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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 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; or
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mauzerall et al. (“Mauzerall”)(US 2015/0314026).
Mauzerall (fig. 5) teaches a robotic automated dispensing system, comprising:
(re: base claim 1) a moveable dispensing cabinet (near 105);
a location tracking device configured to transmit information identifying a current location of the dispensing cabinet (para. 162-165 teaching that location of cart may be remotely monitored by “use of a global positioning system (GPS), radio-frequency identification (RFID), or other location-tracking device”); and
a drive unit (245; para. 140 teaching motor configured to drive wheel elements);
wherein the dispensing cabinet comprises one or more self-movement elements coupled to the dispensing cabinet in dynamic connection with the drive unit,
wherein in a first mode, at least one of the one or more self-movement elements is engaged to move the dispensing cabinet to a desired location via a first force provided by the drive unit (fig. 5 showing various wheel elements near 225; para. 130, 133, 134, 139-140 teaching a first/power assist mode wherein a power assist element 245 is configured to power front movement/wheel elements when activated by user as para. 140 expressly teaches that “[p]ower assist mechanism 245 may assist in the transportation of heavier loads for longer distances, on inclines and/or over uneven surfaces. Power assist mechanism 245 may drive the wheels either forward or in reverse”), and
wherein in a second mode, at least one of the one or more self-movement elements is disengaged from the drive unit to move via a second force (Id. teaching that in a non-power assist/second mode—the self-movement elements, i.e., wheels, are configured to be moved via a second force—manually);
(re: claim 2) wherein the dispensing cabinet comprises a plurality of unpowered wheels configured to move the dispensing cabinet via the second force that comprises an external force applied to the dispensing cabinet (Id.);
(re: claim 3), the at least one self-movement element comprising one of a wheel and a track (Id.);
(re: claim 6) wherein the dispensing cabinet comprises at least one of a securable drawer and a securable compartment (para. 127, 128 teaching doors for securing shelves inside; see also fig. 23, 26, 37 embodiments).
Mauzerall (fig. 5) teaches robotic delivery system, comprising:
(re: base claim 15) the robotic automated dispensing device of claim 1 (supra); and
a robotic delivery device comprising
a transport bed adapted to engage with a removable section of a dispensing cabinet (fig. 5, 11 showing platform 205 supporting removable cabinet 105 with para. 162, 208-212 teaching mobile cart as previously taught can be configured as transfer/delivery element to transport removable cabinet to various locations such as docking stations);
a drive unit (para. 140 teaching motor configured to drive wheel/movement elements);
one or more movement elements in connection with the drive unit (fig. 5 showing various wheel elements near 225; para. 140); and
a processor (fig. 11, para. 162 teaching electronic control system 290 and para. 140 teaching control for drive unit) configured to:
receive cabinet location information for the dispensing cabinet, said cabinet location information identifying a current location of the dispensing cabinet (para. 162-165 teaching controller configured to track cabinet/cart location information);
determine device location information identifying a current location of the robotic delivery device (Id.); and
activate the drive unit to move the robotic delivery device toward the dispensing cabinet, said activation based at least in part on the device location information and the device location information (fig. 30E and para. 208-212 teaching docking station configured to store and receive cabinet 105 and that mobile cart is configured to engage with docking station to transport cabinet, wherein control for drive unit of wheel/movement elements is regarded as “activated” when moving the mobile cart towards docking station to transport dispensing cabinet);
(re: claim 17) wherein a removable section of the moveable dispensing cabinet is configured to have at least one of a plurality of states comprising:
a use state indicating an identification of the automated dispensing system in which the removable section is disposed;
an in-transit state indicating an identification of the robotic delivery device that is transporting the removable section;
a refill state indicating a location of the removable section while the removable section is awaiting a refill;
a being refilled state;
a filled and awaiting checking state; and
a filled and checked state (fig. 30E and para. 210-212 teaching docking station configured to store additional containers and refill removable section, i.e., being refilled state, wherein docking station can be regarded as a stored state configured to prohibit opening of the removable station, e.g., with shut door; see also fig. 27 and para. 199 teaching use of indicators such as “CLOSED”);
(re: claim 18) wherein the removable section is configured to be stored to prohibit opening of the removable section when in the refill state (Id.);
(re: claim 19) wherein the removable section is configured to one of:
identify the person refilling the removable section when in the being refilled state (para. 162-165 teaching controller configured to show information such as contents status and operator);
(re: claim 20) wherein the removable section of the moveable dispensing
cabinet is configured to be coupled to a docking station when in the being refilled state, the docking station configured to permit access to the contents of the removable section (para. 208-212 teaching docking station capable of releasably securing to dispensing cabinet).
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 of this title, 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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauzerall further in view of Mountz (US 7,402,018) and what is well-known in the art.
Mauzerall as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 4) wherein the at least one self-movement element is moveably coupled to the dispensing cabinet, the self-movement element configured to be disposed in a first position engaged with a floor during application of the first force from the drive unit and to be disposed in a second position disengaged from the floor during application of the second force;
(re: claim 5) wherein the at least one self-movement element is releasably coupled to the drive unit and engaged with a floor, the self-movement element configured to be coupled with the drive unit during application of the first force from the drive unit and to be uncoupled from the drive unit during application of the second force;
(re: claim 16) a key configured to unlock the a removable section of the moveable dispensing cabinet for removal from the moveable dispensing cabinet.
Mountz, however, teaches that it is well-known to moveably couple a self-movement element/wheel disposed disengaged from the floor during application of a second force to allow for easier docking (fig. 5G showing wheels of cabinet disengaged from floor during docking with mobile shell; col. 12, ln. 34-50 teaching that raised configuration allows for proper docking with mobile shell).
Further, Examiner takes Official Notice that the feature of a key configured to unlock a cabinet is well-known in the mechanical arts.
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the automated handling and mechanical arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mauzerall for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. Here, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments focus on figure 7 while the prior art rejection describes figure 5. Moreover, the rejection as set forth above teaches the claimed first and second modes in question when describing a first/ power assist mode (para. 140 expressly teaches that “[p]ower assist mechanism 245 may assist in the transportation of heavier loads for longer distances, on inclines and/or over uneven surfaces. Power assist mechanism 245 may drive the wheels either forward or in reverse”) and a non-power assist/second mode, wherein the self-movement elements, i.e., wheels, are configured to be moved via a second force—manually. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-14 and 21 are allowed.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
August 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights