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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 10/21/2025.
Claims 2-5 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 has been amended.
Claims 1, 6-10 and 12-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 6 refers back to a base claim (claim 5) which has been removed (cancelled) from the application that render the dependent claim 6 improper or indefinite. A correction is required.
For prosecution purposes, the examiner will consider claim 6 to be dependent on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 10/21/2025:
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101”, pages 8-13, that:
“The Examiner has rejected all of the previously pending claims based on the Examiner's conclusion that they were directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. § 101, without significantly more. Specifically, the Examiner reasons that the previously pending claims recited the judicial exception of methods of organizing human activity. Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's analysis on both Steps 2A and 2B of the Alice Mayo test, and further has amended claim 1, in response to the Examiner's analysis of these prongs, which the Examiner described in more detail during the interview on August 12, 2025 … As set forth in both the present and immediate prior versions of the claims, the invention is a tangible, special purpose measuring device, comprising force sensors in a purpose- designed housing suited for a specific application, and also incorporating software with the capability to extract data from the tangible device and provide outputs regarding consumption of a chemical product embedded in a liquid line of a manufacturing process, and detect anomalies in the manufacturing line based on same. Applicant respectfully submits that, even if the claimed invention was dissected, and the functionality of the software embedded into the claimed device was boiled down into a "method of monitoring product consumption", this still would not correspond to the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people" such as "following rules or instructions" … In order to "recite a series of instructions" for "managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people", though, the claims would need to call for human actions or intervention in the form of method steps requiring a human to take some action based on an alert or content filter, or method steps otherwise expressly calling for human actions, such as "a mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions." In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982) … applicant respectfully asserts that this transformation of the claim from a system claim to a method claim is improper. Moreover, the Examiner's focus on the capabilities of the software embedded in the tangible device is a dissection of the claim which completely overlooks that the claim is directed to a tangible product … Moreover, Applicant submits that the claim amendments submitted herewith have further specified the characteristics of the tangible components which make up the claimed system, and which allow the system to operate without the intervention of an operator, further highlighting that the claimed invention is not directed to a recitation of instructions for how to monitor product consumption.
Applicant respectfully submits that the additional elements added to claim 1 in particular, by amendment filed herewith, further direct the claims to a non-general-purpose, but specifically designed, tangible product such that the claims are clearly not "directed to" a recitation of instructions … or all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 101”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C.§101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C.§101 of claims 1, 6-10 and 12-21 has been withdrawn.
The additional elements read as a real structural system, sensor, water measure device, sensor electronics, water-tight, sealed housing, force concentrator, material meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they do not merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1, 6-10 and 12-21, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 6-10 and 12-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The reason to withdraw the prior art rejection of claims 1, 6-10 and 12-19 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such generic placeholder claims limitations, and coupled functional language, are:
Claim 1: A term of “means” for the following function of “receiving, processing, and outputting data received”. Further, the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the means invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “means” corresponds to “Internet/Intranet/Bluetooth enabled device (such as a laptop, industrial PC, PLC, wireless receiver, or mobile phone) that can receive wireless signals directly from the sensor(s) 105 and process them forward to operator output as described herein”, see specification [075]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 7: A term of “means” for the following function of “outputting inventory data to said inventory management system”. Further, the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the means invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “means” corresponds to “Internet/Intranet/Bluetooth enabled device (such as a laptop, industrial PC, PLC, wireless receiver, or mobile phone) that can receive wireless signals directly from the sensor(s) 105 and process them forward to operator output as described herein”, see specification [075]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 10: A generic placeholder of “inventory forecasting model” for the following function of “determine a timeframe during which a reorder of said product will be necessary, based on at least said data received from said at least one sensor”. Further, the generic placeholder “inventory forecasting model” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the inventory forecasting model invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “inventory forecasting model” corresponds to “software and/or ancillary measurement or control devices operatively connected thereto, provides … enabling forecasting of the time to empty for efficient scheduling of refills and maintaining onsite inventory”, see specification [089]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Claim 12: A term of “means” for the following function of “directly or indirectly measure a spray valve on/off condition”. Further, the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure that is tied to the performance of the claimed function. Accordingly, the means invokes 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation. A review for the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: the claimed “means” corresponds to an on/off condition of a spray valve which sprays liquid into the dispenser/onto the product can be detected by a smart valve, or by the liquid level and/or change in liquid level in the dispenser, which may be detected by a capacitance sensor or other means, see specification [082]. Accordingly, the examiner finds the claim is definite.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication Number WO2015066594A1 to HERSHBERGER (“HERSHBERGER”) in view of US Pat Pub. No. 10222279 to Legrand, III et al. (“Legrand, III”).
Regarding claims 20 and 21. HERSHBERGER discloses a product consumption measurement device, comprising:
at least one ring-shaped sensor housing, said at least one ring-shaped sensor housing (HERSHBERGER, page. 11-lines 13-14; “sensor 200 is doughnut-shaped (toroidal) (also referred to as annular or ring-shaped) being generally circular with a circular aperture in the center, although other shapes are contemplated”, page 26-lines 13-16; “the sensor may include a spring device or similar self-adjusting means for securing the sensor capable of securing the sensor to different sizes and/or designs of kegs, such as, for example, misshaped kegs or kegs with non-round bottoms”. The configuration of the claimed “shaped”, such as ring or bar shaped, of the senso housing is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be an obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). having a top surface (HERSHBERGER, Fig. 5A, “upper housing 201 a”) and a bottom surface (HERSHBERGER, Fig. 5A, “lower housing 201 b”), and incorporating at least two thin film load sensors between said top surface and said bottom surface (HERSHBERGER, Fig. 5A, page. 12-lines 25-26; “Sensor 200 further includes one or more weight sensing elements or weight sensors 208 that sense the weight of the keg”, page 11-lines 5-9; “Sensor 200 includes an upper housing 201 a, a lower housing 201b, and one or more fasteners 202 that prevent sensor 200 from falling off the keg when the keg is lifted off the support surface or tilted”); and
sensor electronics operatively connected to said at least two sensors, said sensor electronics comprising software programmed (HERSHBERGER, page. 17-lines 33-34; “The hardware radio receiver and software stack receives the data transmissions from each keg sensor/transmitter”) to calculate an imbalance of a load placed on top of said at least one ring-shaped sensor housing (HERSHBERGER, page. 7-lines 32-33; “a weight sensor attached to the bottom of the portable keg … a sensor that determines the fluid level by generating and evaluating a signal directed to the container”, page. 11-lines 4-7; “Depicted in Figs. 4-6 is a weight or volume sensor 200 … Sensor 200 is configured and adapted to attach to the bottom of a large beverage container (such as a beer keg) and sense the weight of the container”).
HERSHBERGER substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, HERSHBERGER fails to explicitly disclose the “said bottom surface further comprises at least one load concentrator positioned in operative connection with each of said at least two thin film load sensors”. However, Legrand, III teaches:
said bottom surface further comprises at least one load concentrator (Legrand, III, Fig. 10; “pressure concentrator feature 904”) positioned in operative connection with each of said at least two thin film load sensors (Legrand, III, col. 21, lines 30-48 ; “the pressure concentrator features 904 may be positioned a top the sensels 902, or may be offset therefrom … a first set of pressure concentrator features 904 may have a first contact shape of a portion which touches the underlying sensor layer while a second set of pressure concentrator features 904 may have a second contact shape”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify the HERSHBERGER to include said bottom surface further comprises at least one load concentrator positioned in operative connection with each of said at least two thin film load sensors, as taught by Legrand, III, where this would be performed in order to simplify calibration by resolving force distribution in individual points. See Legrand, III, col. 3, lines 4-6.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
The claims 1, 6-10 and 12-19, in present form, have overcome the prior art rejections and the examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in the prior art. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 6-10 and 12-19 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
1. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627