DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 01/16/2026. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 02/22/2021.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0321072 to Williams et al. (“Williams”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0138977 to Essenmacher et al. (“Essenmacher”), in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0315111 to Alvo et al. (“Alvo”).
With regard to claim 1, Williams discloses the claimed auto-replenishment system for monitoring the level of a bulk consumable in a dispenser, comprising:
the dispenser suitable for physical association with a container from which the bulk consumable is dispensed (see e.g. abstract [0006] [0009-13], for dispenser; see abstract [0027], liquid filled consumable in bulk);
a plurality of electrical conductors forming a sensing module associated at least with the dispenser (see e.g. [0049-59]; abstract, “a sensing module communicative with the at least one electrical contact and having associated therewith firmware for converting signals associated with the conductive strips and received at the electrical contact to an indication of the liquid level”, where the examiner finds that the sensor module and associated electrical contacts satisfies the claimed electrical conductors forming a sensing module), the sensing module having associated therewith firmware for converting signals associated with the electrical conductors to an indication of the level of the consumable in the container (see e.g. [0049-59] fimware);
a processing system for repeatedly revising a known inventory by subtracting the level from said inventory (see e.g. [0050] where the known amount of liquid level is monitored and changed continuously or periodically (i.e. “repeatedly” as claimed); claim 1 is a system claim, and the claim limitation relates to “an electronic cross-reference” that performs a function based on data, and this is exactly what is performed in Williams at [0050]; see MPEP 2114(II) “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.), and
further comprising a communications module for communicating the level to at least a user mobile device app over at least one network (see abstract [0034] [0049] [0050]), and for monitoring for a need for the autoreplenishment from a new one of the online purchases (see e.g. [0028] for the web capability of the system) of the container based on revised inventory (see e.g. [0028] revised liquid level determination; [0041] [0050] [0069] [0007]), a consumption pace (see e.g. [0054] That is, a dashboard user may search for particular data across one or more users, such as “frequent users”, “fading users” (i.e., a list of users whose frequency of use has fallen relative to long-term usage), certain geographic searches, usage associated with certain events (such as snowstorms), and the like.), and a shipping time of the new online purchase of the container (see e.g. [0054-55]) (see e.g. MPEP 2114(II) “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.).
Williams does not appear to disclose where the auto-replenishment is “based on . . . a consumption pace, and a shipping time of the new online purchase of the container [i.e., the time the autoreplenishment order is expected to be shipping].” Upon further searching, the examiner finds this to be common practice in the auto-replenishment art. For instance, the examiner refers to Essenmacher (titled AUTOMATED INVENTORY REPLENSIHMENT) at e.g. [0003, 60-78] discussing the exhaustion rate/consumption rate and shipping time being taken into account during auto replenishment. See e.g. [0068] where consumption rate, time of replenishment, and other data points are taken into account during the auto-ship replenishment process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the replenishment art to modify Williams to not only base auto-replenishment on any revised inventory, but to also base it on shipping time and consumption rates, where this is beneficial as described in Essenmacher at [0020-21]:
[0020] Traditional home item replenishment has relied on a user manually keeping a list of items as they are running out. Some systems have emerged which use technology such as an RFID reader to track inventory in, for example, a refrigerator, but no existing solutions extend to all household items in general. Further, existing inventory tracking and ordering systems do not effectively incorporate predictive replenishment, as existing systems either provide no predictive feature or rely upon error-prone manual entries to determine timing.
[0021] Described herein is a method and system for tracking item consumption to determine a consumption pattern and support an accurate predictive item replenishment system. By providing for tracking item consumption on a granular level, the system's predictive accuracy is greater than a system based on only an item's order history.
Williams also does not appear to disclose the added limitations “further comprising an inventory sensing monitor configured to monitor an inventory of unused additional ones of the container within a household” and where auto-replenishment is based on the inventory of the unused additional ones of the container within the household. Alvo entitled SENSORS AND EXECUTABLE INSTRUCTIONS TO COMPUTE CONSUMABLE USAGE TO AUTOMATE REPLENISHMENT OR SERVICE OF CONSUMABLES VIA AN ADAPTIVE DISTRIBUTION PLATFORM, does render these limitations obvious in light of Williams and Essenmacher. See Alvo Fig. 1 [0035-36] multiple unused/used containers as shown Fig. 1, as 153a, 153b, 153c, where each container is monitored by a sensor such as sensor 160, where this sensor data is transferred to network endpoint/router 162, [0036] “raw data 122a, such as raw sensor data, may be transmitted to sensor manager 190 to determine a state of inventory of an item. Raw data 122a, at least in some examples, may include raw sensor data, such as one or more values representing electrical energy used per any unit time, such as in units of watts or kilowatts (“kWs”). Sensor manager 190 may also receive updated data 122b that describes a state or change of unit of consumption or a weight, among other things. Thus, updated data 122b may include data representing a weight of a consumable, which sensor manager 190 may monitor to determine whether to replenish the inventory at location 150. Otherwise, adaptive distribution platform 110 may receive reorder data 122c to invoke replenishment of an item, such as a bag of coffee beans. Examples of other sensors include sensors configured to sense or measure resource usage, such as electricity, water, natural gas, etc., or further configured to sense or measure operation characteristics, such as device or appliance vibration, motion, acoustic emissions, electromagnetic reflections/emissions, such a visible or IR light, magnetic field changes, etc.).” See also [0107-109] and Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9. Fig. 3 expressly teaches flow goes from generating consumption data to “adjust an amount representing an inventory of the consumable” and then to generating a replenishment request, and again in Fig. 5 where the flow includes initialize inventory amount 501, update consumption rate data 520, and replenishment request data. Later, [0108-109] teaches that usage sensors may be implemented individually or collectively to determine or predict consumption and may determine usage of household resources to infer consumable usage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor management art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams’ sensor based inventory system, to include the ability to monitor different containers with various sensors, and then tally the totals from all of the usage/non-usage of the monitored containers, and use that information to inform the system regarding the implemented of auto-replenishment, as taught by Alvo, where Alvo indicates that advantage of this is to “one or more sensors and/or computing algorithms facilitate formation of an automated home inventory replenishment network.” See Alvo, [0002]. See Alvo [0008] Thus, what is needed is a solution to facilitate techniques of determining usage of a consumable and monitoring and determining resource usage and/or device usage to predict consumption of one or more consumables to adjust an inventory of the consumable for purposes of replenishment, without the limitations of conventional techniques.
With regard to claim 2, Williams further discloses an auto-replenishment of the container responsive to an indication of the need (see e.g. [0028] and an “auto replenishment” may occur when the liquid level in the consumable reaches a point at which a reorder is required.).
With regard to claim 3, Williams further discloses the auto-replenishment includes an opt-in in the app (see e.g. [0041] discussing additional confirmation by app).
With regard to claim 4, Williams further discloses where the communication of the level is provided to the app to enable a manual replenishment of the container (see e.g. [0041]).
With regard to claim 6, Williams further discloses where the sensing module is capacitive in nature (see e.g. [0032]).
With regard to claim 8,Williams further discloses a backend that monitors the indication from the sensing module to assess the need for autoreplenishment (see e.g. [0035]).
With regard to claim 9, Williams further discloses where the autoreplenishment comprises a prescheduled online order (see e.g. [0028-30] [00335] discussing seller of the liquids dashboard may be app or web-based; see MPEP 2114(II) “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.).
With regard to claim 10, Williams further discloses where the back end comprises a rules engine (see e.g. [0056]).
With regard to claim 11, Williams further discloses the backend comprises a monitor for a plurality of the containers (see e.g. [0028]).
With regard to claim 12, Williams further discloses the plurality of container corresponds to a plurality of consumers (see [0028] discussing the cloud based storage and communications with one or more dispensers and [0042] discussing multiple consumers.).
With regard to claim 13, Williams further discloses the app comprises a brand dashboard (see [0041-43] discussing the dashboard).
With regard to claim 14, Williams further discloses where the app comprises a graphical user interface (see e.g. [0027]).
With regard to claim 15, Williams further discloses where the at least one network comprises one of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, BLE, and cellular (see [0034]).
With regard to claim 16, Williams further discloses an inventory sensing monitor that monitors for unused ones of the containers within a household (see abstract; see MPEP 2114(II) “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.).
With regard to claim 17, Williams further discloses the app is subject to a controls layer of software that further comprises at least an application programming interface (API), hardware and software drivers, and hardware and software communication protocols (see e.g. [0050]-[0052] discussing the app including firmware and [0034] discussing the smart phone app may communicate with the dispenser via, for example, WiFi, Bluetooth, BLE, or cellular communication methodologies.).
With regard to claim 18, Williams further discloses where the app comprises modifiable triggers based on the sensing module (see e.g. [0050]-[0052] discussing the ability to change dosage setting).
With regard to claim 19, Williams further discloses where behaviors of the app change based on user feedback (see e.g. [0050-52] discussing the ability to change settings).
With regard to claim 20, Williams further discloses where the inventory sensing monitor configured to to cross- check the known online purchased quantity of the containers (Willi8ams does not disclose this. Essenmacher at e.g. [0026-29]. Essenmacher teaches that a retailer database can map the consumer and identifier to the item and quantity of the item, and that the identifier may be unique within products shipped under a particular user ID or household address. That is very similar to a system knowing the online purchased quantity of items shipped to the household. See motivation to combine above.).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, Essenmacher, Alvo, in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,983,678 to Miller et al. (“Miller”)
With regard to claim 5, Williams further discloses where the sensing module includes an accelerometer.
However, Miller teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor art to include the sensing module includes an accelerometer (See [Col. 10, 1 25-33] discussing a soap dispenser using an accelerometer.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sensor art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Williams to include the sensing module includes an accelerometer, as disclosed by Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as simple substitution of sensors, thereby allowing for the collection of different data according to the standard capabilities of any given sensor, such as an accelerometer and its associated functionality.
With regard to claim 7, Williams is silent the limitations of, wherein the sensing module includes a time of flight sensor. However, Miller teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor art to include the sensing module includes a time of flight sensor (See [Col. 7, 1. 29-40 ] discussing using a time of flight sensor on a soap dispenser.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sensor art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Williams to include the sensing module includes a time of flight sensor, as disclosed by Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as simple substitution of sensors, thereby allowing for the collection of different data according to the standard capabilities of any given sensor, such as an accelerometer and its associated functionality.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments submitted on 01/16/2026.
Applicant argues that the prior art references cited do not teach the added limitations. The examiner agrees, and has cited to an additional reference, Alvo, which teaches the added limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights