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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 10/7/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/20/202 and 7/9/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/2026
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,849,442. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example:
Claim 1 of the present application recites:
A merchandiser for storing at least one product for purchase by a customer, the merchandiser comprising: a housing defining a cavity configured to receive the at least one product;a door coupled to the housing and movable between a first position and a second position;a lock configured to lock the door in the first position;a door position sensor coupled to at least one of the door or the housing, wherein the door position sensor is configured to monitor a contact area where the door selectively contacts the housing; anda control system coupled to the lock, the control system configured to actuate the lock to an unlocked position when the door position sensor indicates that an object is present in the contact area and to selectively actuate the lock to a locked position based on the door position sensor indicating that no object is present in the contact area.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,849,442 recites:
An ice merchandiser for storing bagged ice product for purchase, the ice merchandiser comprising: a housing defining a cavity for storing the bagged ice product; an opening defined by the housing, the opening providing access to the cavity; a door movable between a first position and a second position, wherein in the first position the door covers the opening and in the second position, the door is positioned away from the opening such that the cavity is accessible; a payment system structured to enable a customer to facilitate a bagged ice product transaction at the ice merchandiser; a door position sensor coupled to at least one of the door and the housing, the door position sensor structured to monitor a contact area where the door selectively contacts the housing; a lock configured to lock the door in the first position; and an access control system structured to selectively provide access to the ice merchandiser during the bagged ice product transaction based on the payment system providing an indication that payment for the bagged ice product has been validated, wherein based on a comparison between bagged ice product purchased and bagged ice product removed during the bagged ice product transaction, the access control system controls the lock to lock the door in the first position, and wherein the access control system is structured to lock the lock based on the door position sensor indicating that no object is present in the contact area.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0277904), in view of Wilbanks (EP Patent Publication No. 1091062).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Pritchard teaches a merchandiser for storing at least one product for purchase by a customer, the merchandiser comprising: a housing defining a cavity configured to receive the at least one product;
(an automated vending or merchandising machine includes an elevator sub-assembly which moves a dispensing bin or elevator tray vertically along the fronts of plural vertical levels of product dispensers in the vending machine, [5])
a door coupled to the housing and movable between a first position and a second position; (he customer-access door 18 (also sometimes called delivery or access door or flap 18) allows customers to reach inside machine 10 and retrieve a vended product, [63])
a lock configured to lock the door in the first position; (a sliding lock can be used to lock access or delivery door 18 from being pivoted, [81])
a door position sensor coupled to at least one of the door or the housing, (Sensors can allow the controller to monitor the state of the door, [19]),
a control system coupled to the lock, (The controller can instruct a door lock to unlock, [19])
Pritchard substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the door position sensor is configured to monitor a contact area where the door selectively contacts the housing; the control system configured to actuate the lock to an unlocked position when the door position sensor indicates that an object is present in the contact area and to selectively actuate the lock to a locked position based on the door position sensor indicating that no object is present in the contact area,
However, Wilbanks teaches providing a sensor for determining the presence of an object in the path of a door, and providing an apparatus which is selectively actuated to prevent complete closing of said door, Claim 1, When an obstruction (36) is detected, a mechanism (50,60) is actuated which prevents movement of the door to its fully latched position, abstract, doors typically include a latch mechanism which holds the door at a latched position when the door is closed. In one known mechanism, a claw pivots between a latched and unlatched position. An element on the vehicle frame drives the claw to the latched position as the door is closed into the frame, background (NOTE: preventing movement to the latched position when an obstruction is present implies that the door reaches the latches position when the obstruction is absent)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed by Pritchard to include limitations as taught by Wilbanks in order to prevent pinching or obstruction of objects when the door closes, (Wilbanks, summary)).
Regarding claim 3, Pritchard teaches the one or more run mode provisions includes an unlock time period designation configured to cause the lock to actuate to the locked position after a passage of the unlock time period designation, (delivery door can optionally remain unlocked for a pre-set time period, [8]).
Regarding claims 19, Pritchard does not explicitly teach operating a user display to provide an audible or visual message responsive to the door position sensor sensing that an object is present in a contact area between the door and the housing. However, Wilbanks teaches a signal, such as a warning light, sound, etc. may also be actuated, [11].
Claims 2, 4-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard and Wilbanks combination and further in view of Kuehnrich (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0081450).
Regarding claim 2, the combination does not explicitly teach the system is configured to operate in a plurality of modes comprising at least a run mode and a setup mode, wherein in the run mode, purchase of the at least one product is permitted, and wherein in the setup mode, one or more run mode provisions that control operation of the merchandiser in the run mode are received. However, Kuehnrich teaches mode of operation, [222].
Regarding claim 4, the combination does not explicitly teach the one or more run mode provisions includes a lock schedule designation configured to cause the control system to actuate the lock according to a predetermined schedule defined by the lock schedule designation. However, Kuehnrich teaches scheduling, [198].
Regarding claim 5, the combination does not explicitly teach a key receptacle configured to receive a key in a first orientation or a second orientation, wherein the control system operates according to the run mode in response to the key being positioned in the first orientation and the setup mode in response to the key being positioned in the second orientation. However, Kuehnrich teaches a motor 253 capable of rotating in a single direction (i.e., clockwise or counter-clockwise) is practicable, [271].
Regarding claims 6, the combination does not explicitly teach the one or more run mode provisions includes a refill alert designation configured to cause the control system to provide an alert in response to determining that less than a minimum threshold of product is within the cavity. However, Kuehnrich teaches the interface also displays a title 450 of the vendible media product, and the physical status 451 of the product, indicating for example whether the vendible media product is prevented in the inventory, has been rented or is missing, [302].
Regarding claims 7, the combination does not explicitly teach he one or more run mode provisions includes an alert delivery method designation that defines a delivery method for the alert, wherein the delivery method comprises at least one of an email or a text message. However, Kuehnrich teaches send an email receipt to a consumer, or cause a hardcopy receipt to be delivered to a consumer by mail upon request, [192].
Regarding claims 8, the combination does not explicitly teach the one or more run mode provisions includes a transaction cost determination provision that defines a transaction cost for the at least one product, the transaction cost determination based on a user defined price-per- product or price-per-weight of product. However, Kuehnrich teaches price of a product, [250].
Regarding claim 9-11, the combination does not explicitly teach an access control device comprising at least one of a card reader configured to scan a card or a FOB reader configured to communicate with a FOB; the control system is configured to actuate the lock of the door into the unlocked position in response to verifying a code provided by a user; the code is generated in response to a payment being received at a fueling station. However, Kuehnrich teaches financial card reader on the exterior of the article dispensing machine 30, provide a security identifier associated with the financial account, such as the zip code associated with the billing address of the financial account, [296].
Regarding claim 20, the combination does not explicitly teach receiving an unlock signal from a remote-control device that is disposed remote from the merchandiser and actuating the lock to the unlocked position based on receiving the unlock signal. However, Kuehnrich teaches he vending controller receives a signal from a remote control center, [59].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as disclosed by combination to include limitations as taught by Kuehnrich in order to efficient, automated stocking of inventory articles into a dispensing machine and removal of inventory articles from a dispensing machine, (Kuehnrich, [46]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627