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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leoni (6607013).
Regarding claim 1, Leoni discloses a device for preparing a beverage, comprising: a platform (50); a cup dispenser (18) configured to place a container for the beverage onto the platform; an ice dispenser (16) configured to dispense ice for the beverage into the container; a garnish dispenser (17) configured to dispense a garnish for the beverage into the container; a liquid dispenser (12, 13, 24, 32, 33, 34) configured to dispense liquid for the beverage into the container; and a conveyor (21) configured to move the platform to the cup dispenser to receive the container, the ice dispenser for the container to receive the ice, the garnish dispenser for the container to receive the garnish, and the liquid dispenser for the container to receive the liquid (col. 2, lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 2, the conveyor is configured to move the platform horizontally and the cup dispenser, the ice dispenser, the garnish dispenser, and the liquid dispenser are arranged horizontally and aligned along the conveyor (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, the conveyor is configured to move the platform to a first location below the cup dispenser when the cup is dispensed (Fig. 2), to a second location below the ice dispenser when the ice is dispensed (Fig. 2), to a third location below the garnish dispenser when the garnish is dispensed (Fig. 2), and to a fourth location below the liquid dispenser when the liquid is dispensed (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the first location is positioned such that the container drops vertically to the platform from the cup dispenser (Fig. 2), the second location is positioned such that the ice drops vertically to the container from the ice dispenser (Fig. 2), the third location is positioned such that the garnish drops vertically to the container from the garnish dispenser (Fig. 2), and to a fourth location such that the liquid falls vertically from the liquid dispenser when the liquid is dispensed (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Leoni does not explicitly disclose the conveyor moves the platform in sequence to the first, second, third and fourth locations to assemble the beverage. However, the device is clearly arranged such that the conveyor is capable of moving the platform in sequence to the first, second, third and fourth locations to assemble the beverage (Fig. 2). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the device further comprising a computing device (20, 11) configured to receive a selection of the beverage from the customer, to retrieve a recipe for the beverage, and to control the conveyor based on the recipe.
Regarding claim 15, liquid dispenser dispenses a plurality of different types of liquid ingredients (13, 33).
Regarding claim 18, the beverage is a cocktail and the liquid contains alcohol (col. 1, lines 5-7).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni in view of Oberg (2995158) and Goulet et al. (6053359).
Regarding claim 6, the conveyor comprises: a belt (21) to drive the platform.
Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the conveyor comprises: a rail to hold the platform such that the platform slides along the rail; and a motor to drive the belt.
Regarding the rail, attention is directed to the Oberg reference, which discloses a conveyor comprises: a rail (60) to hold a platform (22) such that the platform slides along the rail.
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 Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Oberg reference by including rails for the purpose of guiding the platforms.
Regarding the motor, attention is directed to the Goulet reference, which discloses a motor to drive a belt (col. 2, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Goulet reference by employing a motor because it is a well-known mechanism for operating a conveyor belt.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni in view of Degnan et al. (20220267135).
Regarding claim 8, Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the platform comprises a scale to detect a weight of contents of the platform. Attention, however, is directed to the Degnan reference, which discloses a platform (125) comprises a scale to detect a weight of contents of the platform (par. 0087).
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 Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Degnan reference by employing a scale for the purpose of measuring the amount of ice dispensed.
Regarding claim 9, the ice dispenser is configured to dispense ice based on data collected from the scale (par. 0087 of Degnan).
Regarding claim 10, the liquid dispenser is configured to dispense liquid based on data collected from the scale (par. 0092 of Degnan).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni in view of Degnan et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bertone (20100242497).
Regarding claim 11, Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the ice dispenser comprises an insulated cabinet for holding the ice that is not actively cooled. Attention, however, is directed to the Bertone reference, which discloses an ice dispenser comprises an insulated cabinet for holding ice that is not actively cooled (par. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Bertone reference by employing an insulated cabinet for the purpose of storing a sufficient quantity of ice.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni in view of Degnan et al. and Bertone as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Goulet et al. (6053359).
Regarding claim 12, Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the ice dispenser further comprises a wheel configured to turn to capture the ice from the insulated cabinet and dispense the captured ice; and a motor configured to drive the wheel. Attention, however, is directed to the Goulet reference, which discloses an ice dispenser further comprises a wheel (54) configured to turn to capture the ice from a cabinet and dispense the captured ice; and a motor (60) configured to drive the wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Goulet reference by employing a wheel and motor because it is a well-known mechanism for supplying ice.
Regarding claim 13, the ice dispenser further comprises an arm (58 of Goulet) to agitate ice in the insulated cabinet wherein the motor is further configured to drive the arm (col. 5, lines 10-15 of Goulet).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni in view of Park (20180187970).
Regarding claim 14, Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the garnish dispenser comprises an insulated cabinet to contain garnishes to be dispensed and a refrigeration unit to cool the insulated cabinet. Attention, however, is directed to the Park reference, which discloses an insulated cabinet (1) and a refrigeration unit (50) to cool the insulated cabinet.
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 Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Park reference by employing an insulated cabinet and refrigeration unit for the purpose of maintaining the ingredients at a cool temperature.
Regarding claim 16, the device further comprising: a first plurality of containers (13), each containing a non-refrigerated liquid ingredient from the plurality of different types of liquid ingredients; a second plurality (33) of containers.
Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose each second plurality of containers containing a refrigerated liquid ingredient from the plurality of different types of liquid ingredients; an insulated cabinet to contain the second plurality containers; and a refrigeration unit to cool the insulated cabinet. Attention, however, is directed to the Park reference, which discloses an insulated cabinet (1) and a refrigeration unit (50) to cool the insulated cabinet.
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 Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Park reference by employing an insulated cabinet and refrigeration unit for the purpose of maintaining the ingredients at a cool temperature.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni in view of Park as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Guy et al. (20160297666).
Regarding claim 17, Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the device further comprising a plurality of scales, each configured to measure contents of the first plurality of containers and the second plurality of containers. Attention, however, is directed to the Guy reference, which discloses a plurality of scales, each configured to measure contents of a plurality of containers (par. 0144).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Guy reference by employing scales for the purpose of measuring the amount of ingredients remaining (par. 0144 of Guy).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni in view of Oberg.
Regarding claim 19, Leoni DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the platform further comprises a physical barrier that holds the container in place. Attention, however, is directed to the Oberg reference, which discloses a platform (22) comprises a physical barrier (64) that holds a container in place.
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 Leoni reference in view of the teachings of the Oberg reference by including a physical barrier for the purpose of limiting movement of the cup while it’s on the platform.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leoni.
Regarding claim 20, Leoni does not explicitly disclose the conveyor is positioned between two and four feet above a ground level. However, in Fig. 1 Leoni shows that the conveyor is positioned at a height that is suitable for allowing users to access a cup supported by the conveyor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the conveyor between two and four feet above the ground, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754