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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: for clarity, “the displaying the sum” in lines 1-3 should match the language describing the associated step in claim 14 (i.e., --the displaying a total discharged amount as a sum-- or similar, based on the current amendment). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “display the discharged amount as increased by a unit amount from an initial discharged amount each time the discharged amount of the liquid is determined, based on the output signal of the flow sensor, to reach the unit amount” in lines 2-5. This is unclear since “the discharged amount” is described as reaching a “unit amount”, which appears to generally be a smaller quantity than the cumulative amount being dispensed. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to mean that the processor is capable of updating the display of a discharged amount each time an additional full unit amount of liquid is discharged.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “display a discharged amount as decreased by a unit amount from a target amount each time the discharged amount of the liquid is determined, based on the output signal of the flow sensor, to reach the unit amount” in lines 2-5. It is unclear how a “discharged amount” would be decreased. Also see above regarding claim 12 with respect to the underlined phrase. According to Examiner’s best understanding, the claim will be interpreted to mean that the processor is capable of calculating and updating the display of a remaining amount to be dispensed from a target amount each time an additional full unit amount of liquid is discharged.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim recites “based on an output signal of a flow sensor arranged in the flow path, to reach a unit amount, by the processor, displaying a discharged amount of the liquid each time the discharged amount of the liquid is determined” in lines 7-9. This is unclear. In particular, the underlined portion appears to be out of place. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to mean that the processor updates the displayed amount each time an additional full unit amount of liquid is discharged.
The claim recites “a total discharged amount as a sum of a total discharged amount of the liquid, discharged . . .” beginning in line 11. It appears that the same terminology (“total discharged amount”) is being used to refer to two separate amounts, but this is not completely clear and may cause antecedent basis issues for subsequent recitations (e.g., “the total discharged amount of the liquid discharged . . .” in line 5 of claim 15 (note the lack of a comma after “liquid” in this recitation). For purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted to match the similar recitation in lines 17-20 of claim 1. Claim 15 is dependent upon the instant claim, and thus inherits the noted deficiencies.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites “control the user interface to display a first one of a plurality of values based on one of either the discharged amount . . . or the total discharged amount, after the resumption of discharging of the liquid” in lines 9-12. It is unclear whether the language following “based on” is intended to define one or all of the plurality of values, or to modify the function of controlling the user interface (further confused by the similar language in lines 13-14). Examiner further notes that the specification does not appear to provide clarification, as no description of a “plurality of values” was found in the written description. Additionally, it is unclear whether the underlined phrase is intended to modify “the total discharged amount” or to describe when the value is displayed.
The claim recites “the pre-set incremental amount being an incremental amount between ones of the plurality of values” in lines 15-16. It is unclear if the term “between” is intended to describe the magnitude of the amount relative to the plurality of values or to define the amount as being chosen from the plurality of values.
Claims 18-20 are dependent upon the instant claim, and thus inherit the noted deficiencies. According to Examiner’s best understanding, claim 18 will be interpreted to describe the display of a remaining amount to be dispensed from a target amount, and claim 19 will be interpreted to describe the display of an accumulated amount discharged alongside the target amount.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the second one of the plurality of values . . . is controlled by the processor to be displayed on the user interface” in lines 5-6. It is unclear how a value would be controlled to be displayed.
In light of the indefiniteness issues described above, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe et al. (US 2007/0152074).
Regarding claim 1, Stowe et al. disclose an apparatus (1) comprising:
a flow path (50, 52, 26; Paragraph 0060; Fig. 1);
a dispenser (48, 49, 29) provided at one end of the flow path (Figs. 1-3);
a user interface (2) provided on the dispenser (Figs. 1-3);
a valve (9) provided in the flow path (Fig. 1);
a valve drive operatively connected to the valve (pulse rate for modulating flow through the solenoid valve is calculated by the controller, see Paragraph 0096, meaning a valve drive must be present either in the controller or in the valve for converting the control signal into current/voltage for operating the solenoid);
a flow sensor (7) provided in the flow path (Fig. 1);
a memory (36) storing instructions (Paragraph 0064); and
a processor (3) operatively connected to the user interface (Paragraph 0079), the valve drive (Paragraph 0061), the flow sensor (Paragraph 0079), and the memory (Paragraph 0064), wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
control, based on an input obtained through the user interface, a start of discharging a liquid by controlling the valve drive to open the valve and discharge the liquid (Paragraph 0079; 105 in Fig. 5A), and
identify, based on an output signal of the flow sensor, a discharged amount of the liquid at least once after the start of discharging the liquid (Paragraph 0052).
Stowe et al. further disclose that the processor is configured to: monitor for signals to stop and resume discharging the liquid (see Paragraphs 0065 and 0079); calculate and store discharged amounts (e.g., see Paragraphs 0067-0070, 0097 and step 107 in Fig. 5A; see also that pausing dispensing at step 242 in Fig. 5B maintains the dispensed quantity in memory from step 207 and adds to that amount when dispensing is resumed at step 246, i.e., it sums the “total discharged amount” and a “later discharged amount” continuously as long as dispensing continues); and control the user interface to display summed discharged amounts (e.g., during manual dispensing in steps 501-513 in Fig. 5A; see Paragraph 0111). Stowe et al. does not explicitly disclose the function of displaying a sum of a total discharged amount of the liquid discharged before the stop of discharging of the liquid and after the start of discharging of the liquid, and a later discharged amount of the liquid discharged after the resumption of discharging of the liquid.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the processor of Stowe et al. to perform this function since Stowe et al. teach that the summed amount as claimed is stored in memory, that similar summed amounts are disclosed as being displayed, and that the user interface is intended to communicate relevant information such as discharged amounts (e.g., the claimed sum) to the user (see Paragraphs 0064, 0066, 0102, and 0111). The claimed functionality could be achieved without making any structural changes to the device disclosed by Stowe et al. (i.e., the modification would not require processing or memory capabilities beyond that described). For example, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of configuring the processor to display an updated discharged amount each time that quantity is updated in memory (e.g., at step 207 of Fig. 5B) with a reasonable expectation of success, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-5, Stowe et al. further discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
based on reception of a user input to stop discharging the liquid, control the valve drive to close the valve and store the total discharged amount of the liquid discharged before the stop of discharging of the liquid and after the start of discharging the liquid (Paragraph 0104; steps 242, 244 in Fig. 5B);
based on reception of a user input to resume discharging the liquid within a reference time after the stop of discharging of the liquid, control the valve drive to open the valve and control the user interface to display the sum (see non-use timer not exceeded, Paragraph 0104 and steps 244-246 in Fig. 5B; dispensed amounts can be displayed as described above regarding claim 1);
based on reception of a user input to resume discharging the liquid after the reference time elapses: initialize, to zero, the stored total discharged amount of the liquid; and control the valve drive to open the valve and control the user interface to display the later discharged amount of the liquid discharged after the resumption of discharging of the liquid (see non-use timer exceeded and power off at steps 245 and 230 in Fig. 5B; when powered on, discharged amount is set to zero and the later discharged amount is displayed in steps 500-513 of Fig. 5A, or a desired dispense quantity is chosen at 120 and a new discharged amount is stored in the routine of Fig. 5B and displayed as described above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Stowe et al. further discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the valve drive to close the valve based on determining the output signal of the flow sensor to indicate the discharged amount of the liquid to be equal to or larger than a target amount (Paragraph 0098; see steps 210 and 221 in Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 7, Stowe et al. further discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to implement controlling the valve drive to close the valve based on reception of a user input to stop discharging the liquid through the user interface (Paragraph 0104; 242, 244 in Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 8, Stowe et al. further discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: stop discharging of the liquid; store the total discharged amount of the liquid discharged before the stop of discharging the liquid and after the start of discharging the liquid, and based on reception of a user input to resume discharging of the liquid: resume discharging of the liquid (Paragraph 0104; see step 246 in Fig. 5B).
As with claim 1 above, Stowe et al. does not explicitly disclose that that the device is configured to control the user interface to display the total discharged amount of the liquid in response to the resumption of discharging the liquid, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the device to perform this function for the same reasons described above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Stowe et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: end, based on reception of a user input to stop discharging the liquid, discharging of the liquid, and based on reception of a user input to resume discharging of the liquid: resume discharging of the liquid, and control the user interface to display an initial discharged amount of the liquid (see Paragraphs 0097 and 0104). Examiner finds no meaningful difference between displaying a “total discharged amount”, as in claim 8, and displaying an “initial discharged amount”, as in the instant claim. Thus, the instant claim is rendered obvious by the same modification described above regarding claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 10, Stowe et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses that the user interface comprises a button (31; Figs. 1 and 3) for receiving a user input to pause discharging of the liquid (Paragraph 0065), and a lever (8; Fig. 3) configured to end discharging the liquid (Paragraph 0112).
Regarding claim 11, Stowe et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses that the user interface comprises a touch button (31 is a capacitive sensing, magnetic sensing, or optical switch input means; Paragraph 0078), and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtain a user input to pause discharging of the liquid based on reception of a touch input, to the touch button, that is shorter than a reference time, and obtain a user input to end discharging the liquid based on reception of a touch input, to the touch button, that is longer than the reference time (the processor is capable of receiving the user input from the touch button to pause and/or end discharging, as well as running a timing sequence to determine whether the input exceeds a reference time; see Paragraphs 0065 and 0096).
Regarding claim 12, Stowe et al., modified as described above regarding claim 1, further discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the user interface to display the discharged amount as increased by a unit amount from an initial discharged amount each time the discharged amount of the liquid is determined, based on the output signal of the flow sensor, to reach the unit amount (controller displays accumulated volume of liquid flowing; see Paragraph 0111, step 207 in Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 13, Stowe et al., modified as described above regarding claim 1, further discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the user interface to display the discharged amount as decreased by a unit amount from a target amount each time the discharged amount of the liquid is determined, based on the output signal of the flow sensor, to reach the unit amount (controller calculates remaining volume of liquid to dispense from a desired volume and can display amounts useful to the user as described above regarding claim 1; see Paragraphs 0111-0112).
Regarding claim 14, Stowe et al. discloses a method (see Figs. 5A-5B) of controlling an apparatus comprising a flow path, a dispenser provided at one end of the flow path, a valve provided in the flow path, a valve drive operatively connected to the valve, a memory storing instructions and a processor (see above regarding claim 1), the method comprising: based on a user input obtained through a user interface provided on the dispenser, opening, by the processor, the valve to start discharging a liquid (Paragraph 0079; step 203 in Fig. 5B).
Stowe et al. further disclose the steps of:
based on an output signal of a flow sensor arranged in the flow path, to reach a unit amount, by the processor, storing a discharged amount of the liquid each time the discharged amount of the liquid is determined (steps 204-207 in Fig. 5B); and
based on resumption of discharging of the liquid (at step 246 in Fig. 5B) after a stop of discharging of the liquid (at step 244 of Fig. 5B), by the processor, storing a total discharged amount as a sum of a total discharged amount of the liquid, discharged before the stop of discharging of the liquid and after the start of discharging the liquid, and a later discharged amount of the liquid discharged after the resumption of discharging of the liquid (returning to steps 202-207 in Fig. 5B to resume discharging and update the dispensed quantity).
As described above regarding claim 1, Stowe et al. do not explicitly disclose the steps of displaying the recited amounts, but do describe those amounts as being stored in memory, and further describes similar steps of displaying stored discharge amounts (see passages cited regarding claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to supplement the method taught by Stowe et al. with the steps of displaying a discharged amount of the liquid each time the discharged amount of the liquid is determined, and displaying the recited total discharge amount once discharging is resumed, in order to communicate relevant information to a user during normal operation. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of incorporating these steps with a reasonable expectation of success by merely including an instruction to display an updated discharged amount each time that quantity is updated in memory (at step 207 of Fig. 5B, for example), thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Stowe et al., modified as described above regarding claim 14, further disclose that the method comprises:
based on reception of a user input to stop discharging the liquid, closing the valve and storing the total discharged amount of the liquid discharged before the stop of discharging of the liquid and after the start of discharging of the liquid (Paragraph 0104; valve closed at steps 242, 244 in Fig. 5B; total discharged amount stored at step 207), and
based on reception of a user input to resume discharging of the liquid within a reference time after the stop of discharging of the liquid (see non-use timer in Paragraph 0104), opening the valve (steps 245, 246 in Fig. 5B) and displaying the sum (as described above regarding claim 14).
Regarding claim 17, Stowe et al. modified as described above regarding claim 1, further disclose that the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: store a target amount of the liquid to be discharged through the dispenser (Paragraphs 0064, 0071); continuously monitor the discharged amount of the liquid until at least one of the target amount of the liquid is determined to be discharged or an instruction to stop or reset monitoring of the discharged amount is received (Paragraph 0097; see step 210 in Fig. 5B); and while continuously monitoring the discharged amount of the liquid from the start of discharging the liquid to the stop of discharging the liquid, control the user interface to display a first one of a plurality of values based on one of either the discharged amount, after the start of discharging the liquid and before the stop of discharging the liquid, or the total discharged amount, after the resumption of discharging of the liquid, and update the user interface to display a second one of the plurality of values based on determining that the one of either the discharged amount or the total discharged amount has changed by a pre-set incremental amount, the pre-set incremental amount being an incremental amount between ones of the plurality of values (as described above regarding claim 1, the modified device displays the currently discharged amount each time that quantity is updated in memory, e.g., at step 207 of Fig. 5B, thus consecutively displaying each one of a plurality of values according to Examiner’s best understanding of the claim).
Regarding claims 18-19, as described above regarding claim 17, the modified device of Stowe et al. is configured to display a second one of the plurality of values each time the discharged amount is determined to change by a pre-set incremental amount. Stowe et al. describe this updated amount in terms of both an accumulated amount (Paragraph 0111) and a remaining amount (Paragraph 0112). Examiner notes that Stowe et al. anticipates tracking a target amount through multiple stops and starts (see Paragraph 0030). Examiner further notes that Stowe et al. illustrates a display showing both a numerical amount and a bar graph (e.g., see 30 in Fig. 3), thus enabling the simultaneous display of multiple values (e.g., amounts already discharged, amounts to be discharged, and/or target amounts), but it is not clear from the disclosure which of the amounts is intended to be displayed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the device to display the second one of the plurality of values in either an increasing or decreasing manner as a simple design choice based on preference, or as an optional user-defined setting of the device, since the modified device of Stowe et al. is configured to display the updated amount and is capable of expressing that amount as either an increasing discharged amount or a decreasing amount remaining to be discharged. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on either configuration, and it appears that the modified device of Stowe et al. would work appropriately in either configuration.
Likewise, since the target amount is selected on the user interface (see Paragraph 0064), it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the device to continue displaying the target amount alongside either the discharged amount or the remaining amount in order to provide the user with relevant information of the dispensing operation. Thus, the modified invention according to claim 17 renders obvious the limitations of both claims 18 and 19.
Regarding claim 20, the modified invention according to claim 17 renders obvious the limitation wherein the second one of the plurality of values is greater than the first one of the plurality of values and is controlled by the processor to be displayed on the user interface after the start of discharging the liquid and before the stop of discharging the liquid, alongside a first target value (the target value initially selected as described in Paragraph 0071; see above regarding claims 18-19).
Stowe et al. further disclose that the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to update, after the stop of discharging the liquid and before the resumption of discharging of the liquid, the target amount from the first target value to a second target value (upon user input to change the target amount; see 107, 120 in Fig. 5A). According to Examiner’s best understanding, the claimed subject matter is supported by the process described in Fig. 17 of the drawings, which is based on a user input to change the target amount, but Examiner also notes that Stowe et al. discloses calculating a remaining volume to be dispensed after a stop, which results in the processor effectively updating the first target value to a second target value (see Paragraph 0112). Stowe et al. disclose the display of the second target amount (as part of step 120 in Fig. 5A), but, as with claim 19, do not explicitly disclose the display of the second one of the plurality of values alongside a second target value after resumption.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the modified device of Stowe et al. to display the second one of the plurality of values alongside the second target value after resumption as a matter of design choice based on preference, or as an optional user-defined setting of the device, since the modified device of Stowe et al. is configured to display any values that are stored in memory. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the display of the second target value (e.g., specialized features required to implement) or unexpected results from doing so, and it appears that the modified device of Stowe et al. would work appropriately if configured as claimed, especially considering that Stowe et al. describes the same process of manually updating a displayed target value from a previously dispensed amount via the user interface.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe et al. in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0270150).
Stowe et al. render obvious the water purification apparatus of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose that the user interface comprises a touch panel display arranged at a cantilevered end of the dispenser.
Jeon et al. teach a similar apparatus having a user interface with a touch panel display (240; Paragraph 0086) arranged at a cantilevered end of a dispenser, the cantilevered end of the dispenser being an end of a faucet through which a liquid is dispensed, and the touch panel display is facing away from a direction in which the liquid is dispensed through the end of the faucet (Fig. 3). Jeon et al. teach this feature as part of a rotatable discharge nozzle that maximizes user convenience (Paragraph 0176).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the device of Stowe et al. with a touch panel display arranged at a cantilevered end of the dispenser, as taught by Jeon et al., in order to provide the user with a convenient means for controlling the dispenser.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Stowe et al. “does not teach or suggest any ‘a sum of a total discharged amount of the liquid discharged before the stop of discharging of the liquid and after the start of discharging of the liquid, and a later discharged amount of the liquid discharged after the resumption of discharging of the liquid’ in contrast to the features of pending claim 1” (Remarks, Page 13).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that “even if ‘these steps could be incorporated into the normal operation of [Stowe's] apparatus’ and even if ‘all of the necessary structural features are present’, as alleged at page 11 of the Office Action, that does not make out a prima facie case that doing so, or that at least the claim features themselves, would have been obvious” (Remarks, Pages 13-14). Examiner understands this to mean that one having ordinary skill in the art would find no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the disclosure of Stowe et al. to cause the display of the particular measured and/or calculated amounts as claimed.
Examiner asserts that Stowe et al. substantially discloses all of the structural features recited in the amended claim 1, including a processor configured to measure and store a discharged amount, and continuously update this amount by adding later discharged amounts in response to a resumption of discharging the liquid (as detailed in the method of Fig. 5B), as well as to generally to display such parameters stored in memory (Paragraphs 0064-0067). However, in light of the amendment to claim 1, which narrows the scope of the claim, and Applicant’s Remarks dated 12/31/2025, which clarify Applicant’s intent to further limit the processor based on a particular function that is not explicitly disclosed in Stowe et al., the apparatus claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 along with the method claims 14-15. As detailed in the rejection of amended claim 1 above, although Stowe et al. does not explicitly state that the claimed sum is displayed each time it is updated and stored in memory, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to configure the processor to do so based on the teaching of Stowe et al. to provide useful information to the user via the display.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the reference in accordance with the method claimed in claim 14, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Stowe et al. teaches that the claimed sum is to be stored in memory, suggests that useful parameters are to be displayed to the user, and describes a mode of normal operation that would make such a sum relevant and useful for a user to know. Thus one having ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate the steps as claimed, despite a lack of explicit instruction to do so from the disclosure of Stowe et al. As with the similarly amended claim 1 above, Examiner has detailed this analysis in the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, clarifying the motivation described in the previous Office Action - namely, “to communicate relevant information to a user during normal operation” (see Office Action dated 10/1/2025, last paragraph of Page 11). As discussed below, the prior art of record provides additional teachings that demonstrate the relevance and usefulness that would motivate such a modification.
With respect to the rejections of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as described above, the amendments did not fully resolve the indefiniteness described in the Office Action dated 10/1/2025, and thus require further clarification of scope.
With respect to Applicant’s notes regarding the interview conducted 11/24/2025, Examiner refers to the Interview Summary dated 11/28/2025, which clarifies that the agreement regarding the proposed amendment was made in regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and that no agreement was made in regard to the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Isshiki (JP 2009041294; previously cited) teaches a device configured to store and display a discharged amount of liquid when an automatic dispensing function has been paused by the user (see Paragraphs 0056 and 0065 of attached machine translation JP2009041294-MT); and Larkner et al. (US 6,328,881) teach a device configured to display an amount of liquid remaining to be dispensed, as well as an amount already dispensed during an automatic dispensing function. Cronise (US 2015/0239724) teach a device that performs a similar function by displaying amounts in terms of nutritional information (see Paragraph 0031).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 March 19, 2026