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. Priority The claim to priority to 63/394,254, filed on August 1, 2022 is acknowledged in the instant application. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 21, 2023, February 21, 2024 and October 28, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner. 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 claim limitation(s) is/are: “ the processing circuitry is configured to process a portion of the capacitance signal received over a period of time, identify a change in the capacitance signal during the period of time, and identify a start of a pour based on the identified change in the capacitance signal ” in claim 1. 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. 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 “ orientation sensor ” (claim 9) and “ pinch tube ” (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference “ 314 ” (portions of sensor portion 314) and “ 122a and 122b ” (capacitive sensors 122a and 122b). 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. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 -5, 9, 10-12, 15-16 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hempy et al. (US Pat. 11,247,891) ( cited by Applicant) . Regarding claim s 1 and 15 , Hempy et al. discloses a connected and automated liquid dispensing attachment , comprising: an attachment portion (2 02 , Fig. 2) configured to engage with a container (Col. 8, Lines 54-58), the attachment portion (2 02 ) comprising: a fluid passage configured to deliver liquid from the container to a spout (220) (Col. 10, Lines 17-21); and a capaci ti ve sensor (514, Fig. 5) located proximate to a portion of the fluid passage (516; Fig. 5) and configured to output a capacitance signal (Col. 17, Lines 27-35); and processing circuit (1204, Fig. 9) coupled to receive the capacitance signal, wherein the processing circuit is configured to process a portion of the capacitance signal received over a period of time, identify a change in the capacitance signal during the period of time, and identify a start of a pour based on the identified change in the capacitance signal (Fig. 2-5 and 11-12; Col. 1, Line 55 to Col. 2, Line 25; Col. 11, Line 53 to Col. 12, Line 10; Col. 16, Lines 41-64; Col. 17, Lines 27-49; Col. 24, Lines 4-19; Col. 24, Line 64 to Col. 25, Line 14). Regarding claim 2 , Hempy et al. discloses the attachment portion (202) comprises a cork having a flexible exterior surface configured to frictionally engage with an interior surface of the container, and wherein the capacitive sensor (514) is mounted between the flexible exterior surface and the fluid passage (Fig. 2 and 5; Col. 9, Lines 17-31). Regarding claim 3 , Hempy et al. discloses one or more capacitive inserts (4 12 A -C; Fig. 4) are embedded in the cork (via attachment body 403, Fig. 4) adjacent to and at least partially surrounding a portion of the capacitive sensor (514) , and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to identify an attachment to the container based on a change in the capacitance signal due to a relative movement of the capacitive inserts during attachment to the container. (Fig. 4-5 and 12 ; Col. 24, Lines 4-19 and Line s 44-63 ). Regarding claim 4 , Hempy et al. discloses the fluid passage (516, Fig. 5) defines a cylindrical interior surface extending in a longitudinal direction within the attachment portion, and wherein the capacitive sensor (514, Fig. 4) substantially surrounds a portion of the fluid passage (Fig. 5; Col. 15, Line 54 to Col. 6, Line 5 ; Col. 16, Lines 54-64 ). Regarding claim 5 , Hempy et al. discloses the capacitive sensor (514) extends around an entire circumference of the fluid passage (516) (Col. 16, Lines 54-64). Regarding claim s 9-10 and 20-21 , Hempy et al. discloses a n orientation sensor, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the start of the pour based additionally on an orientation signal output by the orientation sensor ; and wherein the orientation sensor comprises one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope (Col. 11, Lines 53-64) . Regarding claim s 11 -12 , Hempy et al. discloses the processing circuit (1204, Fig. 9) is further configured to identify a level of the capacitance signal during a period of time and to identify attachment (via attachment sensor 212, Fig. 2) to the container based on the level of the capacitance signal and identify change in the capacitance signal (Fig. 12; Col. 16, Lines 41-64 ). Regarding claim 15 , Hempy et al. discloses the automated beverage dispensing attachment further comprises a pinch tube (706 , Fig. 7) located between the portion of the fluid passage (516, Fig. 5) and the spout (220, Fig. 2) , and wherein the processing circuitry (1204, Fig. 9) is configured to open the pinch tube to allow a fluid to flow from the portion of the fluid passage to the spout in response to the identification of the start of the pour (Col. 20, Lines 15-62) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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 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. Claim(s) 6 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempy et al. (US Pat. 11,247,891) in view of Kwiatkowski (US Pat. 11,820,639) (new cited) . Regarding claim s 6 -8 , Hempy et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the capacitive sensor comprises a plurality of capacitive sensors ( Col. 16, Line 59-60; Col. 24, Lines 14-15) except a plurality of capacitive sensors and the capacitance signal comprises a plurality of unique capacitance signal, and wherein each capacitive sensor of the plurality of capacitive sensor is associated with a capacitance signal of the plurality of unique capacitance signals ; and wherein the plurality of capacitive sensors are located longitudinal and lateral adjacent to the fluid passage . Kwiatkowski discloses a plurality of capacitive sensors (150, Fig. 17) and the capacitance signal comprises a plurality of unique capacitance signal (see via connection pads 154, Fig. 17) , and wherein each capacitive sensor of the plurality of capacitive sensor is associated with a capacitance signal of the plurality of unique capacitance signals ; and wherein the plurality of capacitive sensors are located longitudinal and lateral adjacent to the fluid passage (via down tube 36) (Fig. 2, 4 and 17; Col. 6, Line 65 to Col. 7, Line 2; Col. 10, Line 64 to Col. 11, Line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Hempy et al., a plurality of capacitive sensors and the capacitance signal comprises a plurality of unique capacitance signal, and wherein each capacitive sensor of the plurality of capacitive sensor is associated with a capacitance signal of the plurality of unique capacitance signals , as taught by Kwiatkowski , f o r the purpose of detecting the level of the fluid. Claim(s) 13 -14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempy et al. (US Pat. 11,247,891) in view of K night et al. ( CN 103119450 ) (new cited). Regarding claim s 13 -14 and 17-19 , Hempy et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the identification of the changed in the capacitance signal except the identification of the changed in the capacitance signal is based on a derivative of the capacitance signal ; and wherein the identification of the change in the capacitance signal is based on a rectification of the derivative of the capacitance signal to output a rectified signal . Knight et al. discloses the identification of the changed in the capacitance signal is based on a derivative of the capacitance signal ; and wherein the identification of the change in the capacitance signal is based on a rectification of the derivative of the capacitance signal to output a rectified signal (Par. 201). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Hempy et al., the identification of the changed in the capacitance signal is based on a derivative of the capacitance signal , a taught by Knight et al., for the purpose of detect$3 fluid/liquid level in the container. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7828 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Edward Landrum can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5567 . 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. /HUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT HUNG D. NGUYEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3761