DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered.
2. This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 1/6/2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 2/26/2021.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 – “[A] a communications module for communicating the level.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6, and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/321072to Williams et al. (“Williams”) in view of Wikipedia Bluetooth Low Energy (“Wiki”) in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0061867 to Engelhard et al. (“Engelhard”) .
6. With regards to claim 1, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
a dispenser capable of physical association with the container (See [0041] discussing generating a message when a container is to be refilled and [0003] discussing the container and dispenser.);
a plurality of electrical conductors forming a sensing module associated at least with the dispenser, 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 [0050] discussing the firmware of the system and [0054]-[0059] discussing the sensing and communication of liquid level events.),…;
a communications module for communicating the level to at least a user mobile device over at least one network (See [0006] discussing the communications of information and [0049] discussing communication with smart phone app].; and
a BLE power module having aspects physically distinct from the sensor module, which is capable of at least periodically powering up the sensing module and the communications module absent actuation of an app on the user mobile device (See [0047]-[0050] discussing the system use of a BLE that is separate from the sensing module that can send sensor data to the app and activating the system.),
Williams does not explicitly teach,
wherein the BLE power module provides power awareness configured to conserve power.
However, Wiki teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the radio frequency art to include the BLE power module provides power awareness configured to conserve power (See [pg. 1] discussing BLE being used for reduced power consumption and [pg. 5] discussing proximity sensing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the radio frequency art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Williams to include the BLE power module provides power awareness configured to conserve power, as disclosed by Wiki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce cost in similar communication range as classic Bluetooth® (Wiki [pg. 1]).
Williams and Wiki are silent on the limitation of,
wherein the sensing module includes a gyroscope
However, Engelhard teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the dispensing art to include sensing module includes a gyroscope (See [0075] discussing using a gyroscope as a sensor in a dispenser.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the dispensing art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Williams and Wiki to include the sensing module includes a gyroscope, as disclosed by Engelhard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to sense motion (Engelhard [0075]).
7. With regards to claim 2, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
an auto-replenishment of the container responsive to the indication to do so from the app (See [0041] discussing autoreplenishment in conjunction with the app.).
8. With regards to claim 3, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the auto-replenishment includes an opt-in in the app (See [0041] discussing additional confirmation by app.).
9. With regards to claim 4, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the indication is provided to the app to enable a manual replenishment of the container (See [0041] discussing replenishment alert by app.).
10. With regards to claim 6, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the sensing module is capacitive in nature (See [0032] discussing the sensor as a capacitive sensor module.).
11. With regards to claim 5, Williams and Wiki are silent the limitations of,
wherein the sensing module further includes an accelerometer and a weight sensor.
However, Engelhard teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor art to include the sensing module includes an accelerometer and a weigh sensor (See [0075] discussing using a accelerometer as a sensor in a dispenser and a pressure sensor to detect weight.).
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 and Wiki to include the sensing module includes an accelerometer, as disclosed by Engelhard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to sense motion and mass (Engelhard [0075]-[0077]).
12. With regards to claim 8, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
a backend that monitors the indication from the sensing module to assess a need for auto-replenishment (See [0035] discussing cloud-based backend for app.).
13. With regards to claim 9, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the auto-replenishment comprises an online order (See [0028]-[0030] and [0035] discussing seller of the liquids dashboard may be app or web-based.).
14. With regards to claim 10, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the back end comprises a rules engine (See [0056] discussing the decision making algorithms of the backend.).
15. With regards to claim 11, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the backend comprises a monitor for a plurality of the containers (See [0028] discussing the cloud based storage and communications with one or more dispensers.).
16. With regards to claim 12, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein 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.).
17. With regards to claim 13, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the app comprises a brand dashboard (See e.g., [0041]-[0043] discussing the dashboard.).
18. With regards to claim 14, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the app comprises a graphical user interface (See [0027] discussing user interfaces.).
19. With regards to claim 15, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the at least one network comprises one of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, BLE, and cellular (See [0034] discussing the smart phone app may communicate with the dispenser via, for example, WiFi, Bluetooth, BLE, or cellular communication methodologies.).
20. With regards to claim 16, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the power awareness comprises disabling a component when not used in a particular state.
However, Wiki teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the radio frequency art to include the power awareness comprises disabling a component when not used in a particular state (See [pg. 4] discussing BLE mesh profiles and turning off lights and [pg. 5] discussing proximity sensing controls based on thresholds.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the radio frequency art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Williams to include the power awareness comprises disabling a component when not used in a particular state, as disclosed by Wiki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce cost in similar communication range as classic Bluetooth® (Wiki [pg. 1]).
21. With regards to claim 17, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein 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 [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.).
22. With regards to claim 18, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the app comprises modifiable triggers based on the sensing module (See [0050]-[0052] discussing the ability to change dosage setting.).
23. With regards to claim 19, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein behaviors of the app change based on user feedback (See [0050]-[0052] discussing the ability to change settings.).
24. With regards to claim 20, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the BLE power module comprises rechargeable batteries (See [0032] discussing the power supply being rechargeable batteries.).
25. With regards to claim 21, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the dispenser is a pump top (See [0032] discussing the dispenser as a spout, spigot, pump, etc.), and the container is a lotion bottle (See [0032] disclosing the container is for a liquid. See MPEP §2114 discussing intended use.).
26. Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Williams, Wiki, and Engelhard in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,983,678 to Miller et al. (“Miller”).
27. With regards to claim 7, Williams and Wiki are 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, l. 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 and Wiki 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
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under §102 and §103 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 Engelhard.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 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, 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights