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
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 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 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dibble et al. (GB 2414014 A; hereinafter Dibble).
Regarding claim 1, Dibble discloses an automated beverage dispenser comprising a computer configured to receive a beverage order; a carousel configured to hold a plurality of bottles (Page 11 lines 22-29), rotate one or more of the plurality of bottles into a dispense position, and provide one or more liquid dispense operations to a container disposed in a beverage dispenser area based on one or more bottle selection commands included in the beverage order (2; Page 5 lines 25-30; Page 3 line 15; Page 11 lines 22-29; and Page 13 lines 21-23); a plurality of actuation elements affixed to a corresponding plurality of motors (3/4), wherein each actuation element of the plurality of actuation elements actuates a different release valve of a liquid dispenser nozzle that is linked to a plurality of different liquid sources (Page 13 lines 30-36) to provide one or more additional dispense operations to the beverage dispenser area based on one or more liquid source selection commands included in the beverage order, and a smart component that controls the plurality of bottles (Page 5 lines 11-17; Page 13 lines 32-36; Page 11 lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 3, Dibble discloses a dispenser wherein the order is received via an interface of the computer or via a wireless transmission (Page 11 lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 4, Dibble discloses a dispenser wherein the one or more dispense operations and the one or more additional dispense operations are selected by the computer based on a type of beverage included in the beverage order (Page 11 lines 22-37).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dibble in view of Ratti (US 2016/0052770 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Dibble discloses the claimed invention except for rotatable servo horns, rotatable levers, or rotatable arms. Ratti teaches an interactive robotic station for beverage preparation and dispensing wherein a single degree of freedom actuation element comprises rotatable servo horns, rotatable levers, or rotatable arms (see Par. 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Dibble’s dispenser to include rotatable servo horns, rotatable levers, or rotatable arms to increase the number of functions the dispenser can provide, as taught by Ratti.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dibble in view of Borg et al. (US 6414301 B2; hereinafter Borg).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Dibble discloses the claimed invention except for an ice distributor. Borg teaches a photoelectric ice bin control system comprising an ice distributor configured to maneuver an amount of ice towards an ice chute (30) aligned with a beverage dispenser area based on a measured amount of ice sensed by an ice sensor ring comprising one or more sensors (32/34; Col 5 lines 25-29), wherein the ice sensor ring is disposed contiguous with a circumference of an inside wall of the ice chute (see Fig. 2; and Col 5 lines 38-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Dibble’s dispenser to include an ice chute in order to provide a means to chill dispensed beverages, as taught by Borg.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dibble in view of Hempy et al. (US 11247891 B1; hereinafter Hempy).
Regarding claims 6-8, Dibble discloses the claimed invention except for a liquid measuring sensor. Hempy teaches an automated liquid dispensing attachment comprising a release valve attached to one or more bottle mouths of one or more of a plurality of bottles in a dispense position to fill a reservoir with a liquid stored in a selected bottle; and a liquid measuring sensor (1208) that determines an amount of liquid in the reservoir based on a beverage order before releasing the liquid into the container (Col 4 lines 3-13), wherein the liquid measuring sensor is separate from the release valve and the reservoir, and the liquid measuring sensor confirms or denies that the required volume of liquid is present to complete the order to prevent pouring out a partial volume of liquid (Col 25 lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Dibble’s dispenser to include a liquid measuring sensor in order to ensure proper amounts to be dispensed, as taught by Hempy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose a plurality of actuation elements that each actuate a different release valve of a liquid dispenser nozzle.
-Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Dibble indeed discloses a plurality of release valves that are each independently actuated in order to dispense a particular beverage (Page 11 lines 9-14 and Page 13 lines 32-36).
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 CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through 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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights