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
The Amendment filed 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 19-20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rollinger (US20160186648A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-12, 15 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US20060132351A1) in view of Rollinger (US20160186648A1).
Regarding claim 1 Le discloses: A system comprising: a memory storing beacon data associated with a wireless beacon signal received from a beacon transmitter located within an interior of a product container (Figure 1A), wherein the product container is configured to contain a fluid product to be dispensed and the beacon data includes a received signal strength parameter for the wireless beacon signal (Para 0033: “One of many methods of reading a single RFID tag for material level detection is shown in FIG. 1C. An interrogation signal is sent and a return signal, if any, is received at 170. The signal strength of any detected return signal is then evaluated at 172. It should be appreciated that the criteria illustrated in regard to the signal strength evaluation are arbitrarily placed since a report 174 may be desired only when the level is below the RFID tag (illustrated) or above the RFID tag (in which case the criteria would be reversed). It should be recognized that it is not necessary, in some cases, to impose such a criteria at all but measurement of signal strength as a direct indication of material depth may be preferred.”); and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to: determine a reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal (Para 0031: “Therefore, RFID tags 120 which are significantly below the surface of material 150 in the container will not be visible to RFID reader 160 either because the transmitted interrogation signal energy will not reach the RFID tags at a sufficient magnitude for the RFID tags to respond or, if some RFID tags respond, the response RF energy will be attenuated below detection levels or a threshold, T, which may be imposed as illustrated by the dashed line at SS=T to allow the system to detect particular RFID tags in a "binary" fashion. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1A, RFID tags 4 and 5 will be detectable while RFID tags 1-3 will not. Thus, RFID tag reader 160 can effectively measure the level of material 150 in container 110 by detection of the number of responding RFID tags or detection and identification of one or more responding RFID tags.”).
Le does not teach “and detect presence or absence of the fluid product in the product container based on a determination that the received signal strength parameter of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a received signal strength threshold and a determination that the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a reception frequency threshold”
However, Rollinger in the analogous arts teaches: and detect presence or absence of the fluid product in the product container based on a determination that the received signal strength parameter of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a received signal strength threshold and a determination that the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a reception frequency threshold (Paras 0001 : “The present application relates to methods and systems for inferring a fluid level in a coolant overflow container (or degas bottle), and adjusting engine operation, based on a fluid level estimated in a vertical hollow standpipe fluidically coupled to the overflow container.”; Para 0082: “Accordingly, if the number of echoes with an amount of energy above the lower energy threshold is at or above the threshold number, routine 1000 proceeds to 1004, where the energy supplied to the ULS for emitting pulses may be decreased. Otherwise, if the number of echoes with an amount of energy above the lower threshold is below the threshold number, routine 1000 proceeds to 1006, where the energy supplied to the ULS for emitting pulses may be increased. Herein, based on the number of echoes with sufficient energy been lower than the threshold, it may be determined that the energy output of the sensor is not high enough. In addition, it may be determined that further optimization of the energy output is necessary. Accordingly, to improve the number of echoes that have sufficient energy, the energy output of the ULS is increased.”)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le with Rollinger to incorporate the feature of: and detect presence or absence of the fluid product in the product container based on a determination that the received signal strength parameter of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a received signal strength threshold and a determination that the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a reception frequency threshold. Le and Rollinger are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of sensors to measure the amount of fluids in a container. However, Le fails to disclose a feature of notification which includes the product name. This feature is disclosed by Rollinger. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Le with Rollinger to incorporate the feature of: and detect presence or absence of the fluid product in the product container based on a determination that the received signal strength parameter of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a received signal strength threshold and a determination that the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a reception frequency threshold as such a feature would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the system.
Claims 11 and 20 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claims 11 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Le further teaches: wherein to determine the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal, the one or more processors are further configured to: compare a quantity of the wireless beacon signals received over a predetermined time period with an expected quantity of wireless beacon signals to be received over the predetermined time period (Para 0031: “Therefore, RFID tags 120 which are significantly below the surface of material 150 in the container will not be visible to RFID reader 160 either because the transmitted interrogation signal energy will not reach the RFID tags at a sufficient magnitude for the RFID tags to respond or, if some RFID tags respond, the response RF energy will be attenuated below detection levels or a threshold, T, which may be imposed as illustrated by the dashed line at SS=T to allow the system to detect particular RFID tags in a "binary" fashion. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1A, RFID tags 4 and 5 will be detectable while RFID tags 1-3 will not. Thus, RFID tag reader 160 can effectively measure the level of material 150 in container 110 by detection of the number of responding RFID tags or detection and identification of one or more responding RFID tags.”).
Claim 12 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 2, therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Le further teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: automatically generate, for display on a user computing device, a notification indicative of presence or absence of the fluid product in the product container (Figure 3, element 360 [Display measurement]).
Claim 15 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 5, therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Le further teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect an out of product condition based on a determination that the received signal strength parameter for the wireless beacon signal satisfies an out of product signal strength threshold and on a determination that the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal satisfies an out of product reception frequency threshold (Para 0035: “A preferred method for sensing material level with either a single RFID tag or a plurality thereof is illustrated in FIG. 1D for an exemplary number of three RFID tags as shown in FIG. 1B, for simplicity. The tags, tag 1, tag 2 and tag 3, are read simultaneously or sequentially as indicated at 180 and the results applied to tag level logic 182; an exemplary form of which is illustrated in the table of FIG. 1F. In this exemplary case, the term "ON" is used to indicate a return signal having a signal strength above threshold T and the term "OFF" used to indicate a signal strength below that threshold. Consistent with the above description of FIG. 1A, if all three tags are "ON", the material level will be below level A (e.g. the container is substantially empty) whereas levels A, B and C are respectively indicated by tag 1, tag 2 and tag 3 being covered by RF opaque material or "OFF". In the absence of gravity, as alluded to above, a volumetric measurement may be accommodated directly by such a table which accommodated all combinations of transponders/RFID tags, including individual transponders/RFID tags since liquid level and location of the volume of liquid are not meaningful in the absence of gravity and it is the transverse dimension of the substantially spherical shape(s) the liquid may assume which is/are of interest. Again, as in the above discussion of FIG. 1C, if signal strength were directly monitored to indicate material depth above respective RFID tags, additional material levels could be discriminated. In this case, a material level report is made for every interrogation and response of the RFID tags, as is preferred, as indicated at 184. Then, If it is desired to continue the monitor material level as determined at 186, the process is repeated after a delay 188 which determines a measurement frequency and should observe the Nyquist criterion.”).
Claim 17 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 7, therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Le further teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: automatically generate, for display on a user computing device, a notification indicative of the detected out of product condition (Figure 3, element 360).
Claim 18 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 8, therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Le further teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a low product condition based on a determination that the received signal strength parameter for the wireless beacon signal satisfies a low product signal strength threshold and on a determination that the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal satisfies a low product reception frequency threshold (Para 0035: “A preferred method for sensing material level with either a single RFID tag or a plurality thereof is illustrated in FIG. 1D for an exemplary number of three RFID tags as shown in FIG. 1B, for simplicity. The tags, tag 1, tag 2 and tag 3, are read simultaneously or sequentially as indicated at 180 and the results applied to tag level logic 182; an exemplary form of which is illustrated in the table of FIG. 1F. In this exemplary case, the term "ON" is used to indicate a return signal having a signal strength above threshold T and the term "OFF" used to indicate a signal strength below that threshold. Consistent with the above description of FIG. 1A, if all three tags are "ON", the material level will be below level A (e.g. the container is substantially empty) whereas levels A, B and C are respectively indicated by tag 1, tag 2 and tag 3 being covered by RF opaque material or "OFF". In the absence of gravity, as alluded to above, a volumetric measurement may be accommodated directly by such a table which accommodated all combinations of transponders/RFID tags, including individual transponders/RFID tags since liquid level and location of the volume of liquid are not meaningful in the absence of gravity and it is the transverse dimension of the substantially spherical shape(s) the liquid may assume which is/are of interest. Again, as in the above discussion of FIG. 1C, if signal strength were directly monitored to indicate material depth above respective RFID tags, additional material levels could be discriminated. In this case, a material level report is made for every interrogation and response of the RFID tags, as is preferred, as indicated at 184. Then, If it is desired to continue the monitor material level as determined at 186, the process is repeated after a delay 188 which determines a measurement frequency and should observe the Nyquist criterion.”).
Claim 19 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 9, therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 9: Le further teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: automatically generate, for display on a user computing device, a notification indicative of the detected low product condition (Figure 3, element 360 [Display measurement]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US20060132351A1) in view of Rollinger (US20160186648A1) and further in view of Ohtsu (US20180352434A1).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Le does not teach “wherein the expected quantity of wireless beacon signals to be received over the predetermined time period is based on a broadcast interval of the beacon transmitter “.
However, Ohtsu in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the expected quantity of wireless beacon signals to be received over the predetermined time period is based on a broadcast interval of the beacon transmitter (Para 0058: “In step S520, the control device 220 references the transmission pattern table 244 to identify a transmission interval pattern of “0011”, which corresponds to the index number “4” contained in the received beacon signal. Further, the control device 220 transmits a scan request to the beacon device 100 in 150 msec after receiving the beacon signal.”, Para 0062: “In step S540, based on the beacon signal reception interval pattern in which a predetermined number of beacon signals are successively received as predetermined by the transmission interval pattern, the control device 220 authenticates whether the beacon device 100 is a legitimate device. In the above example, the transmission interval pattern has four bits. Therefore, the number of (predetermined number of) beacon signals required for forming the transmission interval pattern is five.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le with Ohtsu to incorporate the feature of: wherein the expected quantity of wireless beacon signals to be received over the predetermined time period is based on a broadcast interval of the beacon transmitter. Le and Ohtsu are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of wireless beacon technology. However, Le fails to disclose a feature of the number of expected beacon signals based on broadcast characteristics. This feature is disclosed by Ohtsu. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Le with Ohtsu to incorporate the feature of: wherein the expected quantity of wireless beacon signals to be received over the predetermined time period is based on a broadcast interval of the beacon transmitter as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 13 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 3, therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US20060132351A1) in view of Rollinger (US20160186648A1) and further in view of Fink (US8933789B1).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Le and Rollinger discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Le does not teach “wherein the notification includes one or more of a beacon identifier associated with the wireless beacon signal, a product container identifier uniquely identifying the product container, and a product name associated with the fluid product “.
However, Fink in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the notification includes one or more of a beacon identifier associated with the wireless beacon signal, a product container identifier uniquely identifying the product container, and a product name associated with the fluid product (Figure 9, Para 54: “If the fill material 330 comprises one of two or more similar substances with similar electrical properties, such as cornflakes and oatmeal, the processor 345 may be able to tell the fill level but not distinguish between the similar substances. If the substances are different, such as liquid versus oatmeal or gravel versus oatmeal, the processor 345 may be able to distinguish the type of material 330 as well as the fill level 325 and/or volume.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le with Fink to incorporate the feature of: wherein the notification includes one or more of a beacon identifier associated with the wireless beacon signal, a product container identifier uniquely identifying the product container, and a product name associated with the fluid product. Le and Fink are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of wireless beacon technology. However, Le fails to disclose a feature of notification which includes the product name. This feature is disclosed by Fink. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Le with Fink to incorporate the feature of: wherein the notification includes one or more of a beacon identifier associated with the wireless beacon signal, a product container identifier uniquely identifying the product container, and a product name associated with the fluid product as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 16 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 6, therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 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 4 Le discloses all the limitations of claim 1, wherein to determine whether the reception frequency of the wireless beacon signal satisfies the reception frequency threshold, the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether a quantity of wireless beacon signals received over a predetermined time period satisfies a threshold percentage of an expected quantity of wireless beacon signals expected to be received over the predetermined time period.
In reference to depend claim 4, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 4. Specifically, the prior arts made of record fail to disclose the limitation: “wherein to determine whether the reception frequency of the beacon signal satisfies the reception frequency threshold, the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether a quantity of wireless beacon signals received over a predetermined time period satisfies a threshold percentage of an expected quantity of wireless beacon signals expected to be received over the predetermined time period “.
Claim 14 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 4, therefore claim 14 is allowable under the same rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, Resha H. Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights