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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 (Group I) in the reply filed on 18 August 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dresser, et al. (“Dresser”) (U.S. Pub. 2023/0141811) in view of Carle, et al. (“Carle”) (U.S. Pub. 2006/0238332).
Regarding claim 1, Dresser discloses an automated beverage dispenser (10) having a cup dispensing station (24), within a housing (12, 14, 16, 18), including a plurality of cups (36) positioned in a nested stack within dispensing assemblies (50). Dresser also discloses a driver (electric motor 72) controlled by the dispenser controller (¶ [0042]) to rotate cam assemblies (60) to singulate and dispense individual cups from the stack (¶ [0040]). A rotation sensor (76) detects whether motor (72) has responded to a signal to operate and dispense the cup. (¶ [0042])
Dresser does not teach receiving a predefined threshold regarding an operating parameter of motor (72), determining that a value of the operating parameter exceeds the threshold and ceasing operation of the driver in response thereto.
Carle teaches using one or more processing circuits (CPU 96) with memory (98) coupled to a CPU for storing program instructions, programmable data, computation routines, and so forth carried out by the CPU. The memory may also store collected data from sensors that is to be transmitted to other modules or to remote data collection equipment (¶ [0037]). Carle further teaches monitoring operating parameters of machinery, including motors, and teaches comparing sensed operating data with alarm or alert levels (¶¶ [0003-0004, 0020, 0037], claim 4). Carle further teaches detecting when a parameter exceeds or falls outside an acceptable range defined by an alarm or alert level and provides “greater than”, “less than”, “inside range”, “outside range” and threshold settings (¶¶ [0048-0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dresser to monitor an operating parameter of motor (72) and compare the parameter with a predefined threshold, as taught by Carle, because Carle expressly teaches that motors undergo wear or degradation that should be monitored to alert personnel of the need for service or replacement in case of imminent failure (¶ [0003]), and that such monitoring permits detection of operating parameters, setting of alarms, and supporting control functions based upon the monitored conditions (¶ [0004]). It would further have been obvious to cease operation of motor (72) upon detecting the threshold-exceeding condition to protect the motor/cup dispensing mechanism from continued operation under the detected abnormal condition, consistent with Carle’s “monitoring and protection functions”. (¶ [0048])
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches generating an alert when the operating parameter exceeds the predefined threshold. Carle teaches programming alerts for unwanted conditions, including excessive temperature or speed, and conveying the alert to a remote location when comparison indicates that the alarm level has been exceeded (Carle: ¶ [0023]; claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an alert for Dresser’s motor (72) to alert service personnel of the need to service or replace equipment in case of degradation or imminent failure. (Carle: ¶ [0003])
Regarding claim 3, the combination, as modified by Carle, teaches identifying monitored conditions requiring service or replacement (¶ [0003]), and providing information to service workstations and human-machine-interface devices for use by operations personnel. Carle further teaches that the collected information may be integrated with maintenance functions (Carle: ¶¶ [0031-0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the identified fault condition to provide information for resolving the fault, since Carle expressly teaches monitoring equipment to alert service personnel of the need to service or replace degraded equipment. (Carle: ¶ [0003])
Regarding claim 4, Carle teaches CPU (96) receiving monitored data and memory (98) storing the sensed data and further teaches transmitting sensed or processed data when an event, such as exceeding an acceptable alarm range, is identified (Carle: ¶¶ [0037, 0042, 0047-0048]; Fig. 5: steps 136-142), including transmitting the data or the event remotely from the beverage dispenser (¶ [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store and transmit the fault information resulting from monitoring Dresser’s motor (72) to alert service personnel of degradation requiring service or replacement. (Carle: ¶ [0003])
Regarding claim 5, Carle teaches that monitored dynamic operating conditions include speed and temperature (Carle: ¶¶ [0004, 0020]), including speed sensor/tachometer (58) and temperature sensor (60) and teaches alerts based upon excessive temperatures and speeds (¶[0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the operating parameter monitored for Dresser’s motor (72) to comprise temperature or rotational speed.
Regarding claim 6, Dresser further teaches a beverage dispenser (32), which is operated by computer (150) to dispense a beverage into a cup at beverage dispensing location (48f). Dresser also teaches that computer (150) can hold further machine operations when sensor (154) indicates a condition preventing continued operation. In view of Carle’s teaching that detected abnormal operating conditions may support control functions (Carle: ¶ [0004]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prevent operation of beverage dispenser when the monitored fault causes motor (72) to cease operation and no cup is dispensed, thereby preventing beverage from being dispensed without a cup causing spillage.
Regarding claim 7, Dresser teaches cup carousel (26) having cup holders (38) secured to conveyor belt (40), wherein a motor (158) advances the cup holders through indexed locations (48a-48j) and a computer (150) controls operation of motor (158). Dresser further expressly teaches holding further operation of motor (158) when sensor (154) detects a condition preventing continued advancement. In view of Carle’s teaching that monitoring abnormal conditions may be used to support control functions (Carle: ¶ [0004]) it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly cease operation of motor (158) when the fault of the cup dispensing motor (72) prevents a cup from being dispensed, thereby preventing the empty cup location from advancing through the beverage dispensing process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights