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 .
Double Patenting
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).
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).
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.
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.
Claims 1,3,4,6 and 8-12,14-17, and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,847,880. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a mere broadening of the previously allowed claims.
The subject matter of claim 1 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 3 is disclosed in claim 14 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 4 is disclosed in claim 5 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 6 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 8 is disclosed in claim 4 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 9 is disclosed in claim 6 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 10 is disclosed in claim 7 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 11 is disclosed in claim 7 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 12 is disclosed in claim 7 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 14 is disclosed in claim 14 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 15 is disclosed in claim 14 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 16 is disclosed in claim 14 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 17 is disclosed in claim 14 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 20 is disclosed in claim 14 of US 11,847,880.
The subject matter of claim 21 is disclosed in claim 14 of US 11,847,880.
Claims 1,3,4,6 and 8-12,14-17, and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,249,204. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a mere broadening of the previously allowed claims.
The subject matter of claim 1 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 3 is disclosed in claim 2 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 4 is disclosed in claim 3 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 5 is disclosed in claim 4 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 6 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 8 is disclosed in claim 7 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 9 is disclosed in claim 8 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 10 is disclosed in claim 9 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 11 is disclosed in claim 9 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 12 is disclosed in claim 10 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 14 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 15 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 16 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 17 is disclosed in claims 1 and 14 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 20 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 12,249,204.
The subject matter of claim 21 is disclosed in claim 1 of US 12,249,204.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suellentrop US 2017/0301172.
Suellentrop discloses a kit for a semi-automated unit distribution system, comprising:
(Re claim 15) “a controller comprising a computer processor configured to execute processor executable code, the controller configured to control one or more components of a cabinet and communicate through a network” (518 figure 5). “a door lock system configured to communicate with the controller and to attach to the cabinet, the cabinet having at least one door having an open position and a closed position” (506, 508 figure 5). “the door lock system comprising: a door lock having a locked state and an unlocked state, the door lock configured to attach to one or more of the cabinet and the at least one door of the cabinet and to secure the at least one door of the cabinet in the closed position when the door lock system receives a first signal from the controller for the locked state and to release the at least one door when the door lock system receives a second signal from the controller for the unlocked state, the door lock system configured to send one or more third signals to the controller indicative of whether the door lock is in the locked state or the unlocked state” (para 0034). “a sensor configured to detect that the door lock is in the locked state or the unlocked state and transmit one or more signals to the controller indicative of whether the door lock is in the locked state or the unlocked state” (para 0034). “one or more cameras configured to transmit images to the controller” (para 0055). “a power supply configured to provide power to one or more of: the controller, the door lock system, and the one or more cameras” (abstract).
(Re claim 16) “the controller is configured to: receive inventory data indicative of a number of units in the cabinet; receive a data element indicative of details of a purchase transaction; determine that the purchase transaction can be satisfied based on the details of the purchase transaction and the inventory data; transmit, after determining that purchase transaction can be satisfied, signals to the door lock system indicative of instructions to change the door between the locked state and the unlocked state; and receive signals from the unit detection device indicative of at least one of: a number of units removed from the cabinet of and a number of units placed in the cabinet” (para 0027, 0052).
(Re claim 17) “a housing configured to attach to the cabinet and to at least partially enclose one or more of the controller, the power supply, the human machine interface, and the one or more cameras” (1200, 518, 300 figure 3,5).
(Re claim 18) “the housing has an adapter plate configured to attach the housing to the cabinet” (1200, 518, 310 figure 3,5).
(Re claim 19) “a manual lock configured to attach to the cabinet” (para 0035).
(Re claim 20) “wherein the human machine interface includes a card reader, the kit comprising: a modem configured to connect the controller to the network” (para 0022, 0025, 0027 figure 12).
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) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnel et al. EP 2787492 in view of Suellentrop US 2017/0301172.
O’Donnel discloses a semi-automated unit distribution system, comprising:
(Re claim 1) “a cabinet system comprising a cabinet having at least one compartment having a door, the door having an open position and a closed position with a locked state and an unlocked state” (124 figure 1). “a remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system” (para 0039, 0042, ‘issuing terminal’). “a system controller in communication with the cabinet system, the system controller having one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to” (para 0039, 0047). “receive inventory data indicative of a number of units in the cabinet system” (abstract ‘means for detecting presence’, para 0047 ‘sales’). “receive a data element indicative of details of a purchase transaction” (para 0039, 0043 ‘receiving terminal’). “determine that the purchase transaction can be satisfied based on the details of the purchase transaction and the inventory data” (para 0048 or 0049 Step 6). “transmit, after determining that purchase transaction can be satisfied, signals to the cabinet system indicative of instructions to change the door between the locked state and the unlocked state” (para 0048 or 0049 Step 4).
O’Donnel does not disclose receiving, from an operator via the remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system, instructions to change the door between the unlocked state and the locked state.
Suellentrop teaches receiving, from an operator via the remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system, instructions to change the door between the unlocked state and the locked state (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of O’Donnel to include receiving, from an operator via the remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system, instructions to change the door between the unlocked state and the locked state because it allows for additional security and by only allowing the system to unlock while there is a remote operator observing.
(Re claim 2) O’Donnel does not disclose that the cabinet system comprises a manual override device configured to mechanically change the door from the locked state to the unlocked state.
Suellentrop teaches that the cabinet system comprises a manual override device configured to mechanically change the door from the locked state to the unlocked state (316 figure 3, para 0035).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of O’Donnel to include that the cabinet system comprises a manual override device configured to mechanically change the door from the locked state to the unlocked state because it allows for the cabinet to be accessed in the case of a system malfunction.
(Re claim 3) “the cabinet system comprises a human-machine interface, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: receive signals from the human-machine interface indicative of entry of a data element indicative of details of a purchase transaction from a purchaser” (110 figure 1, para 0040).
(Re claim 4) “the data element comprises a set of digits” (para 0042 ‘8 digit code’).
(Re claim 5) O’Donnel does not disclose that the cabinet system comprises one or more cameras proximity sensor and an audio system, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: capture determine, with the one or more cameras proximity sensor of the cabinet system, an image a presence of a user in proximity to a cabinet of the cabinet system; and broadcast, by the audio system of the cabinet system, instructions to the user.
Suellentrop discloses that the cabinet system comprises one or more cameras proximity sensor and an audio system, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: capture determine, with the one or more cameras proximity sensor of the cabinet system, an image a presence of a user in proximity to a cabinet of the cabinet system; and broadcast, by the audio system of the cabinet system, instructions to the user (para 0055).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of O’Donnel to include that the cabinet system comprises one or more cameras proximity sensor and an audio system, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: capture determine, with the one or more cameras proximity sensor of the cabinet system, an image a presence of a user in proximity to a cabinet of the cabinet system; and broadcast, by the audio system of the cabinet system, instructions to the user because it allows for remote assistance to be provided to the user.
(Re claim 6) “an auto-count system, wherein the auto-count system is structured to receive
signals from the cabinet system indicative of at least one of: a number of substantially full
propane canisters removed from the cabinet of the cabinet system and a number of empty
propane canisters placed in the cabinet of the cabinet system” (abstract ‘means for detecting presence, para 0047 ‘sales’).
(Re claim 8) “comprising a receipt scanner” (para 0035).
(Re claim 9) “update location of inventory of the units, based on the received signals indicative of at least one of: the number of removed from the cabinet of the cabinet system and the number of units placed in the cabinet of the cabinet system” (abstract ‘means for detecting presence, para 0047 ‘sales’).
O’Donnel does not disclose that the cabinet system comprises one or more cameras.
Suellentrop teaches that the cabinet system comprises one or more cameras (para 0055).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of O’Donnel to include one or more cameras because it allows for remote monitoring and inspection of the system.
(Re claim 10) “the cabinet system comprises one or more unit detection devices, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: transmit a first signal from the one or more unit detection devices indicative of removal of one or more units from the cabinet” (abstract, ‘means for detecting presence’).
(Re claim 11) “the data element indicative of details of the purchase transaction includes an expected number of units to be removed, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: transmit one or more signals to the remote controller device indicative that a number of units removed is different than the expected number of units to be removed” (abstract, para 0026, para 0048,0049 step 6).
(Re claim 12) “the cabinet system comprises one or more unit detection devices, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: transmit a second signal from the one or more unit detection devices indicative of placement of one or more units in the cabinet” (abstract, para 0026).
(Re claim 13) “the data element indicative of details of the purchase transaction includes an expected number of units to be returned, and wherein the system controller has one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: transmit one or more signals to the remote controller device indicative that a number of units returned is different than the expected number of units to be returned” (abstract, para 0026, para 0048,0049 step).
O’Donnel discloses a semi-automated unit distribution system, comprising:
(Re claim 14) “a cabinet system comprising a cabinet having at least one compartment having a door, the door having an open position and a closed position with a locked state and an unlocked state” (124 figure 1). “a remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system” (para 0039, 0042 ‘issuing terminal’). “a system controller in communication with the cabinet system, the system controller having one or more computer processors executing instructions that cause the one or more computer processors to: receive inventory data indicative of a number of units in the cabinet system” (para 0039, 0047, abstract). “receive a data element indicative of details of a purchase transaction” (para 0035). “determine that the purchase transaction can be satisfied based on the details of the purchase transaction and the inventory data” (para 0048).
O’Donnel does not disclose receiving, from an operator via the remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system, instructions to change the door between the unlocked state and the locked state.
Suellentrop teaches receiving, from an operator via the remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system, instructions to change the door between the unlocked state and the locked state (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of O’Donnel to include receiving, from an operator via the remote controller device located remotely from the cabinet system, instructions to change the door between the unlocked state and the locked state because it allows for additional security and by only allowing the system to unlock while there is a remote operator observing.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suellentrop in view of O’Donnel EP 2787492.
Suellentrop discloses the system as rejected above.
Suellentrop does not disclose a second door lock system configured to communicate with the controller and to attach to a second cabinet, the second cabinet having at least one door having an open position and a closed position; and, a second power supply
O’Donnel discloses a second door lock system configured to communicate with the controller and to attach to a second cabinet, the second cabinet having at least one door having an open position and a closed position; and, a second power supply (figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Suellentrop to include a second cabinet, the second cabinet having at least one door having an open position and a closed position; and, a second power supply because it is a mere duplication of parts and allows the system to control access to a larger inventory of items.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0140600 discloses a propane exchange system with a lock sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
