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 § 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.
Claims 9, 11 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 9 recites “a spar gear”. The Examiner does not comprehend what a spar gear is.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "wherein the outside rod”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1,6,13,17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 10,689,240).
Claim 1, Schultz discloses a device for dispensing a container onto a platform in an interactive bartender kiosk that prepares a beverage, comprising: a magazine (50,58) having a plurality of sleeves (52), each sleeve (52) configured to hold a plurality of containers (fig.2), each sleeve (52) in the plurality of sleeves secured to the magazine (50) with a rod (fig.3; rod above 57); and a splitter (60) comprising at least one left finger (fig.4) and at least one right finger, the splitter (60) configured to dispense the container onto a platform (38) on a linear conveyor (40).
Although Schultz does not disclose a plurality of rods, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement a plurality of rods since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Furthermore, although Schultz does not disclose a splitter comprising at least one upper finger and at least one lower finger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it merely requires rearranging the left and right fingers of the grabber arm (60) such that either one can be slightly higher or lower than the other. Note that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 6, Schultz discloses a computing device (computing device that controls the device; fig.22) configured to receive a selection of the beverage from a customer, to retrieve a recipe for the beverage, and to control the linear conveyor (40) based on the recipe (fig.22).
Claim 13, Schultz discloses wherein the magazine (50) may be rotated manually (motor 58 manually rotates 50) to move to a next sleeve (52) in the plurality of sleeves during a loading process.
Claim 17, Schultz discloses wherein the beverage is an alcoholic cocktail and the liquid contains alcohol. Claim 17 fails to further structurally limit the apparatus claim and only further limit the material handled by the apparatus and therefore does not determine patentability (see at least MPEP 2114,2115).
Claim 18, Schultz discloses wherein the platform (38) further comprises a physical barrier (42) that holds the container in place.
Claim 20, Schultz discloses wherein the magazine (50,58) comprises more than five sleeves in the plurality of sleeves (52), each sleeve comprising a plurality of containers.
Although Schultz does not disclose wherein the magazine (50,58) comprises five sleeves in the plurality of sleeves, each sleeve comprising forty containers, it would have been very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement any number of sleeves which comprise any number of containers since it merely requires routine skill to implement such configuration based on the desired need and/or preference for the dispenser.
Claims 3-5,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 10,689,240) in view of Goulet et al. (US 6,053,359).
Claim 3, Schultz discloses a motor (58) configure to rotate the magazine (50) to a next sleeve in the plurality of sleeves (52).
Schultz does not disclose a sensor configured to determine that a last container in the plurality of containers for a particular sleeve in the plurality of sleeves is empty; and a motor configure to rotate the magazine to a next sleeve in the plurality of sleeves when the sensor determines that the particular sleeve is empty.
Goulet discloses a sensor (136) configured to determine that a last container in the plurality of containers for a particular sleeve (40) in the plurality of sleeves is empty (40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Schultz with wherein a sensor configured to determine that a last container in the plurality of containers for a particular sleeve in the plurality of sleeves is empty; and a motor configure to rotate the magazine to a next sleeve in the plurality of sleeves when the sensor determines that the particular sleeve is empty to enable the dispenser to automatically determine an indication of an empty cup supply tube, thus improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the beverage dispenser.
Claim 4, Schultz discloses wherein the magazine (50) sits on at least one mandrel (57) that allows the magazine to rotate.
Although Schultz does not disclose wherein the magazine sits on at least one bearing, it would have been very obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to implement any number of configurations that allows the magazine to rotate.
Claim 5, Schultz does not disclose wherein the sensor is an optic sensor that detects whether a next container rests on the at least one lower finger.
Goulet discloses wherein the sensor (136) is a proximity sensor detects whether a next container rests on the at least one finger (70,72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Schultz with wherein the sensor is an optic sensor that detects whether a next container rests on the at least one finger to enable the dispenser to automatically determine an indication of an empty cup supply tube, thus improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the beverage dispenser and the use of an optic sensor does not impart novelty on the claim limitation.
Although Schultz does not disclose at least one lower finger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it merely requires rearranging the left and right fingers of the grabber arm (60) such that either one can be slightly higher or lower than the other.
Claim 9, Schultz discloses wherein an actuator causes the left and right fingers to open (fig.4; left and right fingers of 60 inherently open and close via an actuator).
Although Schultz does not disclose an upper finger and at least one lower finger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement such a configuration since it merely requires rearranging the left and right fingers of the grabber arm (60) such that either one can be slightly higher or lower than the other.
Schultz does not explicitly disclose wherein a motor causes a spar gear to open the top-level finger along a linear guide.
Goulet discloses wherein a piston assembly motor (80) cause to open the left and right finger (figs.6-9) along a linear guide (112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Schultz with wherein a piston assembly motor cause to open the left and right finger along a linear guide because it’s a very well-known configuration in the art of actuating movable arms. Furthermore, although Goulet does not disclose a spar gear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any number of arbitrary means to cause the fingers of the splitter to be actuated.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 10,689,240) in view of Goulet et al. (US 6,053,359) in view of Schackmuth et al. (US 2003/0205147).
Claim 7, Schultz does not disclose the sensor further configured to: determine that each sleeve in the plurality of sleeves is empty; and cause the computing device to generate an alert indicating to a technician that the device needs to be reloaded.
Goulet discloses the sensor (136) further configured to: determine that each sleeve (40) in the plurality of sleeves is empty. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Schultz with the sensor further configured to: determine that each sleeve in the plurality of sleeves is empty to enable the dispenser to automatically determine an indication of an empty cup supply tube, thus improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the beverage dispenser.
Schackmuth discloses cause the computing device to generate an alert indicating to a technician that the device needs to be reloaded (para.0353). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Schultz with cause the computing device to generate an alert indicating to a technician that the device needs to be reloaded in order to have an automated system that alerts operators that articles critical to the functioning of the dispensing device has to be reloaded quickly.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 10,689,240) in view of Cimatti et al. (US 2020/0122994).
Claim 15, Schultz discloses wherein the linear conveyor (40) moves the platform horizontally to an ice dispenser (182; fig.1; figs.21-23), a garnish dispenser, and a liquid dispenser (183; fig.1; figs.21-23).
Schultz does not disclose wherein the linear conveyor (40) moves the platform horizontally to a garnish dispenser.
Cimatti discloses beverage dispensing system with a garnish dispenser (para.0168). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Schultz with wherein the linear conveyor moves the platform horizontally to a garnish dispenser because the such a configuration is very well-known in the beverage dispensing art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (US 10,689,240) in view of Angus et al. (US 9,227,830).
Claim 16, Schultz does not disclose wherein the platform (38) comprises a scale to detect a weight of contents of the platform.
Angus discloses wherein the platform (130) comprises a scale (335) to detect a weight of contents of the platform. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Schultz with wherein the platform (38) comprises a scale to detect a weight of contents of the platform in order to minimize excessive waste and/or over-filling the cup with the dispensed beverage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,8,10,12,14,19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI T OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/AYODEJI T OJOFEITIMI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651