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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 23-27, 34, 40 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bender et al. (US 6,247,361).
Regarding claim 1, Bender et al. disclose a sensor system, comprising: an activation and detection subsystem (22,24,26,28,30,32) configured to be positioned on or near an external surface of a container containing a fluid (col. 3 lines 4-8, loudspeaker 24 and microphone 26 mounted on a gas bottle container), the activation and detection subsystem configured to: cause a vibration at a range of predetermined frequencies at the external surface of the container (col. 3 lines 55-68, frequency sweeping of voltage-controlled oscillator); receive vibration data at the external surface of the container (col. 3 lines 5-8 and lines 52-55, vibration sensed by microphone 26 on surface of bottle); one or more processors 40 operably communicating with the activation and detection subsystem, the one or more processors configured to, collectively: receive the vibration data from the activation and detection subsystem; and determine an estimated mass of the fluid based on the vibration data (see col. 3 line 52 to col. 4 line 37, describing process of phase detector and PLL circuit using vibration data to determine resonance frequency and converting it to fill level; see col. 4 line 64 to col.5 line 27 and Table 1, stating that fill level is really a representation of mass of fluid in bottle, i.e. the mass must be determined in order to determine the fill level).
Regarding claim 2, Bender et al. disclose that the system further comprises a temperature sensor 47, wherein the one or more processors 40 are further configured to receive a temperature from the temperature sensor, and wherein the estimated mass is determined based on the vibration data and the temperature (col. 4 lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 5, Bender et al. disclose that the vibration data is converted into one or more frequencies (col. 4 lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 9, Bender et al. disclose that the vibration data is acquired using a vibration sensor or a microphone 26 (col. 3 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 10, Bender et al. disclose that the activation and detection subsystem comprises: a speaker or a voice coil actuator 24; and a vibration sensor or a microphone 26 (col. 3 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 11, Bender et al. disclose that the one or more processors 40 are further configured to, collectively, cause the speaker 24 to vibrate at a desired frequency or a range of desired frequencies (col. 3 lines 55-65), and wherein the vibration data is received from the vibration sensor or microphone 26 (col. 3 lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 12, Bender et al. disclose that the activation and detection subsystem comprises an actuator 24 and at least one vibration sensor or microphone 26 mechanically isolated from the actuator (col. 3 lines 22-34).
Regarding claims 23-27, Bender et al. disclose that the system is configured for used on a gas bottle which contains a fluid that may consist of gaseous material, liquid material or a combination of both; also, the system is configured to work with any fluid container, including one that contains a supercritical fluid (see col. 1 lines 5-12; note that the sensor system of Bender is configured such that it would work with any fluid bottle type container, regardless of whether there is liquid, gas, both liquid and gas, or supercritical fluid in it, and this satisfies the limitation of the claims).
Regarding claim 34, Bender et al. disclose that the activation and detection subsystem (22,24,26,28,30,32) communicates electrically with the one or more processors 40 (see Fig. 1 and col. 1 lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 40, Bender et al. disclose that the one or more processors are configured to determine the estimated mass based on one or more frequencies determined from the vibration data, a temperature, and information related to a design of the container (see col. 2 lines 9-39 and col. 5 Table 1, mass/fill level is determined based on resonant frequency, temperature and a calibration look-up table for particular bottle).
Regarding claim 46, Bender et al. disclose a method for determining a mass of a fluid within a container, the method comprising: vibrating a surface of a container with a range of predetermined frequencies (col. 1 lines 52-55; col. 2 lines 9-12), the container containing a fluid; receiving vibration data at or near an external surface of the container (col. 3 lines 5-10); determining a resonance frequency based on the vibration data (col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 lines 35); and determine an estimated mass of the fluid based on the resonance frequency (col. 4 lines 35-40; col. 4 line 64 to col. 5 line 27, Table 1 converts resonant frequency to mass).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 20-22, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 6,247,361).
Regarding claim 6, Bender et al. do not explicitly disclose the vibration data being converted in to a variance associated with a certain range of frequencies, but Bender et al. do teach determining a resonant frequency (col. 3 lines 52-67). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known based on fundamental principles of physics and acoustics, that resonant frequency can be determined by measuring and determining maximum variance in a response signal when performing the frequency sweep with the actuator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify the resonant frequency by measuring maximum variance in the output signal, because it is a known step that can be applied in known conventional way and would yield only predictable results by identifying the resonant frequency for use in determining mass and fill level in the container.
Regarding claims 20-22, Bender et al. do not disclose how much power is used by the actuator. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any of various different power amounts could provided and used by the actuator of Bender et al. depending on the particular requirements of the container being measured, such as its size, wall thickness, material, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adjusted the power used by the actuator in Bender et al., to be no more than any of various values, including 1/10 W, 1/2 W and 5 W, based on the environment and the container being measured, in order to make sure that the actuator is tailored to its specific application without wasting power.
Regarding claim 30, Bender et al. does not disclose whether the activation and detection subsystem is removably coupled to the container or permanently attached to the container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the activation and detection subsystem to be removably attached to the container because it is one of only two possible configurations, i.e. removably attached or permanently attached, and therefore it would have been obvious to try both configurations and use whichever one is more advantageous for a particular application; it would have been obvious to make it removably coupled because it would have provided the advantage of allowing the sensor and actuator to be easily removed for maintenance or replaced.
Regarding claim 31, Bender et al. does not disclose whether the activation and detection subsystem is removably coupled to the container or permanently attached to the container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the activation and detection subsystem to be permanently attached to the container because it is one of only two possible configurations, i.e. removably attached or permanently attached, and therefore it would have been obvious to try both configurations and use whichever one is more advantageous for a particular application; it would have been obvious to make it permanently attached because it would have provided the advantage of ensuring the sensor and actuator are firmly secured in place such that it provided repeatable measurement results.
Claim(s) 3, 15, 16, 18, 28, 33 and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 6,247,361) in view of Crouse et al. (US 2018/0044159).
Regarding claims 3 and 28, Bender et al. do not disclose the details of any housing for the activation and detection subsystem. Crouse et al. disclose a system for determining fluid mass in a container by using an activation and detection subsystem that causes vibration from an exterior surface of the container with a resonator 220 and senses vibration on the exterior surface of the container with a vibration sensor 230, and Crouse et al. disclose that the activation and detection subsystem including both the resonator 220 and sensor 230 is disposed within a single housing 210 (see Fig. 2B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have disposed the activation and detection subsystem in one housing, as taught by Crouse et al., in the system of Bender et al. because it would have been more compact and provided protection for the vibration generating and sensing parts.
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 18, Bender et al. do not how vibration sensor is configured to be disposed on the container. Crouse et al. disclose that their vibration sensor 230 is configured in a housing 210 that can be attached at any height on the surface of the container 110, including at a distance of half the height of the container, or at a distance of ¼ a height of the container from the top or bottom, or with the vibration sensor 230 disposed above or below the actuator 220 (see Figs. 2A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed a housing that allows attachment at any height on a container, as taught by Crouse et al., in the system of Bender et al. because it would have allowed for versatility in the placement of the vibration sensor on the container.
Regarding claim 33, Bender et al. do not disclose that the activation and detection subsystem communicates wirelessly with the one or more processors. Crouse et al. disclose that their activation and detection subsystem (in housing 210) communicates wirelessly with the processor 330 (in main unit 310) (see par. 0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a wireless connection between the activation and detection subsystem and the processor, as taught by Crouse et al., in the system of Bender et al. because it would have eliminated wires and allowed for more versatility in the placement of the components relative to the container.
Regarding claim 35, Bender et al. do not disclose the processor being configured to generate an alert or request a replacement container when the estimated mass is at or below a first predetermined threshold. Crouse et al. disclose in their system, their processor being configured to generate an alert or request a replacement container when the estimated mass is at or below a first predetermined threshold (par. 0091-0092, provides information when container is 10% full or 20% as an alert to a driver for filling). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed the alerting and fill status tracking elements, as taught by Crouse et al., in the system of Bender et al. because it would have allowed for more efficient refilling of containers.
Regarding claim 36, Crouse et al. disclose that their processor is configured to determine a rate at which the estimated mass within the container is changing (par. 0091, estimated days until container reaches empty state). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed these alerting and fill status tracking elements, as taught by Crouse et al., in the system of Bender et al. because it would have allowed for more efficient refilling of containers.
Regarding claims 37-39, Crouse et al. disclose that their processor is configured to estimate a target date and/or time at which the estimated mass within the container will be below a second predetermined threshold (par. 0091-0092), estimated days until container reaches empty) and to generate alerts regarding this information (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed these alerting and fill status tracking elements, as taught by Crouse et al., in the system of Bender et al. because it would have allowed for more efficient refilling of containers. It would have been further obvious to have employed any alerts on refill timing that include alerts when the number of days until empty reaches a threshold, which is also representative of a rate of the mass of fluid in the container changing, because it would have helped ensure that the container is refilled before it is empty.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 6,247,361) in view of Nemirow (US 5,528,933).
Regarding claim 4, Bender et al. do not disclose the details of any housing for the activation and detection subsystem. Nemirow disclose a system for determining fluid mass in a container by using an activation and detection subsystem that causes vibration from an exterior surface of the container with a vibration generator/activator 201 and senses vibration on the exterior surface of the container with a vibration sensor 202, and Nemirow discloses that the activation and detection subsystem is disposed separately from each other on the container 200 (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have disposed the activation subsystem on the container separately from the detection subsystem on the container, as taught by Nemirow, in the system of Bender et al. because it would have allowed for versatility in arranging the various parts of the system. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a housing for each of the activation subsystem and the detection subsystem, because housings are known to be advantageous for protecting electronic components from moisture and contaminants.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 13, 14 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 6,247,361) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 6,397,656).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bender et al. do not disclose the subsystem comprising a piezoelectric or piezoresistive transducer. Yamaguchi et al. disclose a system that uses an activation and detection subsystem in the form of a transducer 2 to send vibrations into a wall of a container 3 and to sense vibration signals from the wall of the container, which is mounted on an exterior surface of the container (see Figs. 6 and 7), and Yamaguchi et al. further disclose that the transducer used for vibrating and sensing is a piezoelectric transducer (col. 4 lines 60-67) that is caused to vibrate at a desired frequency by processor 7 (see Fig. 1 and col. 5 lines 28-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have employed a piezoelectric transducer, as taught by Bender et al., as the vibration generator and/or sensor in Bender et al. because it would have provided a precise way to control the frequency of vibration delivered that uses relatively small amounts of power.
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Bender et al. do not disclose how the actuator and vibration sensor are coupled to the container. Yamaguchi et la. disclose a system that uses an activation and detection subsystem in the form of a transducer 2 to send vibrations into a wall of a container 3 and to sense vibration signals from the wall of the container, which is mounted on an exterior surface of the container (see Figs. 6 and 7), and Yamaguchi et al. further disclose that the activation and detection subsystem comprises an elastic material 33 (col. 11 lines 7-10) configured to be operably coupled to the acoustic transducer 2 (see Fig. 7), and wherein the container 3 is configured to exert a force on a contact surface of the activation and detection subsystem such that the elastic material is deformed (col. 11 lines 3-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used an elastic material for coupling the actuator and vibration sensor to the container surface, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., for the activation and detection subsystem mounting in the system of Bender et al. because it would have ensured that the actuator and vibration sensor are properly acoustically coupled to the container.
Regarding claim 29, Bender et al. do not disclose the details of how the activation and detection subsystem is coupled or mounted relative to the container. Yamaguchi et al. disclose their activation and detection subsystem being coupled to a structure (31,34,35,36,37,40,41) configured to hold or position the container 3 such that the activation and detection subsystem (2,32) is positioned at or near an external surface of the container (see Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated a coupling structure for holding and positioning the container relative to the activation and detection subsystem, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., in the system of Blender et al., because it would have helped to ensure that the actuator and vibration sensor remain securely attached to the container.
Claim(s) 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 6,247,361) in view of Walker (US 2019/0049284).
Regarding claims 42 and 43, Bender et al. do not disclose a pressure sensor and taking pressure into account when determining the mass. Walker disclose a system that determines an amount of fluid in a container using acoustic vibrations and an acoustic sensor, wherein the system further includes temperature and pressure sensors 152 and uses them to correct the measurements of fluid amount (par. 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the teachings of Walker of using a pressure sensor in addition to the temperature and frequency measurement, in the system of Bender et al., because it would have led to more precise measurements and reduced error due to changes in temperature and/or pressure of the fluid.
Claim(s) 44 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 6,247,361) in view of Moore et al. (US 2020/0355540).
Regarding claim 44 and 45, Bender et al. do not disclose the processor being in a mobile phone. Moore et al. disclose a vibration actuator and sensing device for determining fluid level in a container 10, with an activation and detection subsystem 102, wherein the subsystem 102 communicates with a processor in a mobile phone 104 that has a graphical user interface configured to display sensing results and information (par. 0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a mobile phone for communicating with the system, as taught by Moore et al., in the system of Bender et al., because it would have allowed for measurement information to be efficiently incorporated and integrated into other mobile applications and conveyed to users at remote locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 19, 32 and 41 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 17, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with limitations of claims 1 and 12, the at least one vibration sensor or microphone comprising a plurality of vibration sensors or microphones, one of the plurality of vibration sensors or microphones being configured to be disposed at a distance from a top or bottom of the container, the distance being about 1/4 a height of the container, and one of the plurality of vibration sensors or microphones being configured to be disposed at a distance from a top or bottom of the container, the distance being about half a height of the container.
With regard to claim 19, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 12, the container being disposed between the actuator and the at least one vibration sensor or microphone.
With regard to claim 32, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the limitations of claim 1, the activation and detection subsystem being integrated into a label on the container.
With regard to claim 41, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the limitations of claim 1, the one or more processors being configured to determine the estimated mass when a temperature has not changed by more than a predetermined amount over a predetermined period of time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-2139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5:30 pm (CT).
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/PAUL M. WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights