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 31-99 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11629905, 11965689, 11493262, 11852396, 11959692, 12235034, 12492858, 12398946. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely recite like elements using different terminology and/or phraseology.
Claims 31-99 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31-99 of copending Application No.19/273713 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely recite like elements using different terminology and/or phraseology, the only difference between the claims is in the second subsection of each independent claim (31, 43, 55, 72, 81, 85, 90, 93, 97) wherein the controller is recite das comprising a first microcomputer configured to communicate an unlock signal subsequent to “a consumer payment” (19/273713) or “a consumer authorization to make a purchase” (19/273681). The remainder of the independent and dependent claims are identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 31-99 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application Nos. 18/748520, 18/949347 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely recite like elements using different terminology and/or phraseology.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 31-34, 36, 39-46, 48-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teicher US 6,102,162 (hereinafter Teicher) in view of Brous US 5,345,379 (hereinafter Brous).
Re Claim 31. (New)
Teicher discloses a retail controller system (Fig.2) for selectively allowing consumers to select one or more items from a retail enclosure (206/210), the system comprising: at least one control (320; Figs.12,15,16; 1214,1212,1210,1204,1206,1202) comprising a first microcomputer configured to generate an unlock signal subsequent to a consumer authorization to make a purchase (332,334,338); the at least one controller further comprising a second microcomputer connected to one of a local and a wide area network for communicating one of the unlock signal, a consumer payment information and a consumer payment authorization information; and the at least one controller further configured for being in communication with an electronically actuated locking mechanism (225), the locking mechanism (225) being configured in a locked condition during stand-by operation and further configured to selectively move to an unlocked condition upon receiving the unlock signal (col.9, lines 50-66; col. 21, lines 15-67; col. 22, lines 1-67).
Teicher does not teach there being a second payment controller for detecting payment which in response, provides a control signal to communicate with a lock controller to unlock the enclosure door; wherein the payment controller and lock controller are operatively connected; and wherein the payment controller is also operatively connected to and is configured to communicate with a local or wide area network for controlling the lock mechanism; the payment controller comprising a first microcomputer, and the lock controller comprising a second microcomputer.
Brous teaches there being a payment controller (Figure 2; 120 is a payment/authorization from payment control system) for detecting payment which in response, provides a control signal to communicate with a lock controller to unlock the enclosure door; wherein the payment controller and lock controller are operatively connected (Column 6; lines 43-61 discuss the control system 120 sending a signal to the internal control system of the washing/drying machine to initiate an action in the machine; which when applied to Teicher would mean the first authorization control system sending a signal to a secondary control system to unlock the lock); and wherein the payment controller is also operatively connected to and is configured to communicate with a local or wide area network for controlling the lock mechanism (Abstract; communications network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the one controller of Teicher to be two separate controllers as in Brous in order to isolate issues, which would save money on replacement and repair operations, as well as to reduce the strain on the first controller.
Re Claim 32. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 wherein the unlock signal is communicated.
Re Claim 33. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 32 wherein the unlock signal is a secure signal
Re Claim 34. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 32 wherein the unlock signal is generated external to the retail enclosure in a secured location (managers console 322).
Re Claim 36. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 wherein the at least one controller is adapted to communicate information about a product selected (Teicher, Fig.3).
Re Claim 39. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 wherein the at least one controller is further configured to be connected to one of a local and a wide area network for communicating one of a lock operation controller parameter (Teicher,Fig.2) and information about a position of the retail enclosure door (Teicher,Fig.2, Door position sensors 227).
Re Claim 40. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 wherein the at least one controller is further configured for communicating consumer identification information (Teicher, Fig.2, 334).
Re Claim 41. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 wherein the consumer payment information is communicated (Teicher, Fig.2, 338).
Re Claim 42. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 wherein the consumer payment authorization information is communicated (Teicher, Fig. 2, 338).
Re Claim 43. (New)
As discussed above with respect to claim 31-34, 36, 39-42, and applied to claims 43-46, 48-52 below, Teicher as modified by Brous discloses a retail controller system for allowing consumers to select one or more items from a retail enclosure, the system comprising: at least one controller comprising a first microcomputer connected to one of a local and a wide area network configured to communicate an unlock signal subsequent to a consumer authorization to make the at least one controller further comprising a second microcomputer connected to one of a local and a wide area network for communicating one of consumer and a consumer payment authorization information: and the at least one controller further configured for being in communication with an electronically actuated locking mechanism, the locking mechanism being configured in a locked condition during stand-by operation and being further configured to selectively move to an unlocked condition upon receiving the unlock signal,
Re Claim 44. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the consumer information is communicated.
Re Claim 45. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the consumer authorization information is communicated.
Re Claim 46. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the at least one controller is further configured to be connected to one of a local and a wide area network for communicating one of a lock operation controller parameter and information about a position of the retail enclosure door.
Re Claim 48. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the at least one controller is further configured for communicating consumer identification information.
Re Claim 49. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein one of the first and the second microcomputer is further configured to generate the unlock signal.
Re Claim 50. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the unlock signal is a secure signal.
Re Claim 51. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the unlock signal is generated external to the retail enclosure in a secured location.
Re Claim 52. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the at least one controller is adapted to communicate information about a product selected.
Similarly, claims 55-61, 63-64, 68-71, 72-74, 76-78, 80, 81-84, 85-86, 89, 90-92, 93-94, 97-99 are rejected in view of Teicher and Brous as discussed above.
Claim(s) 37, 38, 53, 54, 65, 66, 75, 79, 87, 88, 95, 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teicher as modified by Brous, as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Schoenfeld US 2007/0227204 (hereinafter Schoenfeld).
Re Claim 37. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 but fail to teach wherein the at least one controller is adapted to communicate information about a fault condition.
Re Claim 38. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 31 but fail to teach wherein the at least one controller is adapted to communicate information about a temperature of the retail enclosure.
Re Claim 53. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the at least one controller is adapted to communicate information about a fault condition.
Re Claim 54. (New)
Teicher as modified by Brous discloses the retail controller system of claim 43 wherein the at least one controller is adapted to communicate information about a temperature of the retail enclosure.
Similarly, claims 65-66, 75, 79, 87, 88, 95, 96 are rejected in view of Teicher and Brous as discussed above and further in view of the temperature fault controls taught by Schoenfeld to be advantageous in preventing consumption of spoiled foods.
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 SUZANNE DINO BARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7053. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
SUZANNE DINO BARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675B
Sdb
/SUZANNE L BARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights