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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application After Final (AF) rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission(s) filed on 22 December 2025 (AF) & 20 January 2026 (RCE) has/have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 December 2025 (AF) & 20 January 2026 (RCE), with respect to Claim(s) 13, 17, 23 and 27 have been considered but they are not persuasive based on amended claim language for independent Claim(s) 13 and 23 which necessitates a new ground of rejection.
Status
Independent Claim(s) 13 and 23 has/have been amended in the RCE filed 20 January 2026 which now includes the amendment found in the AF filed 22 December 2025.
A Non Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 13, 17, 23 and 27.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 13 (line 81) & Claim 23 (line 86), “one or more sensor/indicator apparatuses”. The only designated “apparatus” found in the applicant’s originally filed specification is found in ¶ [0043] “a tube 511 or similar apparatus”.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 13 and 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 7 and line 9, respectively, should read “remove the liquid”;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 30 of Claim 13, should read “ or a light emitting diode (LED) indicator” and line 38 of Claim 23, should read “ or a light emitting diode ( LED ) indicator”;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, lines 40 & 43 and lines 45 & 48, respectively, should read “[an] the empty portion”;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 42 and line 47, respectively, should read “the empty [part] portion”;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 44 and line 49, respectively, recite(s) the limitation "the filled portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim so it should read “a [the] filled portion”;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 56 and line 65, respectively, should read “and noting the flashing light emitting device or the LED indicator or [an] the audio indicator”” to correlate with lines 30-31 and lines 38-39 respectively, “a flashing light emitting device or a light emitting diode (LED) indicator or an audio indicator”;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, it is preferable that the claim language not utilize quotes within the body of the claim or else it appears indefinite. For example, line 60 of Claim 13 and line 69 of Claim 23 states “to “Push Notification” messaging”;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 62 and line 70, respectively, “the Internet of things or IOT;” should read “the Internet of Things (IoT); “ ;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 67 and line 72, respectively, should read “a display “ ;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, lines 68-69 and lines 73-74, respectively, should read “light emitting diode ( LED ) presentations “;
Claim(s) 13 and 23, line 85 and line 90, respectively, should read “[the] an advertising apparatus“;
Claim(s) 23, line 30, should read “[each of] the housing unit[s] comprising “ ;
Claim(s) 23, line 71, should read “a surface of [a] the device hereof “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 13, 17, 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 13 recites “the housing unit including a front portion, a back portion and one or more side wall portions connecting the front portion with the back portion, the housing unit being a circular housing; ” (lines 9-10) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. It is unclear how there can be more than one side wall with a circular housing. A circular housing would appear to have a singular side wall that would be able to connect the front portion with the back portion. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “presence of a liquid at a particular level” (line 7 and line 9, respectively) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. It is unclear what “level” it is in reference towards. The formatting of the claim language lacks a clarity on the location of the “particular level”. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “the device being configured for learning and memorizing an empty portion of a container by exposure of the device to an empty portion and entering this condition in memory; by both: by pushing an on/off button it will learn the empty part of the container when exposed to an empty portion and entering this condition in memory and testing the unit to make sure it will react by beeping to the filled portion of the same container” (lines 39-45 and lines 44-50, respectively) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. It is unclear how or what will learn and memorize an empty portion of the container by pushing a button and testing the unit. Furthermore, it is also unclear when “testing the unit” which “unit” (line 44 of Claim 13 and line 49 of Claim 23) is being referred to, is it the “housing unit” (lines 2-3 of Claim 13 and line 5 of Claim 23), the “communication unit” (line 6 of Claim 13 and line 8 of Claim 23), the “digital sound recording unit” (line 22 of Claim 13 and line 31 of Claim 23), the “digital sound storage unit” (line 25 of Claim 13 and line33 of Claim 23) or the “playback unit” (line 26 of Claim 13 and line 34 of Claim 23)? The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “re-programmable on particular devices” (lines 74-57 and line 79, respectively) of which the phrase " particular " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Regarding Claim(s) 13 and 23: the phrase "such " (line 77 and 78 of Claim 23 ), "such that" (line 75 of Claim 13 and line 79 of Claim 23 ) and "including but not limited to" (line 83 and 85 of Claim 13 and line 73, line 88 and line 90 of Claim 23 ) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “alternative messaging being provided by replacing the LED or other electronic presentation or communication part of the device;” (lines 75-76 and lines 79-81, respectively) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. It is unclear what is being claimed when one is “replacing” a claimed element. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “Radio Frequency or RF signals or RF identification or RFID” (line 80 and line 85, respectively) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. How is this element related to what is being claimed ?. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) the limitation "the sensor/indicator device" in line 82 and line 87, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 and Claim 23, line 4 and line 6, respectively, state “a non-intrusive static level sensing element” of which there is no “sensor device”. And Claim 13, line 6, states “a voice warning indicator”, Claim 23, line 8, states “an indicator a voice warning communication unit”, Claim 13 and Claim 23, lines 30-31 and lines 38-39, respectively state, “light emitting diode (LED) indicator, or an audio indicator” of which there is no “indicator device”, furthermore, it is confusing as to which “indicator” is being referenced.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “or like” (line 86 and line 90, respectively), which is similar to the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “any of these” (line 87 and line 92, respectively) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. What are “these” in reference to? Which elements do “these” relate to? The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 13 and 23 recite(s) “or further” (line 94 and line 99, respectively) which enders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. What does “or further” relate to? Further than what? Further than which claimed element? The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 13.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Claim(s) 17 recites “the size of the housing unit being 3 inches by 3 inches, or 3 inches by 5 inches, and a width of ¼ inch ” (lines 1-2) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. How can the housing unit have a length by width dimension when the housing unit is stated in line 12 of Claim 13 as “a circular housing”. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 23 recites “a push button installed on the front cover or on the side wall of the device ”; (lines 42-43) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is being claimed. It is unclear how a push button can be installed on the front cover when the front cover appears to have an attachment element that attaches and secures the portable device on a surface per lines 18-20, “one or the other of the front cover of the portable device further comprising one or more attachment elements for removably attaching and securing the portable device on a surface;”. The claim language is therefore indefinite.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 23.
Conclusion
The closest relevant prior art of record is Shefsky (US 5065139) which includes: a portable interactive device (Fig. 1: 10) comprising a detachably attachable housing unit (Fig. 1 30), including both of: a non-intrusive static liquid level sensing element (Fig.3: 20 capacitive sensor) and a warning indicator (Fig. 1: 31, 33, 34 and 45); the device further including the housing unit including a front portion (Fig. 4: 51), a back portion (Fig. 4: 52) and one or more side wall portions connecting the front portion with the back portion (Fig. 4); the warning indicator including a speaker (Fig. 1: 31), an LED indicator (Fig. 1: 33, 34 and 45) and an ON/OFF manual switch (Fig. 1: 35).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to liquid level sensors: Petree (US 3588859; Berman et al. (US 4749988); Sotack et al. (US 5465619); Rader et al. (US 5563584); Thompson et al. (US 9814828 B2).
The following reference(s) relate to warning/communication displays: O’Brien (US 2008/0316186 A1); Chu (US 7392953 B2); Ramirez (US 5299529); Laidlaw et al. (US 9628434 B2); Kramer (US 8672504 B2); Arnold et al. (US 5841878).
The following reference(s) relate to the applicant’s device per the Wayback Machine: “DIGI-note” 2019.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
18 March 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855