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)(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) 1-6, 9-10, 12-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BAILEY (USPGPUB 2020/0211333).
Regarding claim 1, BAILEY discloses a system, comprising:
a product dispensing device for dispensing one or more products (see paragraph [0019]), wherein the product dispensing device includes an interactive terminal (202) configured to:
display details associated with the one or more products (see paragraph [0026]); and
receive a selection of a product of the one or more products (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026]); and
a computing device (600) communicatively connected to the product dispensing device and configured to:
detect a customer approaching the product dispensing device (see paragraph [0055]);
adjust, prior to the selection of the product, a height of the interactive terminal to align with an approximate height of the customer (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]); and
process, while the interactive terminal is at the adjusted height, a transaction based on the selection of the product to cause the product dispensing device to dispense the product (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 2, BAILEY discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to process the transaction includes to:
transmit a signal from the computing device to the product dispensing device (see paragraph [0019]); and
initiate, by the product dispensing device, dispensing the selection of the product (see paragraphs [0019] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, BAILEY discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to adjust the height of the interactive terminal includes to:
move the interactive terminal from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position is below the second position (see “lower height” along with the rest of paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, BAILEY discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to adjust the height of the interactive terminal includes to:
move the interactive terminal from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position is above the second position (see “higher height” along with the rest of paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 5, BAILEY discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the interactive terminal is coupled to a track mechanism and the track mechanism allows for vertical adjustments of the interactive terminal (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, BAILEY discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to:
transmit a confirmation of the transaction to a mobile device associated with the customer (see paragraphs [0019] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 9, BAILEY discloses a method, comprising:
detecting a customer approaching a product dispensing device for dispensing one or more products (see paragraph [0055]);
adjusting, in response to detecting the customer approaching, a height of an interactive terminal attached to the product dispending device, to an approximate height of the customer (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]);
receiving, from the interactive terminal, a selection of a product of the one or more products (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026]);
processing the selection of the product as a transaction (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]); and
dispensing the product (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 10, BAILEY discloses the method of claim 9, comprising:
transmitting a confirmation of the transaction to a mobile device associated with the customer (see paragraphs [0019] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 12, BAILEY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein adjusting the height of the interactive terminal comprises:
changing a position of the interactive terminal from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position is below the second position (see “lower height” along with the rest of paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, BAILEY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein adjusting the height of the interactive terminal comprises:
changing a position of the interactive terminal from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position is above the second position (see “higher height” along with the rest of paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 14, BAILEY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein processing the selection of the product as a transaction comprises:
transmitting a signal to the product dispensing device, wherein the signal causes the product dispensing device to initiate dispensing the product (see paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, BAILEY discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a memory subsystem (see Figure 6); and
one or more processors (see Figure 6) configured to execute instructions stored in the memory subsystem to:
transmit, in response to a determination that a customer is approaching a product dispensing device, a first signal to the product dispensing device to cause the product dispensing device to adjust a height of an interactive terminal to align with an approximate height of the customer (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]), wherein the interactive terminal is communicatively connected to the product dispensing device and the product dispensing device dispenses one or more products (see paragraphs [0019], [0025], and [0026]);
receive, from the interactive terminal, a selection of a product from the one or more products (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026]); and
transmit a second signal to the product dispensing device, in response to a completion of a transaction, causing the product dispensing device to dispense the product (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 17, BAILEY discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions to:
transmit a confirmation of the transaction to a mobile device associated with the customer (see paragraphs [0019] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 18, BAILEY discloses the apparatus of claim 15, comprising:
one or more sensors (214), wherein to determine that the customer is approaching the product dispensing device includes instructions to:
receive data from the one or more sensors indicating a presence and a directionality of the customer (see paragraph [0056]); and
determining, based on the presence and the directionality of the customer, that the customer is approaching the product dispensing device (see paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, BAILEY discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is a camera (see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 20, BAILEY discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the first signal includes an approximate height of the customer (see paragraph [0055]).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAILEY (USPGPUB 2020/0211333) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Long, II (USPGPUB 2017/0293983).
Regarding claim 7, BAILEY discloses the system of claim 1. However, he does not disclose a system wherein the product dispensing device is a coffee dispensing device and the one or more products are one or more coffee products that are prepared by the product dispensing device. Long, II discloses a system wherein the product dispensing device is a coffee dispensing device and the one or more products are one or more coffee products that are prepared by the product dispensing device (see paragraphs [0102]-[0103]). 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 BAILEY by including a system wherein the product dispensing device is a coffee dispensing device and the one or more products are one or more coffee products that are prepared by the product dispensing device, as disclosed by Long, II, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a consumer with a hot cup of coffee at a height adjustable drive-thru (see paragraphs [0102]-[0103]).
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAILEY (USPGPUB 2020/0211333) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Widmaier (USPGPUB 2021/0049575).
Regarding claim 8, BAILEY discloses the system of claim 1. However, he does not disclose a system wherein the computing device includes a product scanning device and is further configured to:
scan, using the product scanning device, a second product that is separate from the one or more products; and
include the second product in the transaction.
Widmaier discloses a system wherein the computing device includes a product scanning device (see “self-checkout terminal” in paragraph [0102]) and is further configured to:
scan, using the product scanning device, a second product that is separate from the one or more products (see paragraph [0102]); and
include the second product in the transaction (see paragraph [0102]).
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 BAILEY by including a system wherein the computing device includes a product scanning device and is further configured to: scan, using the product scanning device, a second product that is separate from the one or more products; and include the second product in the transaction, as disclosed by Widmaier, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a list of products to be purchased so that payment information can be determined (see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, BAILEY discloses the method of claim 9. However, he does not disclose a method comprising:
adding, using a product scanning device, a second product to the transaction, wherein the second product is separate from the one or more products.
Widmaier disclose a method comprising:
adding, using a product scanning device (see “self-checkout terminal” in paragraph [0102]), a second product to the transaction, wherein the second product is separate from the one or more products (see paragraph [0102]).
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 BAILEY by including a method comprising: adding, using a product scanning device, a second product to the transaction, wherein the second product is separate from the one or more products, as disclosed by Widmaier, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a list of products to be purchased so that payment information can be determined (see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 16, BAILEY discloses the apparatus of claim 15. However, he does not disclose an apparatus comprising:
a product scanning device, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions to:
scan, using the product scanning device, a second product that is separate from the one or more products; and
include the second product in the transaction.
Widmaier disclose an apparatus comprising:
a product scanning device (see “self-checkout terminal” in paragraph [0102]), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions to:
scan, using the product scanning device, a second product that is separate from the one or more products (see paragraph [0102]); and
include the second product in the transaction (see paragraph [0102]).
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 apparatus disclosed by BAILEY by including an apparatus comprising: a product scanning device, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions to: scan, using the product scanning device, a second product that is separate from the one or more products; and include the second product in the transaction, as disclosed by Widmaier, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a list of products to be purchased so that payment information can be determined (see paragraph [0102]).
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.
6/1/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights