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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 21 – 33, in the reply filed on 11/20/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 34 – 50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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) 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perrelli et al. (10231567).
Regarding claim 21, the Perrelli et al. reference discloses a portable beverage apparatus comprising: a container (100) configured to contain a consumable liquid; an additive vessel (101) configured to be received by the container and selectively dispense additive into the consumable liquid; a sensor (157) configured to obtain motion data associated with motion of the portable beverage apparatus; and a processor (156, 159) configured to determine a liquid level (158) of the consumable liquid in the container based at least in part on the obtained motion data. See column 37, lines 36 – 67.
Regarding claim 22, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the sensor includes an accelerometer configured to sense an acceleration associated with the portable beverage apparatus, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the liquid level of the consumable liquid in the container based at least in part on the sensed acceleration. See column 22, lines 6 – 17 and column 23, lines 55 - 58.
Regarding claim 23, wherein the processor is configured to determine a mass associated with the portable beverage container based at least in part on the sensed acceleration (i.e., accelerometer; see claim 22 rejection), and wherein the processor is configured to determine the liquid level associated with the portable beverage container based at least in part on the determined mass. See column 48, lines 38 – 52.
Regarding claim 24, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses further comprises a load cell coupled to the container and configured to sense a mass associated with the consumable liquid in the container, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the liquid level of the consumable liquid in the container based at least in part on the sensed mass. See column 48, lines 38 – 49.
Regarding claim 25, wherein the load cell is further configured to sense a mass associated with the additive vessel and any additive therein, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the liquid level of the consumable liquid in the container based at least in part on the mass of the additive vessel and any additive therein. See column 48, lines 38 – 52.
Regarding claim 26, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine an amount of additive in the additive vessel based at least in part on the obtained motion data. Column 2, lines 30 – 42 and column 3, lines 42 - 54.
Regarding claim 27, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the liquid level of the consumable liquid in the container based at least in part on an amount of additive in the additive vessel. Column 3, lines 42 – 54.
Regarding claim 28, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the additive is a liquid. Column 16, lines 13 – 20.
Regarding claim 29, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to normalize the obtained motion data and determine the liquid level of the consumable liquid in the container based at least in part on the normalized motion data. Column 23, line 20 – column 24, line 2 and lines 52 - 64.
Regarding claim 30, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the liquid level of the consumable liquid in the container based at least in part on comparing the normalized motion data to previously collected motion data. Column 23, line 20 – column 24, line 2 and lines 52 – 64.
Regarding claim 31, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the motion data is indicative of a tilt angle of the portable beverage container. See column 37, lines 36 – 67.
Regarding claim 32, the Perrelli et al. reference further discloses wherein the motion data includes oscillations associated with the consumable liquid in the container, and wherein a higher frequency of oscillations is indicative of a lesser liquid level of consumable liquid in the container. See column 37, lines 36 – 67.
Regarding claim 33, wherein the motion data includes velocity data associated with the portable beverage apparatus, and wherein if a velocity is greater than an upper threshold velocity, the sensor is configured to sense motion data a second time after a predetermined period of time (i.e., continuously measure). See column 22, lines 6 – 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Lyons et al. reference discloses a portable system for dispensing controlled quantities of additives into a beverage (Figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights