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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “44,” “40A”and “40B” have both been used to designate a “front bar” and “a first glider” or “a second glider”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 16 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 8 recites the limitations “where one product obscures another product in the side image” in line 5. It is unclear as to how the partition is configured to prevent a product obscuring another product in the side image. The limitations as recited are narrative and indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor. Appropriate clarification is required. Similar issues in claim 16.
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 1,8,9,10-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US 9,536,236) in view of Kakiuchi (JP H11154268 A).
Referring to claims 1,10,11,18,19 and 20. Hay discloses a cooler (refrigerator; 10; Figure 1) for storing and dispensing products, the cooler comprising:
a housing (housing of 10) comprising an open access to an interior of the housing (access via door 24);
a shelf (28; Figure 22) disposed in the interior of the housing (housing of 10); and
a first glider (first product track 112; Figure 22) and a second glider (second product track 112; Figure 22) each having a front end (front end of track 112) and a back end (back end of track 112 adjacent member 96), disposed on the shelf (28; Figure 22) with the front end closer to the open access (see Figure 10),
wherein the first glider and the second glider each comprises:
a base (base of product track 112), a first sidewall (left side 132; Figure 21), and a second sidewall (right side 132; Figure 21) defining a space to receive and to align products in a column (within the track),
a partition (front top portion of 132; Figure 21) disposed on one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall, and
comprising a front edge (front edge portion of 132’ Figure 21) extending toward the front end and outward from the base (front portion of partition 132; Figure 21; extends upwardly (outwards) from the bottom base towards the front end)
and a top edge (top edge of 132) extending above a height of the products (product placed in 28 can be of smaller size than the partition height), such that the partition is configured to prevent a user from reaching the products on both the first glider and the second glider at the same time with a single hand (hand movement is restricted by partition), and
a pushing mechanism (134; Figure 22) disposed on the base (base of product track 112), configured to push the products from the back end to the front end (see Figure 22).
Hay does not specifically disclose wherein the pushing mechanism is adjustable between a locked condition, whereby the pushing mechanism inhibits a movement of the products from the front end to the back end, and a released condition, whereby the pushing mechanism allows a movement of the products from the front end to the back end.
Kakiuchi discloses a vending machine (1; Figure 2) wherein the pushing mechanism (13d; Figure 3) is adjustable between a locked condition (as shown in Figure 3), whereby the pushing mechanism (13d; Figure 3) inhibits a movement of the products from the front end to the back end (13f in the locked position), and a released condition (13f in the disengaged position), whereby the pushing mechanism allows a movement of the products from the front end to the back end 9 (the pusher 13d is incorporated so as to be movable within a range of an operation stroke S set between stroke ends A and B set at front and rear positions in the column case 6a. When replenishing, after removing the claws 13f from the ratchet teeth 13g, the pusher 13d is manually moved back to the position of the rear stroke end A).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hay to include wherein the pushing mechanism is adjustable between a locked condition, whereby the pushing mechanism inhibits a movement of the products from the front end to the back end, and a released condition, whereby the pushing mechanism allows a movement of the products from the front end to the back end as taught by Kakiuchi because a user would be prevented to be able to replace a used product with a new product from the dispenser thus reducing unauthorized release of product without purchase.
Regarding claim 13, see structure as recited in claims 1, 2 and 8 cited above.
Referring to claims 8 and 16. Hay discloses a cooler (refrigerator; 10; Figure 1) for storing and dispensing products, the cooler
further comprising a camera disposed in the interior of the housing, camera configured to record a side image of the products traveling through the open access (A camera may be disposed above each tray of each bay, so as to collect images of the customer's hand while removing items from the tray. A camera disposed above each tray of the bay may also be used as part of the sensor system, wherein an image recognition system detects the presence or removal of an item from the tray by comparing photographic images; Col. 4 line 32-38), wherein the partition (132) is configured to prevent the user from removing products from both the first glider and the second glider at the same time (the side partitions 132 prevent removal of product from both the first and second gliders; to some degree; see Figure 21) where one product obscures another product in the side image (see Figure 21).
Referring to claims 9 and 17. Hay in view of Kakiuchi do not specifically wherein the partition is integral to the glider.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hay in view of Kakiuchi to include wherein the partition is integral to the glider, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin V Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Referring to claim 12. Hay discloses a cooler (refrigerator; 10; Figure 1) for storing and dispensing products, the cooler comprising:
further comprising a second shelf disposed above the first shelf, wherein a distance between a top edge of the pushing mechanism and the second shelf is less than a width of the products (see space between second shelf to bottom shelf and the third shelf to the bottom shelf).
Claims 3-7,14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay (US 9,536,236) in view of Kakiuchi (JP H11154268 A) and further in view of Camello (US 9,615,675).
Referring to claim 3. Hay in view of Kakiuchi do not specifically disclose wherein
wherein the first glider and the second glider each comprises a front bar across the first sidewall and the second sidewall at the front end, the front bar configured to inhibit the products from leaving the glider at the front end, and wherein the partition comprises a flange parallel to and above the front bar, the flange is configured to inhibit the products from pivoting about the front bar.
Camello discloses a vending machine display shelf (2000; Figure 7) wherein the first glider (2000; Figure 7 and 8) and the second glider (200; Figure 7 and 8) each comprises a front bar (2340; Figure 7) across the first sidewall (2320a) and the second sidewall (2320b) at the front end, the front bar (2340; Figure 7) configured to inhibit the products from leaving the glider at the front end (see Figure 7), and wherein the partition comprises a flange (140; Figure 1) parallel to and above the front bar (160 as seen in Figure 1 or 2340; Figure 7), the flange (140; Figure 1) is configured to inhibit the products from pivoting about the front bar (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hay in view of Kakiuchi to include the first glider and the second glider each comprises a front bar across the first sidewall and the second sidewall at the front end, the front bar configured to inhibit the products from leaving the glider at the front end, and wherein the partition comprises a flange parallel to and above the front bar, the flange is configured to inhibit the products from pivoting about the front bar as taught by Camello because a user would be prevented from displacing products between the consecutive gliders.
Referring to claim 4. Camello discloses a vending machine display shelf (2000; Figure 7) wherein the first glider (2000; Figure 7 and 8) and the second glider second glider (200; Figure 7 and 8) each comprises a front bar (2340; Figure 7) across the first sidewall and the second sidewall at the front end (see Figure 7), the front bar (2340; Figure 7) configured to inhibit the products from leaving the glider at the front end, and wherein the partition comprises a front bar cover (130; Figure 1) configured to be fitly coupled onto the front bar (see Figure 1).
Referring to claims 5 and 14. Camello discloses a vending machine display shelf (2000; Figure 7) wherein each of the first glider (2000; Figure 7 and 8) and the second glider (2000; Figure 7 and 8) further comprises a second partition disposed on the other one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see projections extending from bottom of 2320b towards the center; Figure 7).
Referring to claim 6. Camello discloses a vending machine display shelf (2000; Figure 7) wherein the first partition (partition of the first glider; Figure 8,9) and the second partition (partition of the second glider; Figure 8,9) each comprise a connecting element ((rectangular type projections as shown in Figure 8 extending from the right side of the rail body track 2000 for connecting a second rail) configured to attach the first partition with the second partition (see configuration in Figure 8 of attached gliders).
Referring to claims 7 and 15. Camello discloses a vending machine display shelf (2000; Figure 7) wherein each of the first glider (2000; Figure 7 and 8) and the second glider (2000; Figure 7 and 8) further comprises a beam member (130) disposed across the first partition (140 left; Figure 1) and the second partition (140 left; Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See modified rejections above.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings and the specifications are acknowledged and are entered.
Regarding claim 1, applicant amended the claim by partially incorporating the subject of claim 2 into the claim 1. However, limitations “beyond the base” and “beyond a height” are not included in claim 1. Thus, the limitations of claim 1 are rejected in view of Hay (US 9,536,236) in view of Kakiuchi (JP H11154268 A).
It is subjected the Applicant include additional structure of the embodiment for favorable consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights