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 § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel (US 3,442,200) in view of Murray (US 3,386,550).
Babel discloses a repository comprising:
a housing 10, e.g. cabinet, having an interior;
a container holder disposed in an interior of a cabinet, a container holder including:
a vertical hopper 14, e.g. container receiver, having a container interior sized and shaped to receive and hold a stack of containers 22; and
a pusher 38, 50, 98, e.g. container dispenser, arranged to remove a bottom-most container of a stack of containers from a stack of containers, wherein container dispenser 38, 50 includes a support surface 38.
Babel discloses that it is well known to dispense a container 22 to a “continuous chain conveyor” to move dispensed food containers to further processes. Babel does not explicitly disclose a container transporter partially disposed in an interior of a cabinet, wherein a container transporter being configured to transport containers after containers are removed from a stack.
And, Murray discloses a repository comprising:
a cabinet 16 having an interior;
a container holder 85 disposed in an interior of a cabinet, and
a conveyor 44, 47, e.g. container transporter, partially disposed in an interior of a cabinet 16, a container transporter being configured to transport containers after containers are removed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Murray to include container transporter partially disposed in an interior of a cabinet, a container transporter being configured to transport containers after containers are removed from a stack, as taught by Murray, such that upon selective actuation “various different partially precooked food articles” can be supplied.
Claim(s) 4 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and further in view of Brolli (EP 2 886 469) which discloses that a support surface (indicated generally by 34 in FIGS. 1-4) of a pusher 32 is moveable relative to a height via motor M1 of an article interior of a container receiver 20 to adjust a position of a support surface along a height of a container interior. (C5/L6-16) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include Brolli’s support surface that is movable relative to a height of a to-be-unstacked article because over a period of time heights of articles vary such as in food processing.
Claim(s) 6, 7 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and further in view of Tattoli (EP 0 870 704) which discloses:
With respect to claims 6 & 8, Babel discloses a front wall that retains articles from being pushed, e.g. dispensed. Babel does not explicitly disclose a stop. Tattoli discloses a first stop 19 (FIGS. 2, 3) arranged to engage a subsequent bottom-most container in a stack of containers to inhibit a subsequent bottom-most container from moving with a bottom-most container as a bottom-most container is removed from a stack of containers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include a first stop, as taught by Tattoli, thereby allowing variable heights of articles to be dispensed.
With respect to claim 7, Babel discloses a pusher having a push surface 38, 50 moveable between a starting position and a pushed position, a push surface configured to push a bottom-most article out of a stack as a push surface moves from a starting position toward a pushed position. Babel does not disclose a second stop. Tattoli discloses container holder includes a second stop (FIG. 3, plate 9) arranged to engage a subsequent bottom-most container in a stack of containers to inhibit a subsequent bottom-most container from moving relative to a stack of containers when a push surface moves from a pushed position toward a starting position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include a second stop, as taught by Tattoli, “so as to keep the last package in the channel, in normal conditions, but without preventing it from being dispensed.”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and Tattoli and further in view of Fichera (US 7,150,375) which discloses a container receiver 220, 230 (FIG. 2B) is arranged to hold a stack of containers at a non-zero angle of “bout 8 degrees to about 12 degrees, preferably about 10 degrees” relative to a vertical. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include an angled container receiver that is within the inclusive range of about 10 degrees to about 15 degrees, as taught by Fichera, which allows stacked articles to relatively fan out thereby making unstacking more reliable without utilizing lubricants.
Claim(s) 10, 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and further in view of Chang (US 6,247,890)
Babel discloses a container dispenser comprises a pusher 38, 50, 98 configured to push the bottom-most container out of the stack of containers. Babel discloses first and second side walls and does not disclose a first side wall movable relative to a second wall. Chang discloses a first side wall 14, 141 (FIG. 4; see discussion at C3/L27-42) bounding a first side of a container interior of a container receiver and a second side wall 141 bounding an opposite second side of a container interior, a first side wall being moveable relative to a second side wall to change a width of a container interior. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include a first side wall that is movable relative to a second side wall, as taught by Chang, such that a container repository can dispense goods items of various sizes.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and further in view of Fallas (US 8,997,438).
Babel in view of Murray discloses a conveyor that conveys a container to a set location, e.g. termination point of conveyor. Babel does not disclose a container positioner. Fallas discloses a conveyor 130 is configured to transport containers 20 toward a set location, a conveyor arranged to support containers in a set location, and wherein a container repository further comprises a container positioner 135, 136 configured to position containers in pre-selected spots, e.g. set locations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include a container position, as taught by Fallas, which positions the containers in the precise spot such that further processing on the container can be performed such as adding items to the container from above.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and Fallas and further in view of Iwasaka (US 5,755,552) which discloses a container locator 15, 16 for retaining containers in a set location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include a container locator, as taught by Iwasaka, thereby reducing the impact of assorted objects discharged from respective dispensers and conveyed to a conveyor locator.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and Fallas and further in view of Joplin (Us 9,944,419) which discloses a second container transporter 124 configured to remove containers from a set location and transport containers to a labeler (C8/L5-10) configured to supply a label for the containers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to include a second container transporter and a labeler, as taught by Joplin, such that data such as type of closure, message preferences, language preferences, or the like may identify the container.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray and further in view of Peteraf (US 6,186,358) and Juillet (US 4,687,119). Babel does not disclose a door and a prime mover.
Peteraf discloses a cabinet with a hinged access door 18 which allows the interior of a cabinet to remain at the temperature desired, e.g. hot or cold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel to add a door over an opening in a dispensing cabinet, as taught by Peteraf, thereby maintain the interior of the cabinet at a desired temperature.
And, Juillet discloses a wicket 38, e.g. door, that is openable/closesable via electromagnet 39, e.g. prime mover. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Babel with Juillet's door and prime mover, as taught by Juillet, because under KSR both Babel and Juillet disclose dispensing systems from within a cabinet to the exterior of the cabinet though an opening and Juillet makes clear that it was known at the time of the invention to automate door opening/closing for purposes of temperature control within the cabinet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 & 7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan. 30, 2026 with respect to claims 4, 5 & 7 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Applicant's arguments filed Jan. 30, 2026 with respect to claims 1-3, 6 & 8-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1. Applicant argues that "Babel does not need Murray's conveyor belt assembly because Babel is already able to move the food containers 20-26 into the microwave oven."
The examiner does not agree with Applicants interpretation of the claims or cited prior art. The rejection notes that primary reference Babel discloses using a conveyor, e.g. container transporter. However, Applicant's argument presupposes that Babel explicitly discloses a container transporter partially disposed in the interior of the cabinet, the container transporter extending out of the cabinet, the container transporter being configured to receive the containers in the interior of the cabinet and to transport the containers outside of the cabinet after the containers are removed from the stack of containers; it does not. Babel is silent on whether its conveyor is inside a cabinet and whether it extends outside a cabinet. Thus, Murray is used as a modifying reference for disclosing the structure missing from Babel for the motivations provided in the rejection above.
Also, using the reasoning established in KSR the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babel in view of Murray because Babel discloses a chain conveyor to moved containers to further process, but does not explicitly disclose a that the conveyor extends from within the cabinet to outside the cabinet. Murray teaches the missing structure but does not disclose dispensing via unstacking. All of the component parts are known in Babel and Murray the only difference being the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by modifying a conveyor to convey articles from within a cabinet to outside a cabinet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Babel to include the structure from Murray, since the operation of the dispenser is in no way dependent on the operation of the other equipment the location of a conveyor, and conveyor could be used to achieve the predictable result of moving containers away from a cabinet to downstream processes.
Claim 1. Applicant argues that the office action mailed Nov. 4, 2025 "failed to explain how Murray's conveyor belt assembly would be incorporated into Babel's food vending apparatus."
The examiner does not agree with Applicants interpretation of the claims or cited prior art. Babel acknowledges that a conveyor is needed. The issue is that Babel does not explicitly disclose a conveyor as recited in claim 1, lines 8-11. However, Murray discloses a cabinet with a conveyor positioned as claimed. And, the combination of Babel in view Murray results in combining Babel's cabinet-housed container receiver and dispenser with Murray's cabinet and conveyor combination. As noted in the section previous the cabinet and dispenser function separate from the conveyor. Thus, replacing one cabinet with another which includes a conveyor would have been well known to a skilled artisan looking at solving the problems of Babel.
Claim 1. Babel teaches away from Murray's belt conveyor assembly because Babel was specifically designed to eliminate conveyor.
The examiner does not agree with Applicants interpretation of the claims or cited prior art. Babel does not explicitly disclose eliminating a conveyer for moving dispensed containers away from a cabinet and towards downstream processes. Babel does disclose that conveying means on which product is stored on chain supported individual shelves requires considerable space. However, this drawback pertains to storage of the articles to be dispensed. Babel eliminates chain conveying stored food by utilizing stacks of stored food to reduce the overall footprint of the cabinet, not the disclosure for which Applicant supports its arguments.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on Jan. 30, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,338,084 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652