Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in reply to the application filed on July 11, 2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 24, 26, and 28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial Exception):
The claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting information (detecting acoustic responses, obtaining usage profiles), analyzing the information (associating responses with profiles, computing a relationship), and generating a model (container model). This constitutes an abstract idea of data collection, recognition, and mathematical modeling that falls within the categories of “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D); 2106.05(h) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). .
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application):
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited steps of “detecting an acoustic response” and “obtaining a usage profile” are described at a high level of generality and could be performed using generic computer technology, sensors, or data gathering tools. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to acoustic sensing technology, container measurement devices, or any other technology. Instead, the claim merely uses generic data gathering and analysis to achieve the result of generating a model, which is itself an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Significantly More):
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not recite a particular machine, transformation of an article, or an improvement in the functioning of a computer or another technology. Instead, the claim merely instructs one to apply generic data analysis techniques using conventional technology to obtain a predictive model. As such, the claim as a whole amounts to no more than an abstract idea implemented using routine and conventional techniques.
Accordingly, claims 1, 26, 28 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14, 15, 19-21, and 24 further describe the abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts through observation, evaluation and judgement/ opinion by indicating, via a label or display, a shipping address. Said dependent claims do not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of detecting, obtaining, associating, and computing beyond the technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, said dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 1-8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suman (US 2018/0073682) and in view of Crouse et al. (US 2018/0044159).
Regarding Claims 1, 26, and 28: Suman teaches a method of configuring a container model, the container model defining a relationship, for a particular type of container and/or contents, between characteristics of an acoustic response and an associated fill level, the method comprising:
detecting an acoustic response of a plurality of containers to an acoustic stimulus at a plurality of different times (Figs. 10-12; ¶¶ 210-217; ¶¶ 291-293);
for each container, obtaining a usage profile with respect to time and associating the acoustic responses for that container with the usage profile, to form a set of test data (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 56; ¶¶ 104-109; ¶ 137; ¶ 317); and
computing a relationship between characteristics of an acoustic response and an associated fill level using the test data to generate the container model (¶¶ 173-177; ¶¶ 197-201; ¶¶ 218-235; ¶¶ 318-322).
Suman does not expressly disclose associating the acoustic responses with a usage profile with respect to time. However, Crouse et al. teaches maintaining a usage profile of container contents with respect to time. See, e.g., ¶¶ 30-34, which disclose monitoring and logging consumption or usage of liquid containers (e.g., beverage bottles, medication containers) over time to create usage histories. Crouse further discloses associating sensor data with such usage profiles for predictive modeling.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suman by incorporating Crouse’s teaching of associating acoustic responses (sensor data) with a usage profile over time, in order to generate more accurate models of container fill levels that account for consumption patterns. The motivation would have been to improve prediction accuracy and enable automatic calibration of fill-level estimation, as suggested by both Suman (repeated measurement for reliability) and Crouse (usage pattern tracking for improved monitoring).
Therefore, claims 1, 26, and 26 are unpatentable over Suman in view of Crouse.
Regarding Claim 2: Suman teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining a usage profile comprises obtaining a usage start time for the container (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 3: Suman teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the usage start time is inferred from one or more of location information and logistics information (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 4: Suman teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the usage start time is inferred from a change in measured acoustic response from an acoustic response obtained when the container is known to be full (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 5: Suman teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the usage profile for a particular container represents a likely fill level with respect to time, and the step of associating the acoustic responses with the usage profile for that container comprises: determining a likely fill level for each acoustic response based on a time at which that acoustic response was obtained and the usage profile, and associating that acoustic response with the determined likely fill level for that acoustic response (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 6: Suman teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: obtaining a usage end time; and determining the likely fill level for each acoustic response using the usage start time and the usage end time (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 7: Suman teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the usage end time is inferred from location information (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 8: Suman teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the usage end time is inferred by determining a final fill level before refilling the container, and identifying from the obtained acoustic responses a time at which that fill level was reached (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 12: Suman teaches the method according to claim 1 further comprising: normalizing the usage profile and the capture time of the acoustic responses of each container with respect to time to form the test data (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 14: Suman teaches the method according to claim 5 further comprising: obtaining a usage end fill level for a container, wherein the step of determining the likely fill level for each acoustic response uses the usage end fill level (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 15: Suman teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein determining the likely fill level for each acoustic response comprises: identifying when on a path from full towards empty the acoustic response was obtained, and identifying, based on an assumed shape of the path from full towards empty, a likely fill level at the time of measurement of the acoustic response (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Regarding Claim 21: Suman teaches the method according to claim 1 further comprising: measuring a temperature at a container at the time of detecting the acoustic response, and associating the measured temperature with the acoustic response in the test data, wherein computing the relationship includes computing the relationship between characteristics of the acoustic response, temperature, and associated fill level using the test data (Figs. 5-6; ¶ 94; ¶ 319; ¶ 322).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suman (US 2018/0073682) and in view of Crouse et al. (US 2018/0044159) and further in view of Bluesmart (WO 2017/210847).
Regarding Claim 9: Bluesmart teaches the method according to claim 1 further comprising: recording the detected acoustic responses as time domain signals, and converting the time domain signals into frequency domain representations, wherein the characteristics of the acoustic response are frequency characteristics (¶¶ 29 & 31).
Regarding Claim 10: Bluesmart teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the relationship is computed by applying a weight and a bias to an amplitude of each frequency of the frequency characteristics of the test data, and varying the weight and/or bias to minimize an error function (¶¶ 29 & 31).
Regarding Claim 11: Bluesmart teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the error function represents differences between a fill level determined by the container model and estimated fill levels included in the test data (¶¶ 29 & 31).
Claims 19, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suman (US 2018/0073682) and in view of Crouse et al. (US 2018/0044159) and further in view of Jones (US 2017/0337535).
Regarding Claim 19: Jones teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the usage start time is determined from either a time of delivery of the container to a customer, or a time of fill or refill of the container (Figs. 1, 18, 20, 23, 37, ¶¶ 20, 84, 221).
Regarding Claim 20: Jones teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the usage end time is determined from either a time of return of the container to the supplier or a time of refill of the container (Figs. 1, 18, 20, 23, 37, ¶¶ 20, 84, 221).
Regarding Claim 24: Jones teaches the method according to claim 1 further comprising: determining whether a container is in use at the time of detecting the acoustic response for that container, and associating the in use or not in use state with the acoustic response in the test data,
wherein computing the relationship includes computing the relationship between characteristics of the acoustic response, the in use or not in use state, and associated fill level using the test data (Figs. 1, 18, 20, 23, 37, ¶¶ 20, 84, 221).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627