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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 6/18/2026 has been considered.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Election/Restrictions
After a restriction requirement all claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable apparatus claims for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(a).
In this case, claim 12 remains withdrawn from consideration pursuant to restriction requirement because it does not require the door position sensor to monitor the claimed contact area of the control system to actuate the lock based on whether an object is present in that contact area. Accordingly, claim 12 is not eligible for rejoinder under MPEP § 821.04(a).
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, 3-4, 8, 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) and further in view of Royal Vendors (GIII operations and service manual).
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)).
Pritchard substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose 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, Royal Vendors teaches
operate in a run mode and a setup mode (sales mode and service mode, p.9;
based on user input (pressing the Service Mode Button will put the vender into the Service Mode. Any other input (selection switch, escrow lever, credit input) will revert the vender to Sales Mode, even though the door is open, p.9, 15; The controller will automatically return to the Closed Door Mode if: 1) No response from the selection switches is received within approximately five minutes; 2) The Service Mode Button is pressed a second time; or 3) The “rtn” function is activated, pg 15.);
In the run mode purchase is permitted, (see Vend sequence, pg. 9, 47);
in the setup mode, one or more run mode provisions are received, (service mode price selection and saving using programming buttons, pg. 23, 15).
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 Royal Vendors in order to provide predictable configuration, servicing while preventing customers from changing operational settings, see pg 10.
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 claim 4, Pritchard 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, Royal Vendors teach start and stop times, door switch, see pg. 28, 42.
Regarding claims 8, Pritchard 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, Royal Vendors teaches in service mode press enter, the operator changes the price and saves and during sales mode the controller compares customer credit with the sale price before vending (see pp.7, 23, 47).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard, Wilbanks and Royal Vendors combination and further in view of Enqvist (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0094127).
Regarding claim 9-10, 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; However, Enqvist teaches he employees of a company which uses the Food on the Job™ concept receive a personal payment card in, e.g., credit card format, which gives access to refrigerators and freezers when the card is drawn in the payment terminal, [2], the consumer received access to purchase by drawing their payment card in the payment terminal 18. This is identified in a card register file and freezer/refrigerator doors are unlocked, wherein the consumer takes out the goods 22, 24 which they want to purchase and read the goods bar code with the scanner 20, [23-24].
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 Enqvist in order to avoid fraud, (Enqvist, [5]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritchard, Wilbanks and Royal Vendors combination and further in view of Breitenbach (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0172848).
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, Breitenbach teaches commands may be sent (e.g., from the POS device 590 and/or the controller 570) to the smart visi-cooler 510 to effectuate (i) locking or unlocking and/or opening or closing of the door 514, (ii) managing, setting, and/or changing energy settings of the smart visi-cooler 510 (e.g., setting temperature or humidity controls or thresholds), and/or (iii) updating or setting signage or displays such as displayed prices or promotions, [80].
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 Breitenbach in order to facilitate efficient and accurate order verification, (Breitenbach, [116]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Royal Vendors reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights