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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 describes a first slide rail set and a second slide rail set. Claim 5 does not describe the purpose of the rails, one being to allow an entire empty column to be pushed so as to align a column with products with a dispensing wheel, and the other, what appears to allow for refilling of an entire column when it is removed from the device. Such features are important to understanding of the invention, and without would make the claim unclear as to how to operate for one of ordinary skill in the art. (see page 9 line 25 to page 10 line 21 of Applicant’s specification).
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) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deaton et al. (US 2021/0043024 A1 – hereinafter Deaton) in view of Arthur J. Zito, JR (US 2022/0020240 A1 – hereinafter Zito).
Re Claims 1 and 3:
Deaton discloses a tableware vending machine, comprising: a machine body (20) comprising a frame (68) and a shell (22) wrapped around an outer side of said frame (68) (see Figs. 1-5), said shell (22) comprising an outlet (34); a carrying mechanism (62, 64 and 26 as seen in Fig. 8) disposed on said frame (68) and corresponding to said outlet (34) (see Figs. 4-6); an electronic control mechanism (180); at least one driving mechanism (60, 120) disposed on said carrying mechanism (62, 64 and 26 as seen in Fig. 8) and electrically connected to said electronic control mechanism (180) (see paragraphs [0017 and 0025]); and at least one tableware storage mechanism (52) disposed on said driving mechanism (60, 120) (see Figs. 4-8), but fails to teach an electronic control mechanism disposed on one side of said shell and adjacent to said outlet.
Zito teaches an electronic control mechanism (300) disposed on one side of a shell (outer wall) and adjacent to an outlet (810) see paragraph [0033]) (see Figs. 1-7). Re Claim 3: Zito teaches wherein said electronic control mechanism comprises a human-machine interface (“graphical display”), a billing module (900) and an electronic control module (“processor”), said human- machine interface (“graphical display”), said billing module (900) and a driving mechanism (508) being electrically connected to said electronic control module (900) (see paragraph [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing sate of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Deaton with that of Zito, to allow for control of a vending machine for selection purposes, as known within the art.
Re Claim 2:
Deaton discloses wherein said carrying mechanism (62, 64 and 26 as seen in Fig. 8) comprises a base (62, 64, 66, at 54) and a tableware slide way (at 26, at 170, at 172) (see Figs. 2-4) (sliding up and down), said base (62, 64, 66, at 54) being disposed on said frame (68) (see Fig. 5), said tableware slide way (at 26, at 170, at 172) being disposed at one end of said base (62, 64, 66, at 54) and corresponding to said outlet (34) (see Fig. 6); said driving mechanism (60, 120) and said tableware storage mechanism (52) are disposed on said base (62, 64, 66, at 54) of said carrying mechanism (62, 64 and 26 as seen in Fig. 8) (see Figs. 1-8).
Re Claim 6:
Deaton discloses wherein said tableware storage mechanism (52) comprises a tableware box storage module (at 52), a plurality of tableware boxes (28a) and a fixing module (screw holes for mounting to member (60), as seen in Fig. 5), said tableware box storage module (at 52) being located on said driving mechanism (60, 120), each said tableware box (28a) being respectively arranged on said tableware box storage module (at 52) (as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the drawings), said fixing module (screw holes) being arranged between said tableware box storage module (at 52) and said driving mechanism (60, 120) (see Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deaton in view of Zito and further in view of Prescott et al. (US 5,590,809- hereinafter Prescott).
Re Claim 4:
Deaton in view of Zito discloses wherein said driving mechanism (60, 120) comprises a carrier (62 – plate member near 54 and under 120), a drive module (120), said carrier (62 – plate member near 54 and under 120) being disposed on said carrying mechanism (62, 64 and 26 as seen in Fig. 8), said drive module (120) being disposed between said carrier (62 – plate member near 54 and under 120) and said carrying mechanism (62, 64 and 26 as seen in Fig. 8), said tableware storage mechanism (52) is assembled with said carrier (62 – plate member near 54 and under 120) of said driving mechanism (60, 120), but fails to teach a detection module; said detection module being disposed at one end of said carrier and being electrically connected to said electronic control mechanism.
Prescott further in view teaches a detection module (606); said detection module (606) being disposed at one end of a carrier (at 604 – corresponding to similar carrier type of Deaton and corresponding parts of Deaton described as carrier parts) and being electrically connected to an electronic control mechanism (110) (see Figs. 6A-6B) (see col. 12 lines 27-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing sate of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Deaton in view of Zito with that of Prescott, to assure proper selection and dispensing of a vending machine, by way of alerting to a user that vending is not possible. Examiner further notes that locating the sensor at the bottom of Deaton’s device would allow for the detection module being disposed at one end of the carrier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights