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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed February 20th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 3-15 have been cancelled; claims 30-47 are new; claims 30-47 remain pending in this application.
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) 30, 32-34, 38-39, and 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzgiver et al. (US 20160025545 A1, “Saltzgiver”) in view of Schmelter et al. (DE 102019115337 A1, “Schmelter”).
Regarding claim 30, Saltzgiver discloses a system for determining a change in volume of matter in a container of unknown dimensions having a volume of matter therein, the system comprising: a sensor shaped and configured for placement above the container, the sensor further configured to (a) measure a first distance between the sensor and a point on a surface of the matter directly below the sensor([0026], ultrasonic sensor may measure distance between sensor and the surface of the liquid)([0058] burst of ultrasonic signals is emitted and echo selector may identify which of received echoes corresponds to surface of the liquid based on transit time);
Saltzgiver doesn’t teach (b) measure a second distance, the second distance being a distance between the sensor and a perimeter of the surface of the matter in the container; (c) incrementally measure a plurality of second distances; and a processor configured to calculate a change in the volume of matter within the container of unknown dimensions, the calculating comprising: (a) determining a change in the first distance; and (b) calculating a surface area of matter in the container of unknown dimensions based on the plurality of second distances; the calculating the change in the volume of matter is executed in real- time and without referencing a strapping table.
Schmelter teaches (b) measure a second distance, the second distance being a distance between the sensor and a perimeter of the surface of the matter in the container; (c) incrementally measure a plurality of second distances; and a processor configured to calculate a change in the volume of matter within the container of unknown dimensions, the calculating comprising: (a) determining a change in the first distance; and (b) calculating a surface area of matter in the container of unknown dimensions based on the plurality of second distances; the calculating the change in the volume of matter is executed in real- time and without referencing a strapping table ([pg. 6], data relating to shape of vessel can be used for volume detection through contactless distance sensors in a height adjustable spout. Evaluation of distance signals enables permanent monitoring and enables drink machine in response to changes in filling level and vessel volume)([pg. 2-3], if there is liquid in the vessel, a reflection on the surface and be measured. A plurality of distance signals can be used to determine vessel shape such as partial features including fillable diameter of the vessel)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that multiple measurements corresponding to the fillable diameter of a vessel reads upon the claim limitation as each measurement would correspond to a bounded region and be summed in order to determine total fillable diameter).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of liquid level monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saltzgiver, to include the volume change determination of Schmelter with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling the filling of the vessel in response to a determination that the volume has changed [pg. 6].
Regarding claim 32, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver further teaches the sensor is configured to emit a signal and to receive a reflection of the emitted signal; and the processor is configured to provide a signal indicative of distance based on a time difference between the emitted signal and the reflection of the emitted signal([0026], ultrasonic sensor may measure distance between sensor and the surface of the liquid)([0058] burst of ultrasonic signals is emitted and echo selector may identify which of received echoes corresponds to surface of the liquid based on transit time).
Regarding claim 33, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver further teaches the sensor is an ultrasonic sensor, a laser sensor, or a radar sensor(Fig. 1, [0026], (18) illustrates an ultrasonic liquid level sensor).
Regarding claim 34, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Schmelter further teaches the calculating the surface area comprises calculating a plurality of bounded areas and summing the plurality of bounded areas ([pg. 2-3], if there is liquid in the vessel, a reflection on the surface and be measured. A plurality of distance signals can be used to determine vessel shape such as partial features including fillable diameter of the vessel)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that multiple measurements corresponding to the fillable diameter of a vessel reads upon the claim limitation as each measurement would correspond to a bounded region and be summed in order to determine total fillable diameter).
Regarding claim 38, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver further teaches the processor comprises a field programable gate array (FPGA)([0078], processes may be implemented via an FPGA).
Regarding claim 39, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver further teaches the change in volume of matter in the container is determined by multiplying the calculated surface area by the change in the first distance ([0061], tracking application may subtract the distance from a total distance to the bottom of the volume. Other methods include calculate volume of stored liquid by integrating the horizontal area over the height of the fluid column).
Regarding claim 46, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30, Saltzgiver further teaches the system is self-calibrating ([0061] user may calibrate the lid by enabling a calibration mode via the application).
Regarding claim 47, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver further teaches the change in the volume of matter is negative([0061], tracking application may subtract the distance from a total distance to the bottom of the volume. Other methods include calculate volume of stored liquid by integrating the horizontal area over the height of the fluid column)([0075], application tracks when and how much liquid a user has consumed).
Claim(s) 35-37 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzgiver in view of Schmelter and King (US 5148700 A, “King”).
Regarding claim 35, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of 30. Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter may not explicitly teach the sensor is configured to incrementally rotate and tilt to measure the plurality of second distances.
King teaches the sensor is configured to incrementally rotate and tilt to measure the plurality of second distances([column 7 lines 62-67]-[column 8, line 1], sonar device is adapted for dual axis scanning where each scan position corresponds to a discrete rotational position of the transducer with respect to a first axis, and each azimuthal position corresponding to a discrete rotational position of the transducer about a second axis) ([column 9, lines 33-37], processor may be controlled to rotate transducer at predetermined angular increments of a predetermined angular interval).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of liquid level monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter to include the rotating means of King with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing dual-axis measurement capabilities which allow for three-dimensional scanning from a fixed position [column 8, lines 6-10].
Regarding claim 36, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter may not explicitly teach the sensor is configured to rotate about a first axis in increments of a predetermined angle, the first axis perpendicular to the surface of matter; and at each increment, the sensor is configured to tilt about a second axis until the perimeter has been found([column 7 lines 62-67]-[column 8, line 1], sonar device is adapted for dual axis scanning where each scan position corresponds to a discrete rotational position of the transducer with respect to a first axis, and each azimuthal position corresponding to a discrete rotational position of the transducer about a second axis) ([column 9, lines 33-37], processor may be controlled to rotate transducer at predetermined angular increments of a predetermined angular interval).
King teaches the sensor is configured to rotate about a first axis in increments of a predetermined angle, the first axis perpendicular to the surface of matter; and at each increment, the sensor is configured to tilt about a second axis until the perimeter has been found. ([column 7 lines 62-67]-[column 8, line 1], sonar device is adapted for dual axis scanning where each scan position corresponds to a discrete rotational position of the transducer with respect to a first axis, and each azimuthal position corresponding to a discrete rotational position of the transducer about a second axis) ([column 9, lines 33-37], processor may be controlled to rotate transducer at predetermined angular increments of a predetermined angular interval).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of liquid level monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter to include the rotating means of King with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing dual-axis measurement capabilities which allow for three-dimensional scanning from a fixed position [column 8, lines 6-10].
Regarding claim 37, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter and King teaches the system of claim 36. King further teaches ([column 9, lines 33-37], processor may be controlled to rotate transducer at predetermined angular increments of a predetermined angular interval)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the predetermined angular increments and predetermined angular interval may be selected such that the n first rotations are equal to 360o)
Regarding claim 45, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter may not explicitly teach the sensor is movable.
King teaches the sensor is movable([column 7 lines 62-67]-[column 8, line 1], sonar device is adapted for dual axis scanning where each scan position corresponds to a discrete rotational position of the transducer with respect to a first axis, and each azimuthal position corresponding to a discrete rotational position of the transducer about a second axis) ([column 9, lines 33-37], processor may be controlled to rotate transducer at predetermined angular increments of a predetermined angular interval).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of liquid level monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter to include the rotating means of King with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing dual-axis measurement capabilities which allow for three-dimensional scanning from a fixed position [column 8, lines 6-10].
Claim(s) 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzgiver in view of Schmelter and Bernhardsgruetter et al. (WO 2011134814 A2, “Bernhardsgruetter”).
Regarding claim 40, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 39. Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter may not explicitly teach when the first distance changes by a first predetermined threshold, the system is configured to calculate an intermediary volume by multiplying the surface area by the change in the first distance; and when the number of intermediary volumes calculated is greater than a second predetermined threshold, the system is configured to determine the change in the volume of matter in the container by adding the intermediary volumes of the number of intermediary volumes together
Bernhardsgruetter further teaches when the first distance changes by a first predetermined threshold, the system is configured to calculate an intermediary volume by multiplying the surface area by the change in the first distance; and when the number of intermediary volumes calculated is greater than a second predetermined threshold, the system is configured to determine the change in the volume of matter in the container by adding the intermediary volumes of the number of intermediary volumes together([pg. 24, lines 11-16] describes an integration process for measuring drained fluid volume which utilizes the surface area as well as the change in height of the fluid volume)([pg. 18, lines 5-15], transceiver measurements may be continuously taken)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as tank may be continuously monitored, any change in distance would be a predetermined threshold for calculating a remaining volume through the integration above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of liquid level monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter to include the intermediate volume addition of Bernhardsgruetter with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining a volume of fluid drained from the container [pg. 24, lines 11-16].
Regarding claim 41, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter may not explicitly teach the system is configured to: measure and store a plurality of first distances; store a plurality of calculated surface areas at each one of the plurality of first distances; and associate each of the plurality of first distances with respective ones of the plurality of calculated surface areas([pg. 4 lines 33-37]-[pg. 5, lines 1-15], profiles of the tank are stored in memory. The control unit determines the profile through operations such as integrating a determined surface area of liquid within the container. Control unit may control the volume of liquid in the container by interrupting the flow of liquid once a set point of volume is reached or a threshold exceeded).
Bernhardsgruetter further teaches the system is configured to: measure and store a plurality of first distances; store a plurality of calculated surface areas at each one of the plurality of first distances; and associate each of the plurality of first distances with respective ones of the plurality of calculated surface areas([pg. 4 lines 33-37]-[pg. 5, lines 1-15], profiles of the tank are stored in memory. The control unit determines the profile through operations such as integrating a determined surface area of liquid within the container. Control unit may control the volume of liquid in the container by interrupting the flow of liquid once a set point of volume is reached or a threshold exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of liquid level monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter to include the stored surface areas of Bernhardsgruetter with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining a required quantity of liquid to recharge the container [pg. 4 lines 33-37]-[pg. 5, lines 1-15].
Regarding claim 42, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter and Bernhardsgruetter teaches the system of claim 41. Bernhardsgruetter further teaches the system is configured to: prior to the calculating the change in the volume of matter, determine one or more of the plurality of first distances is a stored first distance having an associated stored calculated surface area(Implicit, [pg. 4 lines 33-37]-[pg. 5, lines 1-15], profiles of the tank are stored in memory. The control unit determines the profile through operations such as integrating a determined surface area of liquid within the container. Control unit may control the volume of liquid in the container by interrupting the flow of liquid once a set point of volume is reached or a threshold exceeded)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the tank profiles implicitly include surface areas that correspond to a distance within the tank).
Claim(s) 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzgiver in view of Schmelter and Esfahlani et al. ("Acoustic dispersive prism." Scientific reports 6.1 (2016): 18911, “Esfahlani”).
Regarding claim 43, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30. Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter may not explicitly teach the sensor comprises an acoustic prism.
Esfahlani teaches the sensor comprises an acoustic prism (Fig. 1, [pg. 4], the acoustic dispersive prism is fed by a sound source that feeds the structure through its input)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of liquid level monitoring, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter to include the acoustic dispersive prism of Esfahlani with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of splitting a broadband acoustic wave into its constituent Fourier components, sending them in different and frequency-dependent directions [abstract].
Regarding claim 44, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter and Esfahlani teaches the system of claim 43. Esfahlani further teaches the acoustic prism is configured to receive a broadband acoustic signal and transmit a plurality of narrowband acoustic signals, wherein the narrowband band signals are transmitted from the acoustic prism in differing angular directions([pg. 5], describes a process where an wideband acoustic pressure wave is fed into the acoustic prism and different narrow frequency band components are directed in different directions with respect to various quadrants).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 31, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter teaches the system of claim 30, Saltzgiver, as modified in view of Schmelter may not explicitly teach the processor is configured to determine an amount of additive to dose in real-time; wherein the determining the amount of additive to dose is executed without referencing a look- up table; and wherein the determining the amount of additive to dose is based on the change in the volume of the matter and at least one of a user defined ratio or percentage.
Lyons et al. (US 10863852 B1, “Lyons” ) teaches the processor is configured to determine an amount of additive to dose in real-time; wherein the determining the amount of additive to dose is executed without referencing a look- up table; and wherein the determining the amount of additive to dose is based on the change in the volume of the matter and at least one of a user defined ratio or percentage ([column 7, lines 16-29], controller determines and dispenses additive into the container based on liquid level measurement of the remaining consumable liquid. However Lyons relies on using look-up tables in order to determine the amount of additive to dose. No other identified prior art teaches the required limitation with sufficient motivation to combine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed February 20th, 2026, with respect to 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 31 is therefore indicated as being objected to for being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
On Pg. 2 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claim 30, the dependent claims are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claim 30 above, the rejection is maintained, therefore so are the rejections of the dependent claims, with the exception of claim 31.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Torigoe et al. (US 20090217749 A1, “Torigoe”) which discloses an acoustic capacity, volume, and surface area measurement method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645