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 .
1. Acknowledgement is made to the amendment, filed 11/26/2025. Claims 4, 5, & 9 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been newly added. Claims 1-3, 6-8, & 10-23 are pending.
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.
2. Claims 8, 14-17, 21, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehus et al. (US 2009/0151474 A1), hereinafter Mehus.
Regarding claim 8, Mehus discloses a system comprising:
a storage member (15 – product container) for storing a product [0019 & Fig. 1]; and
a load cell (12 – load cell) that measures a force applied to the load cell [0020 & Fig. 1];
wherein at least part of the force applied to the load cell is provided, directly or indirectly, by a weight of the product [0020];
wherein the system is configured to determine a quantity of the product stored within the storage member based at least in part, on the force measured by the load cell [0020];
wherein the system comprises a dispenser (16 - tube) for dispensing the product [0019]; and
wherein the system is configured to detect at least one of:
dispensing events, in which the product is dispensed from the dispenser, based. at least in part, on changes in the force measured by the load cell [0022]; and
failed dispensing events, in which the dispenser is activated without the product being dispensed from the dispenser, based, at least in part. on the force measured by the load cell [0041 & 0052].
Regarding claim 14, Mehus discloses the system according to claim 8, wherein the system is configured to determine a dosage setting of the dispenser based, at least in part, on changes in the force measured by the load cell [0030, 0049, & 0050].
Regarding claim 15, Mehus discloses the system according to claim 14, wherein the system is configured to determine the dosage setting of the dispenser during an initial time period; and wherein the system is configured to determine the quantity of the product during a subsequent time period based, at least in part, on the dosage setting [0022, 0030, 0049, & 0050].
Regarding claim 16, Mehus discloses a system comprising:
a storage member (15 – product container) for storing a product [0019 & Fig. 1]; and
a load cell (12 – load cell) that measures a force applied to the load cell [0020 & Fig. 1];
wherein at least part of the force applied to the load cell is provided, directly or indirectly, by a weight of the product [0020];
wherein the system is configured to determine a quantity of the product stored within the storage member based, at least in part on the force measured by the load cell [0020];
wherein the system comprises a dispenser (16 - tube) for dispensing the product [0019];
wherein the storage member comprises a rigid reservoir or a collapsible reservoir, and the product is a fluid [0002, 0019, 0021 & Fig. 1 – disclosing the product holder (14) supporting a product container (15), such as a pail or drum, herein interpreted as a rigid reservoir];
wherein the collapsible reservoir collapses as the fluid is dispensed from the collapsible reservoir; wherein the system comprises a housing; wherein the collapsible reservoir engages with the housing as the collapsible reservoir collapses; wherein the engagement of the collapsible reservoir with the housing is detectable as a change in a pattern of the force measured by the load cell; and wherein the system is configured to determine whether the storage member comprises the rigid reservoir or the collapsible reservoir based, at least in part, on the pattern of the force measured by the load cell [0002, 0019, 0021 & Fig. 1 – the claims presenting the storage member limitations in the alternative and the teachings of Mehus clearly disclosing a rigid reservoir].
Regarding claim 17, Mehus discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the system is configured to determine a dosage setting of the dispenser based, at least in part, on changes in the force measured by the load cell during an initial time period; and if the system determines that the storage member comprises the collapsible reservoir, the system is configured to determine the quantity of the product during a subsequent time period based, at least in part, on the dosage setting and a detected number of dispensing events [0022, 0030, 0049, & 0050].
Regarding claim 21, Mehus discloses the system according to claim 8, wherein the system is configured to detect the dispensing events [0022, 0030, 0049, & 0050].
Regarding claim 22, Mehus discloses the system according to claim 8, wherein the system is configured to detect the failed dispensing events [0041 & 0052].
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-13, 18-20, & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehus and Bhadsavle et al. (US 11,940,320 B1), hereinafter Bhadsavle.
Regarding claim 1, Mehus discloses a system comprising:
a storage member (15 – product container) for storing a product [0019 & Fig. 1]; and
a load cell (12 – load cell) that measures a force applied to the load cell [0020 & Fig. 1];
wherein at least part of the force applied to the load cell is provided, directly or indirectly by a weight of the product [0020]; and
wherein the system is configured to determine a quantity of the product stored within the storage member based, at least in part, on the force measured by the load cell [0020].
With respect to claim 1, the teachings of Mehus have been discussed above.
Mehus is silent with respect to explicitly disclosing wherein the system is configured to identify at least one of the storage member and the product based, at least in part, on the force measured by the load cell, as recited in claim 1.
Bhadsavle teaches, regarding claim 1, wherein the system is configured to identify at least one of the storage member and the product based, at least in part, on the force measured by the load cell (Col. 6, lines 55-65 & claims 17 & 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further employ the identification features of Bhadsavle within the system of Mehus for at least the benefit of reducing costs and improving the reliability of inventory tracking (Col. 6, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 2, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to monitor the quantity of the product over time [0048-0050].
Regarding claim 3, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 2,wherein the system is configured to provide an indication when the quantity of the product reaches a threshold level [0031 & 0040].
Regarding claim 6, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the product comprises at least one of: hand cleaning fluid, toilet paper, paper towel, wipes, gloves. cleaning products, hygiene products, and waste [0002].
Regarding claim 7, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises a dispenser for dispensing the product [0019].
Regarding claim 10, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein the system is configured to adjust an operating parameter of the dispenser based, at least in part, on the identity of the at least one of the storage member and the product [0044, 0045, 0047, & 0048].
Regarding claim 11, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 10, wherein the operating parameter comprises a dosage setting of the dispenser [0022, 0030, 0049, & 0050].
Regarding claim 12, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 11, wherein the product comprises a fluid, and wherein identifying the at least one of the storage member and the product comprises at least one of: identifying a type of the fluid and identifying a size of the storage member [0044, 0045, 0047, & 0048].
Regarding claim 13, Bhadsavle, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein the dispenser comprises the storage member; and wherein the system is configured to identify the dispenser based, at least in part, on the force measured by the load cell (Col. 6, lines 55-65 & claims 17 & 18).
Regarding claim 18, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to determine when at least one of the storage member and the product is at least one of: removed, replaced, emptied, and refilled, based, at least in party on the force measured by the load cell [0040 & 0052].
Regarding claim 19, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the system is configured to at least one of: generate, modify, and complete maintenance tasks based, at least in part, on the force measured by the load cell [0040 & 0052].
Regarding claim 20, Bhadsavle, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 1.wherein the system comprises a waste bin and the product comprises waste (Col. 25, line 39 – Col. 26, line 17).
Regarding claim 23, Mehus, as modified above, discloses the system according to claim 3,wherein the system is configured to adjust the threshold level based, at least in part, on the identity of the at least one of the storage member and the product [0040, 0044, 0045, & 0047].
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6-8, & 10-23 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-1301. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F,7-3 EST. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: paultep.savusdiphol@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee can be reached on (571) 272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876