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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the step of”, “the steps of” or “the further steps of” and it is suggested Applicant delete this and/or amend by disclosing –a-- instead of “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the step of" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the steps of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the steps of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the step of" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the step of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the step of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the step of" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the step of" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the further steps of" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the schedule" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 14, 16, 18-19, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andrews et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0063981).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews et al. disclose a system for monitoring a plurality of beverage dispensing machines, the system for use with a mobile computer, the system comprising:
(a) a plurality of monitoring devices (120,210), wherein each one of the monitoring devices is associated with a different one of the machines (see Figure 1 and paragraph [0015]), and comprises at least one sensor for generating data comprising any one or a combination of:
(i) product level data indicative of a quantity of a product available for consumption by the one of the machines (see paragraph [0019]); or
(ii) usage data indicative of a number of activations or a total elapsed activation time of the one of the machines; or
(iii) error data indicative of an error in operation of the one of the machines (see paragraph [0016]);
(b) a control computer (110,220) in communication via a communications network with the monitoring devices, and comprising: a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor to implement a method comprising the steps of:
(i) receiving the data generated by the sensors (see Figure 2); and
(ii) generating a notification based on the data generated by the sensors (see Figure 2); and
(iii) transmitting (see Figure 2) the notification to the mobile computer (150,230).
Regarding claim 2, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the method further comprises the step of making a determination of whether a quantity of the product available for consumption by one of the machines is below a pre-determined threshold level based on the consumption data, and wherein steps (ii) and (iii) of the method are conditional on making the determination (see paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the monitoring device (120) further comprises a processor configured to make a determination of whether the product level data or usage data is above or below a threshold value, and to transmit the data to the control computer conditional on making the determination (see paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the notification comprises a report comprising the product level data (see paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the notification comprises an alert for servicing one or more of the machines (see paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the method is performed repeatedly on a periodic basis (see “periodically” in paragraphs [0014] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 16, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1 wherein transmitting the notification comprises transmitting an email or a text message (see paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, Andrews et al. disclose a method for monitoring a plurality of beverage dispensing machines, the method implemented by a control computer and for use with a mobile computer, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving data from a plurality of monitoring devices (120,210) in communication via a communications network with the control computer, wherein each one of the monitoring devices is associated with a different one of the machines, and wherein the data comprises any one or a combination of:
(i) product level data indicative of a quantity of a product available for consumption by the one of the machines (see paragraph [0019]); or
(ii) usage data indicative of a number of activations or a total elapsed activation time of the one of the machines; or
(iii) error data indicative of an error in operation of the one of the machines (see paragraph [0016]);
(b) generating a notification based on the data generated by the sensors (see Figure 2); and
(c) transmitting (see Figure 2) the notification to the mobile computer (150,230).
Regarding claim 19, Andrews et al. disclose the method of claim 18 further comprising the step of making a determination of whether a quantity of the product available for consumption by one of the machines is below a pre-determined threshold level based on the consumption data, and wherein steps (ii) and (iii) of the method are conditional on making the determination (see paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 35, Andrews et al. disclose a device for monitoring a beverage dispensing machine, the device comprising:
(a) at least one sensor (120,210) for generating data comprising any one or a combination of:
(i) product level data indicative of a quantity of a product available for consumption by the machine (see paragraph [0019]); or
(ii) usage data indicative of a number of activations or a total elapsed activation time of the machine; or
(iii) error data indicative of an error in operation of the machine (see paragraph [0016]); and
(b) a communication module for transmitting the data to a communications network (see Figures 1-2).
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.
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(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0063981) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 14, 16, 18-19, and 35 above, and further in view of Gaur et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0300681).
Regarding claim 4, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the method further comprises the steps of: receiving, from the mobile computer, updated product level data; and storing the updated product level data in a database. Gaur et al. disclose a system wherein the method further comprises the steps of: receiving, from the mobile computer, updated product level data; and storing the updated product level data in a database (see paragraph [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system comprising a method wherein the method further comprises the steps of: receiving, from the mobile computer, updated product level data; and storing the updated product level data in a database, as disclosed by Gaur et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an updated inventory to the system after the refilling of the vending device by an operator (see paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the method further comprises the steps of: receiving actual product level data; and calibrating a determination of the quantity of the product available for consumption by the one of the machines based on the actual product level data (see paragraph [0015]). However, they do not disclose a method of receiving, from the mobile computer, actual product level data. Gaur et al. disclose a method of receiving, from the mobile computer, actual product level data (see paragraph [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system comprising a method of receiving, from the mobile computer, actual product level data, as disclosed by Gaur et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an updated inventory to the system after the refilling of the vending device by an operator device (see paragraph [0029]).
Claim(s) 8-13 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0063981) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 14, 16, 18-19, and 35 above, and further in view of Jan et al. (USPGPUB 2020/0019935).
Regarding claim 8, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the notification comprises a schedule for service visits to one or more of the machines. Jan et al. disclose a system wherein the notification comprises a schedule for service visits to one or more of the machines (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein the notification comprises a schedule for service visits to one or more of the machines, as disclosed by Jan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a maintenance schedule prioritized by a machine learning hardware device (see paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Andrews et al. in view of Jan disclose the system of claim 8. Furthermore, Jan et al. disclose a system wherein the method further comprises the step of calculating travel distances for the service visits based on location data for the machines, and wherein generating the schedule for service visits is further based on the calculated distances (see paragraph [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein the method further comprises the step of calculating travel distances for the service visits based on location data for the machines, and wherein generating the schedule for service visits is further based on the calculated distances, as disclosed by Jan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing location groupings to minimize traveling time in order to optimize a maintenance schedule (see paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Andrews et al. in view of Jan disclose the system of claim 8. Furthermore, Jan et al. disclose a system wherein the method further comprises the step of determining a service priority level for the machines based on the data generated by the sensors, and wherein generating the schedule for service visits is further based on the determined priority levels (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005] and [0031]-[0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein the method further comprises the step of determining a service priority level for the machines based on the data generated by the sensors, and wherein generating the schedule for service visits is further based on the determined priority levels, as disclosed by Jan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a maintenance schedule prioritized by a machine learning hardware device (see paragraph [0005]) based on a failure prediction model using retrieved sensor data (see paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Andrews et al. in view of Jan disclose the system of claim 8. Furthermore, Jan et al. disclose a system wherein the method further comprises the step of determining service times for the service visits, and the schedule for service visits comprises the service times (see paragraph [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein the method further comprises the step of determining service times for the service visits, and the schedule for service visits comprises the service times, as disclosed by Jan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing location groupings to minimize traveling time in order to optimize a maintenance schedule (see paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Andrews et al. in view of Jan disclose the system of claim 11. Furthermore, Jan et al. disclose a system wherein the method further comprises the step of determining peak usage periods for the machines based on the data generated by the sensors, and determining the service times for the service visits is based on the peak usage periods (see paragraphs [0062]-[0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein the method further comprises the step of determining peak usage periods for the machines based on the data generated by the sensors, and determining the service times for the service visits is based on the peak usage periods, as disclosed by Jan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing location groupings to prevent a service miss to a high business value device needing maintenance (see paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 13 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system wherein generating the schedule for service visits is further based on a machine learning model trained using one or a combination of location data, operational data, servicing data, or malfunction data for the machines. Jan et al. disclose a system wherein generating the schedule for service visits is further based on a machine learning model trained using one or a combination of location data, operational data, servicing data, or malfunction data for the machines (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein generating the schedule for service visits is further based on a machine learning model trained using one or a combination of location data, operational data, servicing data, or malfunction data for the machines, as disclosed by Jan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a maintenance schedule prioritized by a machine learning hardware device (see paragraph [0005]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0063981) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 14, 16, 18-19, and 35 above, and further in view of Anido et al. (USPGPUB 2020/0372456).
Regarding claim 15, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the method is performed in response to a request received from the mobile computer. Anido et al. disclose a system wherein the method is performed in response to a request received from the mobile computer (see paragraphs [0083]-[0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein the method is performed in response to a request received from the mobile computer, as disclosed by Anido et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing inventory data to a customer computing device upon request (see paragraph [0083]).
Claim(s) 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0063981) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 14, 16, 18-19, and 35 above, and further in view of Guinn (USPGPUB 2019/0272708).
Regarding claim 38, Andrews et al. disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system wherein a beverage dispensing machine further comprises:
(a) a signal generator for generating a machine reset signal to an electronic circuit of the machine to reset the machine; and
(b) a processor for receiving a reset request from a communications network, and configured to control the signal generator to generate the machine reset signal in response to receiving the reset request.
Guin disclose a system wherein a beverage dispensing machine further comprises:
(a) a signal generator for generating a machine reset signal to an electronic circuit of the machine to reset the machine (see paragraph [0097]); and
(b) a processor for receiving a reset request from a communications network, and configured to control the signal generator to generate the machine reset signal in response to receiving the reset request (see paragraph [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a system wherein a beverage dispensing machine further comprises: (a) a signal generator for generating a machine reset signal to an electronic circuit of the machine to reset the machine; and (b) a processor for receiving a reset request from a communications network, and configured to control the signal generator to generate the machine reset signal in response to receiving the reset request, as disclosed by Guinn, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a remote reset signal from a mobile device (see paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 39, Andrews et al. disclose the method of claim 18. However, they do not disclose a method comprising the further steps of:
(a) using a processor to receive a reset request from a communications network; and
(b) using the processor, in response to receiving the reset request, controlling a signal generator to generate a machine reset signal to an electronic circuit of the machine to reset the machine.
Guin disclose a method comprising the further steps of:
(a) using a processor to receive a reset request from a communications network (see paragraph [0097]); and
(b) using the processor, in response to receiving the reset request, controlling a signal generator to generate a machine reset signal to an electronic circuit of the machine to reset the machine (see paragraph [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Andrews et al. by including a method comprising the further steps of: (a) using a processor to receive a reset request from a communications network; and (b) using the processor, in response to receiving the reset request, controlling a signal generator to generate a machine reset signal to an electronic circuit of the machine to reset the machine, as disclosed by Guinn, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a remote reset signal from a mobile device (see paragraph [0097]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
12/19/2025
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655