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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/7/2023, 3/5/2024, 8/5/2024 and 3/11/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujitsu (JP 2008198024).
As to claim 1, Fujitsu teaches an information processing device comprising:
a lap count detector that detects a lap count which is the number of times the container has travelled around the conveyor; (abstract and para 10)
a price changer that changes a price of the food or drink on or in the container according to the lap count of the container; (abstract and para 10)
a container appearance changer that changes an appearance of the container according to the price changed according to the lap count. (abstract and para 10)
As to claim 2, Fujitsu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Fujitsu further teaches:
a supplier that supplies predetermined information to the customer when the price changed according to the lap count meets a predetermined condition. (para 10)
As to claim 4, Fujitsu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Fujitsu further teaches:
a state detector that detects a state of the container and a state of the food or drink on or in the container. (para 10)
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitsu (JP 2008198024) in view of Chen et al. referred herein as Chen (U.S. Patent Application publication No. 2006/0011417).
As to claim 3, Fijitsu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Fijitsu does not teach:
wherein the conveyor includes a diversion path that allows the container to leave the closed loop, and the information processing device further comprises a diverter that causes the container to move to the diversion path in a case where the price on or in the container is less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Chen teaches:
wherein the conveyor includes a diversion path that allows the container to leave the closed loop, and the information processing device further comprises a diverter that causes the container to move to the diversion path in a case where the price on or in the container is less than a predetermined threshold. (para 34)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to have a conveyor with an exit path in Chen as taught by Imafuku. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Chen that doing so would help divert food to the correct area based on circulation time limits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628