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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1, 9-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2020/0100616 to Herbert et al. (Herbert).
Regarding claim 1, Herbert discloses an automated beverage dispensing system (10) having a front and a back and a first side opposite a second side (front, back, right and left sides, respectively; see Fig. 1), the automated beverage dispensing system further comprising: a conveyance system (18) that defines a plurality of cup locations (Fig. 9 shows the plurality of cup locations including at least locations 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48) each with a respective cup holder (each location has a cup holder as shown in Figs. 5, 6 and 9; see [0087]) and operates to sequentially move the plurality of cup locations through a circuit comprising a plurality of indexed locations (the cups are moved through the plurality of locations); a cup dispensing system (16) configured to receive a first supply of cups (cups within tube 64b) at a first dispensing assembly (70b) arranged vertically above a first indexed location (32) of the plurality of indexed locations and the cup dispensing system is configured to receive a second supply of cups (cups within tube 64a) at a second dispensing assembly (70a) arranged vertically above a second indexed location (30) of the plurality of indexed locations, the cup dispensing system operable to dispense a cup from the first supply of cups to a first cup location of the plurality of cup locations on the conveyance system at the first indexed location and operable to dispense a cup from the second supply of cups to a second cup location of the plurality of cup locations on the conveyance system at the second indexed location ([0061], [0087]).
Regarding claim 9, Herbert discloses a first dispense chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64b below dispense assembly 70b forms a dispense chimney) extending vertically below the first dispense assembly and a second dispense chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64a below dispense assembly 70a forms a dispense chimney) extending vertically below the second dispense assembly.
Regarding claim 10, Herbert discloses a first support chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64b above dispense assembly 70b forms a support chimney) extending vertically above the first dispense assembly and configured to receive the first supply of cups therein; and a second support chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64a above dispense assembly 70a forms a support chimney) extending vertically above the second dispense assembly and configured to receive the second supply of cups therein.
Regarding claim 11, Herbert discloses a first dispense chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64a below dispense assembly 70a forms a dispense chimney) extending vertically below the first dispense assembly and a second dispense chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64b below dispense assembly 70b forms a dispense chimney) extending vertically below the second dispense assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Herbert discloses the first dispense assembly comprises a first frame (frame shown in Fig. 5) comprising opposed first upper annular flange and first lower annular flange (upper and lower flange shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively), wherein the first support chimney extends from the first upper annular flange and the first dispense chimney extends from the first lower annular flange (Figs. 12 and 13), and the second dispense assembly comprises a second frame (Fig. 5) comprising opposed second upper annular flange and second lower annular flange (upper and lower flange shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively), wherein the second support chimney extends from the second upper annular flange and the second dispense chimney extends from the second lower annular flange (Figs. 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 17, Herbert discloses a beverage dispensing system (20, 22, 24) configured to dispense a beverage at a beverage dispense location of the plurality of indexed locations (34, 36, 38, 40, 42); and a computer (17) that associates an ordered beverage to a cup location of the plurality of cup locations and maintains a record of a status of the cup location and a position of the cup location relative to the plurality of indexed locations ([0055]-[0056], [0101]; see also the control algorithms of Figs. 29-33).
Regarding claim 18, Herbert discloses the second indexed location (30) of the plurality of indexed locations is offset towards the front and the first side of the automated beverage dispensing system from the first indexed location (see Fig. 9; location 30 is front and right of location 32).
Regarding claim 19, Herbert discloses a third dispensing assembly (see [0061]; in the embodiment where additional cup dispensers for additional cup sizes are provided) that coincides with a third indexed location of the plurality of indexed locations, wherein the third indexed location is offset towards the front of the automated beverage dispensing system from the second indexed location; and a fourth dispensing assembly (see [0061]; in the embodiment where additional cup dispensers for additional cup sizes are provided) that coincides with a fourth indexed location of the plurality of indexed locations, wherein the fourth indexed location is offset towards the front and the second side of the automated beverage dispenser from the third indexed location (when the four cup dispensers are arranged in a row as described regarding the first two cup dispensers, the third and fourth dispensers and respective indexed locations are offset towards the front relative to the previous location).
Regarding claim 20, Herbert discloses a user interface comprising a graphical display (display of touch screen 14), wherein at least a portion of the cup dispensing system extends toward the front of the automated beverage dispensing system past the user interface and at least a portion of the conveyance system extends towards the front of the automated beverage dispensing system past the user interface (see Fig. 1).
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 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert.
Regarding claim 13, Herbert discloses the automated beverage dispensing system of claim 1 (see above), and further discloses wherein the first dispensing assembly is positioned at a first height above the respective cup holder at the first indexed location (Fig. 3) and the second dispensing assembly is positioned at a second height above the respective cup holder at the second indexed location (Fig. 3), but does not disclose first height is different from the second height. It is unclear if the dispensing assemblies have the same height or different heights above the cup holders. However, there are only two possible options (either the heights are the same, or the heights are different). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used different heights as such a change requires only selecting one of a small number of identified, predictable solutions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cups of different sizes often have different heights and therefore heights between the dispensing assembly and cup holder need to be different.
Regarding claim 14, Herbert discloses a first dispense chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64b below dispense assembly 70b forms a dispense chimney) extending vertically below the first dispense assembly in a direction of the first indexed location and a second dispense chimney (see Figs. 12-13; the portion of tube 64a below dispense assembly 70a forms a dispense chimney) extending vertically below the second dispense assembly in a direction of the second indexed location.
Regarding claim 15, Herbert further discloses the first dispense chimney ends at a third height above the respective cup holder at the first indexed location (Fig. 13) and the second dispense chimney ends at a fourth height above the respective cup holder at the second indexed location (Fig. 13), wherein the third height and the fourth height are the same (the heights of the respective chimneys as shown in Fig. 13 appear to be the same).
Regarding claim 16, Herbert discloses the first supply of cups and the second supply of cups have different sizes ([0061]) and as set forth regarding claim 13, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to base the height on the size of the cup to ensure proper clearance between the cup dispenser and the cup holder.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert in view of US Patent 4,418,837 to Kontz (Kontz).
Regarding claims 2-4, Herbert discloses the system of claim 1 (see above), but does not disclose the first dispensing assembly comprises a first plurality of selective release devices and the second dispensing assembly comprises a second plurality of selective release devices, wherein each of the selective release devices comprise a cam assembly, wherein each dispensing assembly comprises a motor and a drive gear, and further comprising a belt operatively extending between the drive gear and a respective gear about each of the selective release devices of a respective dispensing assembly, wherein movement of the belt by the drive gear simultaneously moves each of the selective release devices. Kontz teaches a cup dispenser which includes a first plurality of selective release devices (cams 15), wherein each of the selective release devices comprise a cam assembly (15), wherein each dispensing assembly comprises a motor (31) and a drive gear (22), and further comprising a belt (30) operatively extending between the drive gear and a respective gear (23) about each of the selective release devices of a respective dispensing assembly, wherein movement of the belt by the drive gear simultaneously moves each of the selective release devices (Figs. 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the cup dispensers of Herbert with cup dispensers as taught by Kontz, as such a change requires only the substitution of one known element for dispensing cups with another known element for dispensing cups. The cup dispenser of Kontz provides advantages of being adjustable to cups of different sizes, so each cup dispenser can be adjusted to the size of the cups to be dispensed therefrom.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited documents do not disclose “the cup dispensing system is configured to upwardly tilt relative to a rest of the automated beverage dispensing system to a loading configuration wherein the dispensing assemblies are accessible to receive the supply of cups through the dispensing assemblies past the selective release devices.” The examiner finds no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the cited documents to include such a configuration, absent the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure. Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, US Patent 6,102,246 and US Patent 10,689,240 disclose automated beverage dispensing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights