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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 filed November 1, 2024 are pending.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory 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).
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-10 of U.S. Patent 12,134,551. In fact, the ‘551 patent is more detailed and more specific and encompasses almost all of the elements of the broader, current ‘214 application as seen below.
8. This is an obviousness nonstatutory double patenting rejection because although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations from the present application and U.S. Patent 12,134,551 above are significantly similar and the claimed features seem to be identical with various obvious alternate methods. The omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. For these reasons, claims 1-10 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1 and 3-10 of U.S. Patent 12,134,551, but they are not patentably distinct.
Examiner Notes
9. Claims 1-10 are novel and unobvious over the prior art, however, there remains a double patenting rejection because of the claim amendments. The Examiner suggests filing a terminal disclaimer to obviate the double patenting rejection. The Examiner first suggests incorporating dependent claims 5 (dependent on claims 4 and 2) and 10 together into the independent claims. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
10. After further search and consideration, the most pertinent U.S. prior art was found to Springer (US 2014/0332113), Alpmen et al (US 2021/0139309), Segers (US 2010/0170916), Hay (US 2014/0316916), Wing et al (US 2017/0088410), and Gold et al (US 2017/0174496). Springer (US 2014/0332113) is directed to fluid transfer assembly and methods of fluid transfer. Alpmen et al (US 2021/0139309) is directed to a smart beer tap. Segers (US 2010/0170916) is directed to a control system for a beverage dispensing apparatus. Hay (US 2014/0316916) is directed to a computer-controlled, unattended, automated checkout store outlet. Gold et al (US 2017/0174496) is directed to a beverage tap handle system with an embedded display screen. Wing et al (US 2017/0088410) is directed to beverage dispensing. Meanwhile, Ahrend et al (Challenges of the digital transformation: The role of sensors, sensor networks, IoT-devices, and 5G: Invited Paper, NPL) was found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art, and is directed to enhancing security in financial transactions.
11. However, both the most pertinent U.S. prior art and NPL fail to disclose all of the limitations particularly:
one or more programs of an embedded system of a beverage dispensing system configured to run at least in part from a primary memory of a central module of the embedded system and a primary memory of a valve-controlling module of a plurality of valve-controlling modules of the embedded system, the one or more programs including at least a payment processing program of the central module and a valve-controlling program of the valve-controlling module;
an application stack configured to run at least in part from a primary memory of at least one server host of a backend system, the application stack including a web server, an application server configured to serve the mobile web application, a database server, and a database.
12. No prior art cited here or in any previous Office Action neither fully anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter present in the independent claims, either alone or in combination. The limitations lacking in the prior art, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed in the application, are novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ahrend et al (Challenges of the digital transformation: The role of sensors, sensor networks, IoT-devices, and 5G: Invited Paper, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
15. 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.
16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
17. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights