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 .
Summary
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are pending. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 18 Feb 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9: Insert a colon after “consisting of.”
Drawings
FIGS. 3 and 5-7 are objected to for containing unlabeled boxes. Regarding the content of drawings 37 C.F.R. 1.83 (a) states:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are included in the specification are, except for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
Therefore, every box in FIGS. 3 and 5-7 should have text describing what that box represents.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14: “Signal(s),” “model(s),” and “sample(s)” should not be used. It is indefinite as to whether the term refers to a single limitation or to a plurality. For instance claim 1 recites “digitally sampling with the computer compressor the audio signal(s)…wherein the audio samples are further processed…by calculating a Fourier spectrum of the audio sample(s).” This is indefinite because it is unclear whether the end result is a single Fourier spectrum or multiple Fourier spectra (i.e. a Fourier spectrum calculated for each audio sample or a combined Fourier spectrum created from some combination of several audio samples). Please note that claim 1 recites “audio samples” then recites “audio sample(s), further adding to the ambiguity. This reasoning applies to “container(s)” in claim 14.
Regarding claim 9: It is unclear what effect “(normalized)” is meant to have on the claim. Terms in parentheses are not considered as within the scope of the claim. The terms should be removed or the parentheses should be removed.
Regarding claim 14: This claim use the term "and/or" 5 times. This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 lists several possible contexts in which the method of claim 1 might be applied, however it does not provide any further method steps and therefore does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. It is unclear what additional steps would be added to the subject matter of claim 1 in these situations. This claim has not been further examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 only lists some contexts in which the method of claim 1 might be used. However it does not contain any further method steps or further limitation of existing method steps. Therefore claim 14 does not further limit its parent claim and is improper dependent form.
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) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by CUNNAH et al. (US 20220299354).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: A method for determining a fill level of a liquid in a container, said method comprising the steps of: (i) attaching a sensor device (105, 107 in FIG. 1) to the container (30; “in contact” in para. 80); (ii) providing to a computer processor (110) via a communication interface (all arrows into and out of computing device 110 in FIG. 1) a digital representation of the container (“features” of container in para. 154); (iii) acoustically stimulating (by speaker 105) the container by means of the sensor device to generate at least one audio signal being indicative of the fill level of the liquid in the container (para. 80-81); (iv) detecting the generated audio signal(s) (by microphone 107) and processing the detected audio signal(s); wherein processing the detected audio signal(s) comprises digitally sampling with the computer processor the audio signal(s) detected by the at least one microphone of the sensor device as a result of the acoustic stimulation of the container (para. 80-81), and wherein the audio samples are further processed with the computer processor by calculating a Fourier spectrum of the audio sample(s) (conversion from the time domain to the frequency domain in para. 54) and extracting at least one predefined feature from the Fourier spectrum (Averaging of acoustic profiles, which are in the frequency domain, is discussed in para. 128.); (v) providing to the computer processor via the communication interface the detected or processed audio signal(s) being indicative of the fill level of the liquid in the container (para. 82); (vi) providing to the computer processor via the communication interface at least one data driven model (algorithm 150 in para. 82) parameterized on historical audio signals, historical fill levels of liquids in containers and historical digital representations of the containers (training on data from many containers in para. 101); (vii) determining, with the computer processor, the fill level of the liquid in the container based on the provided digital representation of the container, the provided audio signal(s) and the provided data driven model(s) (output as an indication of the fill level of the container in para. 123); and (viii) providing via the communication interface the determined fill level of the liquid in the container (step B6 in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: the fill level of the liquid in the container is a classifier corresponding to the container being empty or the container not being empty (para. 125).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: the digital representation of the container comprises data on the size of the container (“overall dimensions” in para. 154) selected from the group consisting of data on the filling volume of the container (“overall dimensions” in para. 154), data on the content of the container, data on the initial filing level, filing date, data on the location of the container, data on the age of the container, data on the use cycle of the container, data on the maintenance intervals of the container, data on the maximum life time of the container, expiry date of container content, and any combination thereof (para. 154).
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: acoustically stimulating the container to generate at least one audio signal being indicative of the fill level of the liquid in the container includes beating on the outer wall of the container by means of the actuator (105 in FIG. 1) of the sensor device to induce the at least one audio signal (para. 80-81).
Regarding claim 6: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: the at least one generated audio signal is detected with the at least one microphone (107 in FIG. 1) of the sensor device (para. 80-81).
Regarding claim 8: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: the audio samples are aligned prior to calculating a Fourier spectrum of the audio sample(s) (temporal normalization as describbed in para. 96).
Regarding claim 9: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: the at least one predefined features are feature is selected from the group consisting of frequency with the highest energy, the (normalized) average frequency (Averaging of acoustic profiles, which are in the frequency domain, is discussed in para. 128.), the (normalized) median frequency, the standard deviation of the frequency distribution, the skew of the frequency distribution the deviation of the frequency distribution from the average or median frequency in different L spaces, the spectral flatness, the (normalized) normalized root-mean-square, fill-level specific audio coefficients, the fundamental frequency computed by the yin algorithm, the (normalized) spectral flux between two consecutive frames and any combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: the data driven model is derived from a trained machine learning algorithm (para. 121).
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: The method according to claim 10, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained by selecting inputs and outputs to define an internal structure of the machine learning algorithm, applying a collection of input and output data samples to train the machine learning algorithm, verifying the accuracy of the machine learning algorithm by applying input data samples of known fill levels and comparing the produced output values with expected output values, and modifying the parameters of the machine learning algorithm using an optimization algorithm in case the received output values are not corresponding to the known fill level (para. 121, 147-149).
Regarding claim 12: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: providing the determined fill level of the liquid in the container via the communication interface comprises displaying the determined fill level of the liquid of the container on the screen of a display device (“Remote monitoring by customers” as discussed in para. 140 inherently involves displaying data on a screen.).
Regarding claim 13: As best understood, CUNNAH discloses: A system (FIG. 1) for determining a fill level of a liquid in a container, comprising: a container (30); a sensor device (para. 105, 107) for generating, detecting, and optionally processing at least one audio signal being indicative of the fill level of the liquid in the container (para. 80); a data storage medium (what processor 110 uses) storing at least one data driven model parameterized on historical audio signals (para. 101), historical fill levels of liquids in containers and historical digital representations of the containers (para. 154); a communication interface (120) for providing the digital representation of the container (para. 154), the detected or processed audio signal(s) and at least one data driven model (150) to the computer processor; a computer processor (CP) (110 and where 150 is stored) in communication with the communication interface and the data storage medium, the computer processor programmed to: a. receive via the communication interface the digital representation of the container, the detected or processed audio signal(s) and the at least one data driven model (para. 82); b. process the received detected audio signal(s) by digitally sampling the received audio signal(s) (para. 80-81), calculating a Fourier spectrum of the audio sample(s) (conversion from the time domain to the frequency domain in para. 54), and extracting at least one predefined feature from the calculated Fourier spectrum (Averaging of acoustic profiles, which are in the frequency domain, is discussed in para. 128); c. determine the fill level of the liquid in the container based on the received digital representation of the container, the received detected or processed audio signal and the received data driven model(s) (para. 123); and d. provide the determined fill level of the liquid in the container via the communication interface (para. 140).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CUNNAH in view of LAVRA et al. (US 20160098673).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, CUNNAH does not disclose storing information on an attached tag.
LAVRA however does teach attaching an identification tag to the container (abstract), retrieving the digital representation of the container stored on said attached tag or obtaining the digital representation of the container based on the information stored on said attached tag (“inventory interrogation and data collection means” in para. 11), and providing the obtained digital representation of the container to the computer processor (control unit in para. 7) via the communication interface. Please note that the RFID tag of LAVRA uniquely identifies the container and provides information about the container such as volume, gas composition, pressure etc. (para. 12).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the information storing tag of LAVRA on the containers of CUNNAH so that information can be determined about a container, quickly and easily, at point of use, even if the container is misplaced.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The new title is acknowledged and the previous objection thereto is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (page 8 section III of the Response) that the reference characters in FIGS. 3 and 5-7 are sufficient label for the boxes in these drawings. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Regarding the content of drawings 37 C.F.R. 1.83 (a) states:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are included in the specification are, except for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
This means that a graphical drawing symbol, such as parallel lines to indicate a capacitor in an electrical circuit, will have a reference character in the drawing as all pertinent structure in a drawing will, but if what is shown in merely a box it needs to be labeled, which is beyond what is required for a graphical drawing symbol. Therefore the text of each structure or method step should be included in each box in FIGS. 3 and 5-6 just as they are in FIG. 1.
The amendments to claims 1 and 13 to overcome the previous objections thereto are acknowledged and said objections are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are acknowledged. Some of the 112 rejections have been overcome and are accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that CUNNAH is silent as to the added limitation of extracting at least one predefined feature from the Fourier spectrum. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. CUNNAH discloses “acoustic profiles captured at around the same time and in relation to the same container may be averaged, or otherwise processed together, in order to obtain a higher quality acoustic profile” in para. 128. The acoustic profiles are in the frequency domain according to para. 54, therefore averaging them together to increase quality of the profile is extracting a predefined feature, which is one of the features listed in claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights