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 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 1 Applicant argues:
“As noted in MPEP § 2131, ‘a claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.’ Verdegaal Bros. V. Union Oil Co. of California 814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir 1987). The Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 1 is novel over the prior art because the Conway reference does not expressly or inherently disclose each and every element as set forth in the claim. Specifically, Conway fails to disclose 1) a hopper including ‘a hopper identifier encoding an identification of the bulk material in the hopper,’ and 2) ‘a controller configured to receive an indication of a dispense of bulk material from the gravity feed dispenser and configured to receive the identification of the bulk material in the hopper from the hopper identifier of the hopper,’ as claimed.
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Office Action asserts that the claimed hopper identifier of the hopper is taught by one of the displays (28a, 28b) as described in ¶ [0115] of Conway. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. None of the displays (28a, 28b) of Conway are part of the hopper, as is required by independent claim 1. Paragraph [0115] of Conway discusses display screens (28a, 28b) and the type of information that can be shown thereon. However, this and the other cited portions of Conway are silent regarding a hopper identifier that is part of the hopper. Accordingly, Conway cannot be interpreted as teaching ‘a hopper identifier encoding an identification of the bulk material in the hopper,’ as claimed.”
However, element “12” was cited as the hopper and paragraphs [0074]-[0075] of the prior art disclose the element as a storage bin “to store one or more articles or items configured to be dispensed or removed from the bin”, i.e. a hopper. Figure 11 makes clear that element “28” is part of element “12”. Furthermore, paragraph [0083] of the prior art makes clear that “The gravity-fed storage bin 12 may also include a display 28 configured to provide information regarding the bulk food or other article/item stored within the storage bin”, i.e. a hopper identifier identifying the bulk material in the hopper. Paragraph [0084] of the prior art makes clear that “the display 28 may be an electronic display”, i.e. a hopper identifier encoding an identification of the bulk material in the hopper. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
Regarding independent claim 1 Applicant argues:
“With respect to the controller of amended independent claim 1, Conway does not disclose (nor is it asserted to) ‘a controller configured to receive an indication of a dispense of bulk material from the gravity feed dispenser and configured to receive the identification of the bulk material in the hopper from the hopper identifier of the hopper,’ as claimed...
However, this method for identifying the storage bin from which food items have been dispensed is fundamentally different than what is claimed. In the system of amended claim 1, the controller separately receives 1) identifying information from the hopper identifier (on the hopper) and 2) an indication that bulk product has been dispensed from the gravity feed dispenser. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is believed to be patentable over the Conway reference.”
However, paragraph [0142] of the prior art makes clear that “The controller 202 is then configured to interpret the transmission to identify which storage bin has had a bulk food item dispensed”, i.e. “an indication that bulk product has been dispensed from the gravity feed dispenser” because the hopper “12” dispenses product by way of the dispensing gate valve “70” (see paragraph [0122]). Furthermore, paragraph [0142] makes clear that the controller is configured to “print a label (e.g., a barcode or RFID tag) with the identifying information for the dispensed bulk food (e.g., the weight, cost, and/or description of the dispensed item)”, i.e. “the controller separately receives 1) identifying information from the hopper”. Additionally, the prior art discloses that element “28” provides “a countdown clock or timeout period following the dispensing of an amount of bulk food… This countdown clock may be advantageous in providing a warning to a customer to decide if any further bulk food from the specific storage bin should be dispensed prior to a printout of a label identifying the amount and/or cost of the dispensed bulk food” (see paragraph [0118]). Thus, element “28” (the cited hopper identifier) provides functionality which affects identifying of the dispensed bulk food product, i.e. “the controller separately receives 1) identifying information from the hopper identifier (on the hopper)” as claimed. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
For the foregoing reasons claims 1-13 and 15-21 stand rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Conway (USPGPUB 2020/0090114).
Regarding claim 1, Conway discloses a gravity-feed dispensing system comprising:
a hopper (12) configured to hold a bulk material for dispense, the hopper comprising a hopper identifier (28 or 28b), the hopper identifier (28 or 28b) encoding an identification of the bulk material in the hopper (see paragraph [0115]);
a gravity feed dispenser (24) comprising a valve (70) operable by an actuator assembly (26) between open and closed conditions to selectively permit bulk material to pass from the hopper into a consumer receptacle (see paragraph [0122]);
a controller (202) configured to receive an indication of a dispense of bulk material from the gravity feed dispenser (see paragraph [0142]) and configured to receive the identification of the bulk material in the hopper from the hopper identifier of the hopper (see paragraphs [0118] and [0142]); and
a retail endpoint (16) configured to receive the indication of a dispense and the identification of the bulk material in the hopper and configured produce a sale indicator (see “a label” in paragraph [0142]) from the indication of the dispense and the identification of the bulk material in the hopper (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 2, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the controller (202) determines an estimated dispense amount and an estimated dispense cost (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 4, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the retail endpoint comprises a scale (40) configured to measure a weight of the bulk material in the consumer receptacle, wherein the sale indicator comprises the weight of the bulk material (see paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 5, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the sale indicator comprises the identification of the bulk material and a sale price (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 6, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the retail endpoint (16) comprises a labeling station (see Figure 20), the labeling station (207) prints a label for the consumer receptacle with the sale indicator (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 7, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the retail endpoint (16) comprises an endpoint graphical display (211) configured to visually present the indication of the dispense, the identification of the bulk material, and the sale indicator (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 9, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the consumer receptacle (56) comprises a receptacle RFID tag (see paragraphs [0013], [0048], [0131], and [0142]).
Regarding claim 16, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 9, wherein the retail endpoint (16) is configured to write the sale indicator to the receptacle RFID tag (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 17, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 9, wherein the receptacle RFID tag is configured to be written to and the dispenser writes to the receptacle RFID tag to encode the receptacle RFID tag with the identification of the bulk material (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claim 18, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 17, wherein the retail endpoint is configured to read the receptacle RFID tag to receive the indication of a dispense and the identification of the bulk material (see paragraphs [0039], [0048], [0073], [0108], and [0131]).
Regarding claim 10, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the controller (202) references a lookup table (204) with the hopper identifier to determine identification of the bulk material in the hopper (see “identify the specific storage bin” in paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 11, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the gravity feed dispenser (24) comprises a sensor (see “an accelerometer” in paragraph [0121]) configured to detect an operational state of the valve, and the controller is communicatively connected to the sensor and the operational state of the valve is the indication of a dispense of bulk material from the hopper (see paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 12, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of hoppers (see “an inner container” in paragraph [0079] and paragraph [0111]), the plurality of hoppers comprising the hopper (see Figure 16), each hopper of the plurality of hoppers being interchangeably connectable to the gravity feed dispenser (see “interchangeable…” in paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 15, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, further comprising a retail data network (50) wherein the controller provides dispense data to the retail data network (see paragraph [0126]).
Regarding claim 20, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 14, wherein the controller further monitors a remaining inventory of the bulk material in the hopper by decrementing the nominal fixed volume from an initial hopper volume for each determined dispense cycle of the valve (see paragraphs [0126]-[0127]).
Regarding claim 21, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 5, wherein the sale indicator is provided to a mobile computing device (see paragraphs [0135] and [0146]).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway (USPGPUB 2020/0090114) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-18, 20, and 21 above, and further in view of Kingston et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0075406).
Regarding claim 3, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the identification of the bulk material in the hopper comprises a unit price (see paragraph [0083]). However, Conway does not disclose a system wherein the identification of the bulk material in the hopper comprises a material density. Kingston et al. disclose a system wherein the identification of the bulk material in the hopper comprises a material density (see paragraph [0098]). 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 Conway by including a system wherein the identification of the bulk material in the hopper comprises a material density, as disclosed by Kingston et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a density determination (see paragraph [0098]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway (USPGPUB 2020/0090114) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-18, 20, and 21 above, and further in view of Handfield et al. (USP 8,712,587).
Regarding claim 8, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 1. However, Conway does not disclose a system wherein the hopper identifier comprises a hopper RFID tag that is encoded with the identification of the bulk material within the hopper. Handfield et al. disclose a system wherein the hopper identifier comprises a hopper RFID tag that is encoded with the identification of the bulk material within the hopper (see claim 14). 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 Conway by including a system wherein the hopper identifier comprises a hopper RFID tag that is encoded with the identification of the bulk material within the hopper, as disclosed by Handfield et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a housing for storing items in bulk with an RFID tag as a means of communicating with a dispenser (see claims 12-14).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway (USPGPUB 2020/0090114) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-18, 20, and 21 above, and further in view of Wilson (USPGPUB 2001/0020198).
Regarding claim 13, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 4, further comprising a dispenser graphical display (28 or 28b) at the gravity feed dispenser (see Figures 11 and 17), wherein the controller is configured to calculate the indication of a dispense and the identification of the bulk material in the hopper (see paragraph [0042]), and the controller is configured to operate the dispenser graphical display to visually present the estimated price (see paragraph [0142]). However, they do not disclose wherein the controller is configured to calculate an estimated price using the indication of a dispense. Wilson discloses a system wherein the controller is configured to calculate an estimated price using the indication of a dispense (see paragraph [0241]). 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 Conway by including a system wherein the controller is configured to calculate an estimated price using the indication of a dispense, as disclosed by Wilson, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an estimated cost of a dispensing transaction which is displayed to a customer (see paragraph [0241]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway (USPGPUB 2020/0090114) in view of Wilson (USPGPUB 2001/0020198) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-18, 20, and 21 above, and further in view of Zosimadis et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0218730).
Regarding claim 14, Conway in view of Wilson disclose the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 13. However, Conway does not disclose a system wherein the valve is configured to dispense a nominal fixed volume of bulk material with each dispense cycle of the valve, each dispense cycle comprising an open condition and a closed condition and the controller is configured to determine an estimated dispense amount using the nominal fixed volume and a count of a number of dispense cycles of the valve. Zosimadis et al. disclose a system wherein the valve is configured to dispense a nominal fixed volume of bulk material with each dispense cycle of the valve, each dispense cycle comprising an open condition and a closed condition and the controller is configured to determine an estimated dispense amount using the nominal fixed volume and a count of a number of dispense cycles of the valve (see paragraph [0044]). 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 Conway in view of Wilson by including a system wherein the valve is configured to dispense a nominal fixed volume of bulk material with each dispense cycle of the valve, each dispense cycle comprising an open condition and a closed condition and the controller is configured to determine an estimated dispense amount using the nominal fixed volume and a count of a number of dispense cycles of the valve, as disclosed by Zosimadis et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a fixed volume per each actuation in order to count a number of valid dispenses (see paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway (USPGPUB 2020/0090114) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-18, 20, and 21 above, and further in view of Teraoka (USPGPUB 2021/0216989).
Regarding claim 19, Conway discloses the gravity-feed dispensing system of claim 9. However, Conway does not disclose a system wherein the receptacle RFID tag is encoded with an identification of a tare weight of the consumer receptacle. Teraoka disclose a system wherein the receptacle RFID tag is encoded with an identification of a tare weight of the consumer receptacle (see paragraph [0114]). 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 Conway by including a system wherein the receptacle RFID tag is encoded with an identification of a tare weight of the consumer receptacle, as disclosed by Teraoka, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a reusable container with a tare weight that is stored in an RFID tag (see paragraph [0114]).
Conclusion
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.
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.
6/18/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights