a food dispenser in order to re-distribute product at a bottom of the storage hopper that is in contact with a top of the rotatable drum (¶ [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use the reversal of the drum rotation direction to re-distribute product at a bottom of the storage hopper that is in contact with a top of the rotatable drum as taught by Messaros in Fritze’s dispenser for the purpose of not only detecting but fixing a clog of food in the dispenser with the benefit of automating the troubleshooting of a clog without stopping the operation of the machine making it more efficient.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0075692 discloses reversing the drum direction in a food dispenser to agitate the food (¶ [0092]).
US2020/0172353 discloses reversing the drum direction in a food dispenser to unclog the food (¶ [0070].
The remaining cited documents constitute the general state of the art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855