Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/915,145

INVENTORY SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEASURING THE CONTENTS OF FULL AND PARTIALLY-FILLED ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 28, 2022
Examiner
TUTOR, AARON N
Art Unit
3627
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sbs Technologies LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
52 granted / 162 resolved
-19.9% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
201
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§103
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 162 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This action is in reply to the submission filed on 11/26/2025. Status of Claims Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 6 are acknowledged. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined. Request for Continued Examination A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered. Response to Remarks Applicant's remarks filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full. Certain limitations are considered intended use and only limiting the scope of the claims as necessary to perform said intended use, including: An apparatus “for taking inventory of contents of alcoholic...containers…as well as identifying the contents of the containers by scanning…labels…” and a load cell “for detecting the weight of the container…”. Said load cell must be capable of detecting the weight. However, no weighing is positively recited in claim 1, in contrast with present claims 5, 6 and 11, which are directed to weighing the containers. Additional citations are provided from Teller that teaches weighing the containers that liquid is dispensed from, in a bar setting, as opposed to the beverage cup in which the liquid is dispensed in to. See rejections below, and Teller paragraph 181 showing data of container from which alcohol is dispensed from, instead of container the beverage is poured into. Further, claim 6’s limitation reciting detecting volume by placing the container on the load cell is interpreted as recording weight of container and calculating volume using said weight, as well as other known properties of the container. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller (US 2006/0238346 A1) in view of Good (US 2005/0109848 A1). Claims 1 and 6. Teller teaches an apparatus for taking inventory of contents of alcoholic beverage containers at a bar (Examiner interprets this “for” statement as describing intended use, as limited by structural elements in claim(s). See MPEP 211.02(II).) by measuring the volume (Examiner interprets this volume measurement as tracking dispensing of beverages by measuring weight of items and tracking weight change. The specification does not teach volume calculation, only tracking weight changes. See bottom of page 4/top of page 5 of present specification.) of full or partially-filled container as well as identifying the contents of the containers by scanning universal product code (UPC) labels on the container to form container data (Teller paras. 8 and 54 showing alcoholic beverage container bar system with scale and scanner for measuring usage of beverage dispensing.) and communicating the container data to a remote database, (Teller para. 81 showing transmission of data to remote web server; para. 9 showing database.) said apparatus comprising: a housing having a top portion and an interior portion, said housing being portable; (Examiner interprets “portable” in accordance with disclosure. The closest support for portability is seen in lines 25-30 of page 4 of the specification, and Figure 3 of present application. Said lines teach carrying said apparatus, and said figure lends itself to portability in terms of the housing size. Therefore, Examiner sees support in disclosure for portability in terms of said size, and that one could reasonably carry said device. Then, Teller, at least Figures 2 and 3, shows portability of a housing with top and interior portions, as size of housing lends itself to portability.) a load cell for detecting the weight of the container, said load cell being located in said top portion; (Teller Figure 2 showing scale for weight sensing at top of housing.) a barcode scanner for scanning the UPC label on the container, (Teller para. Para. 145 showing barcode scanning) a processor, located in said interior portion, coupled to said load cell for activating said load cell to generate the container data, (Para. 85 showing processor inside housing controlling scale, para. 120 showing activation of said scale upon reading of manufacture’s barcode.) said processor receiving the container data and configured for wirelessly transmitting the container data pertaining to inventory of the contents of the alcoholic beverage containers to the remote database over global computer networks. (Para. 85 showing processor recording and sending data to remote location; para. 181 showing the data pertaining to the container which alcohol is dispensed from) Teller teaches bar code scanner part of scale apparatus (para. 74), and a processor inside said housing which contains a scale and scanner. It does not specify, but Good does teach said barcode scanner being located in said top portion adjacent said load cell, (Good para. 117 and Figure 7 showing scanner and scale adjacent on top portion of housing) and a processor coupled to load cell and barcode scanner for activating barcode scanner to generate container data. (para. 117 processor controlling scanner and receiving barcode data from scanner) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of detecting information in Teller, with the known technique of identifying items weighed in Good, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for integration of scale with scanner. (Good paragraphs 134 and 135 showing advantageousness and conventionality of integration.) Claim 6, additionally: a load cell upon which the container is positioned for detecting the weight of the container to obtain the volume of the full or partially-filled container; (See citation(s) of Teller (at least para. 120) in claims 1 and 6, and claim interpretation regarding obtaining volume above. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain volume of a liquid-filled container by measuring the weight, and calculating the volume, if the density of the liquid in the container is known.) scanning the UPC label on the container when the UPC label is positioned opposite a scanning window of said barcode scanner, said barcode scanner obtaining pertinent information of the container; (See barcode scanning citations of Teller (at least para. 120) in claim 1.) positioning said housing behind the bar; (Teller para. 61 showing bartender dispensing beverage with system.) energizing the processor; (para. 79 showing power source’s functional relation to processor.) placing the container on the load cell such that said volume of the container is detected, and wherein said barcode scanner obtains said pertinent information when scanning the UPC label, said volume and said pertinent information forming the container data. (See claim interpretation for volume measurement and citations to Teller (at least para. 120 of Teller) regarding weighing and scanning in mapping above for claim 1.) Claims 2 and 7. Said modified Teller teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Teller does not, but Good teaches said barcode scanner is an omni- directional barcode scanner for reading the UPC label regardless of an orientation of the UPC label on the container. (Good para. 116 showing omnidirectional scanning of barcodes) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of detecting information in Teller, with the known technique of identifying items weighed in Good, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for integration of scale with scanner. (Good paragraphs 134 and 135 showing advantageousness and conventionality of integration.) Claims 3, 8 and 9. Said modified Teller teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein said apparatus comprises a rechargeable battery for powering said load cell, barcode scanner and said processor. (Teller para. 79 showing rechargeable battery for device.) Claims 4 and 10. Said modified Teller teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein said housing is waterproof. (Teller para. 92 showing waterproof housing for system) Claims 5 and 11. Said modified Teller teaches the apparatus of Claim 4. Teller teaches weighing a bottle before and after a pour, sensing a pour, at which time a barcode reading is triggered, as well as activating scale upon reading of bar code. (Teller paragraph 126 showing scale measurement and trigger for recording identifying data. Paragraph 145 showing said data can be a scanned barcode. Para. 120 showing said activation.) Teller does not, but Good teaches wherein said barcode scanner reads the UPC labels while said load cell weighs the container. (Good Figure 1A and 1C showing weigh scale and adjacent barcode scanners on top of housing, for reading barcodes while items are weighed. See page 4, lines 19-21 of present specification for support for said claims.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of detecting information in Teller, with the known technique of identifying items weighed in Good, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for integration of scale with scanner. (Good paragraphs 134 and 135 showing advantageousness and conventionality of integration.) Claim 12. Said modified Teller teaches the method of Claim 6, wherein said step of providing a processor further comprises providing an on/off switch connected to said processor, said on/off switch being activated by an operator to command said processor to activate said load cell and said barcode scanner. (Teller para. 86 showing power switch for device) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM. 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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266. 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. /AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 28, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 18, 2025
Response Filed
May 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602929
SYSTEM, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING ARTICLE STORE OR RETRIEVE OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586036
PAY STATEMENT SETUP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567024
RFID BASED SEQUENCING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567048
HARDWARE SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING GRAB-AND-GO TRANSACTIONS IN A CASHIERLESS STORE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567025
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROACTIVE AGGREGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+34.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 162 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month