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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “indicator connector,” as claimed in claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zubarik (US 11767213 B2) in view of Muderlak et al. (US 8950628 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Zubarik discloses a beverage component indicator, comprising:
a body (dispenser 26) comprising a sensor (activation device 36) and a recess configured to receive a pump (internal pumping device or retrofit to existing pumping device, col. 4 l. 63 to col. 5 l. 19 and col. 5 ll. 32-50) of a corresponding container (inherent to the pumping device); and
a light (indicator 34, col. 5 ll. 33-34 describing an LED) coupled to the body (refer to fig. 2),
wherein the light is configured to light up to indicate when a component in the corresponding container is part of a beverage order (col. 7 ll. 1-36), and the sensor is configured to determine when a user dispenses an amount of the component (col. 5 ll. 20-31, wherein the sensor detects when the user actuates the dispenser, to dispense an amount) into a beverage container (col. 4 l. 65 to col. 5 l. 1 describing dispensation onto a product and col. 7 ll. 18-22 which describes a beverage). However, Zubarik remains silent to a pump head. Muderlak teaches a pump head (spout assembly 22a’’’, fig. 22). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beverage component indicator to include a pump head. The device of Zubarik allows for retrofitting to any dispenser type (Zubarik: col. 5 ll. 42-50), and the modification appears to work equally well when used with the dispenser of Muderlak.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Zubarik further discloses wherein the light is configured to indicate when to dispense the component into the beverage container (col. 7 ll. 27-31, discussing sequence based dispensing).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein the light is configured to indicate the amount of the component in the beverage order. Referring to the disclosure of Zubarik (col. 7 ll. 1-26), discusses that the indicator turns on to indicate a component is a part of the beverage order and off after the component has been added. Furthermore, the device of Zubarik is configured to allow for variable amounts of components to be added to a beverage order (col. 8 ll. 49-56). As such, one having ordinary skill in the art can reasonably infer from the disclosure of Zubarik that the duration in which the indicator light is illuminated corresponds to the amount of the component added to the beverage order. See MPEP 2144.01, discussing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Zubarik further discloses a controller (controller 50) configured to send information to the sensor and the light, and the controller is configured to receive information from the sensor and the light (col. 6 ll. 25-44 and col. 6 l. 64 to col. 7 l. 17).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Zubarik further discloses the light (col. 5 ll. 33-34) and implies the inclusion of a power source (due to the inclusion of electrical systems such as the controller and indicator light) however, remains silent to wherein the body comprises a power source, and the light is configured to indicate if a power level of the power source is below a threshold. Muderlak teaches the body comprises a power source (power source 32’’’), and the light is configured to indicate if a power level of the power source is below a threshold (col. 4 ll. 36-29, col. 4 ll. 37-39). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a power source on the body of the beverage component indicator with a light to indicate if power is below a threshold. In doing so, the device advantageously alerts a user of a low battery scenario providing an indication for recharging/insertion of a power plug for connecting the electronics to an outlet (Muderlak: col. 4 ll. 51-54).
Regarding claim 8, Zubarik discloses a system for indicating components of a beverage order, comprising: a plurality of indicators (assembly system 20, refer to fig. 2), each of the plurality of indicators comprising:
a body (dispenser 26) comprising, a communication module (starting point device 22), a sensor (activation device 36), and a recess configured to receive a pump (internal pumping device or retrofit to existing pumping device, col. 4 l. 63 to col. 5 l. 19 and col. 5 ll. 32-50) of a corresponding container (inherent to the pumping device); and
a light (indicator 34, col. 5 ll. 33-34 describing an LED) coupled to the body (refer to fig. 2),
wherein the light is configured to light up to indicate when a component in the corresponding container is part of a beverage order (col. 7 ll. 1-36), and the sensor is configured to determine when a user dispenses an amount of the component (col. 5 ll. 20-31, wherein the sensor detects when the user actuates the dispenser, to dispense an amount) into a beverage container (col. 4 l. 65 to col. 5 l. 1 describing dispensation onto a product and col. 7 ll. 18-22 which describes a beverage); and a control system (controller 50), wherein the control system is configured to transmit information to the communication module of each of the plurality of indicators, and each of the indicators are configured to light up the light of each of the indicators based on the information.
However, Zubarik remains silent to a pump head and a dock device comprising: a body comprising a control system; and a dock configured to receive the plurality of indicators.
Muderlak teaches a pump head (dispensing apparatus 10a-c’’’, fig. 22) and a dock device (fig. 22) comprising: a body (multiple compartments 28’’’) comprising a control system (drive system 30’’’ which contains processor 54); and a dock configured to receive the plurality of indicators (base portion 116’’’).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indicator to be a plurality of indicators joined via a dock system. Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beverage component indicator to include a dispensing device with a pump head. The device of Zubarik allows for retrofitting to any dispenser type (Zubarik: col. 5 ll. 42-50), and in modification the dispensing apparatus with joined beverage component indicator is capable of being housed in the docking device of Muderlak. Such combination of known elements is advantageous as the beverage component indicators with accompanying dispensing apparatuses can be organized by like components boosting efficiency of assembling an order by a user (Muderlak: fig. 23, showing like condiments organized together).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, the already modified device further teaches wherein the dock device comprises a communication module (Zubarik: col. 4 ll. 10-20, discussing an application program interface) configured to communicate with a point of sale system (Zubarik: col. 4 ll. 10-20 and col. 6 ll. 37-44).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, the already modified device further teaches wherein the communication module is configured to receive beverage orders from the point of sale system (Zubarik: col. 6 ll. 24-44 and col. 8 ll. 1-19 ).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, the already modified device further teaches wherein the dock device comprises an input device configured to receive a beverage order (Zubarik: col. 8 ll. 20-32, discussing a sensor for receiving a beverage order).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, the already modified device further teaches wherein the information is based on a beverage order (col. 8 ll. 9-15, wherein the information transferred is based on a beverage order).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zubarik (US 11767213 B2) and Muderlak et al. (US 8950628 B2), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Newman et al. (US 20090069934 A1).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified beverage component indicator further teaches wherein the light is configured to turn off (Zubarik: col. 7 ll. 1-26) when the amount of the component the user dispenses is an amount of the component in the beverage order (Zubarik: col. 5 ll. 1-4 and col. 8 ll. 47-56), however, remains silent the sensor determines the amount of the component the user dispenses.
Newman teaches the sensor (sensors 127) determines the amount of the component the user dispenses (para. 0035). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dispenser to include a sensor which determines the amount of the component the user dispenses. The device of Zubarik, which utilizes a controller to determine the amount to dispense, is capable of communicating with sensors (such as sensor 24) to determine a dispensing event. Furthermore, the pump of Muderlak is also capable of being activated via sensors (sensor 46). In combination, the addition of sensors 127, advantageously modifies the device to both determine the lack of dispensation (Newman: para. 0035, discussing the detection of fluid not flowing) as well as the amount of fluid being dispensed (Newman: para. 0035, discussing monitoring the amount or volume of liquid that is pumped).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device already teaches wherein the sensor is a capacitance sensor (Newman: para. 0035, wherein the sensors 127 are capacitance sensors).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zubarik (US 11767213 B2) and Muderlak et al. (US 8950628 B2), as applied in claim 8, further in view of Tokhtuev et al (US 7550746 B2).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, the already modified device further teaches wherein each of the indicators comprise a power source (Muderlak: power source 32, refer to fig. 22) and the dock of the dock device, however, remains silent to an indicator connector configured to supply power to the power source of each of the indicators.
Tokhtuev teaches a dock (docking station 200) comprises an indicator connector (power input 219 and power charger output 218) configured to supply power to the power source of the indicator (col. 12 ll. 49-63). However, the already modified device in view of Tokhtuev remains silent to a dock configured to supply power to the power source of each indicator. The courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) discussing (In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Thus, is would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include multiple docking stations capable of charging multiple power supplies. Applicant has appeared to have placed no criticality on a dock configured to supply power to multiple power sources of the indicators (See Applicant’s Specification: para. 0040, discussing that one or more indicator connectors may connect to one or more indicators).
Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dock to include an indicator connector configured to supply power to an indicator. In doing so, the modification advantageously allows for a device which can be removable from the dock device while still remaining functional in addition to providing a beverage indicator which can continue to work even with low battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lanigan et al. (US 10080704 B2) for the inclusion of different styles of docking stations for recharging batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754