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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 4/10/2025. Amendments filed 4/10/2025 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/24/2025.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krafft (WO 2017/075298) (Note: US Pub 2018/0305091 corresponding to the WIPO publication is used to map the claims to the reference) in view of in view of Jovanov (US 10,433,666) and further in view of Colton et al. (US 10,872,482).
As of claim 1, Kraft discloses a smart container, comprising:
a body (242; see fig. 2);
a lid attached to the body (243; see fig. 2), wherein the lid comprises a valve movable between an open position and a closed position (via seal/closure mechanism with mechanics to open manually or automatically 222; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0100];
an actuator configured to move the valve between the open position and the closed position (via lid closure mechanism operated through various means, springs, actuators, motors; see fig. 2; also see paragraphs [0100] and [0134]);
a sensor configured to detect a feature of a user (via capacitance sensor 201, finger print sensor 210 or 224; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0100]); and
a control circuit communicatively coupled to the sensor and the actuator (via CPU logic/processor 204; see paragraph [0100]), wherein the control circuit is configured to:
receive a signal from the sensor indicative of a positive detection of the feature of the user (see paragraph [0101], “the lid portion or the body portion may include a sensor to detect the user's touch or swipe across the bottle and send a signal to the lid closure mechanism to move the seals from the closed position to the open position”); and
send a signal to the actuator to move the valve to the open position when the detection of the feature of the user corresponds to an opening state (see paragraph [0101] and [0167], “the lid portion or the body portion may include a sensor to detect the user's touch or swipe across the bottle and send a signal to the lid closure mechanism to move the seals from the closed position to the open position” or using fingerprint sensor to identify user. So, if fingerprint sensor is being used to authenticate a user, the lid closure mechanism will open only when the fingerprint recognition determines that the user is an authorized user; also see paragraphs [0140].
So, Kraft discloses that the sensed condition corresponds to the opening state when the user input comprises fingerprint (see paragraph [0167]), however it does not explicitly disclose an image detector or camera to detect the feature of the user.
Jovanov discloses a smart beverage container comprising a camera configured to capture images that are used for facial recognition (see fig. 3; also see col. 10, lines 15-25).
From the teaching of Jovanov, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Krafft to include the function of a camera for detecting face of a user as taught by Jovanov since facial recognition is a well-known biometric authentication technique.
Jovanov does not explicitly state the step of performing facial recognition on the detected face to determine whether the face correspond to an authorized user of the container, Colton discloses a bottle with a cap comprising a biometric sensor operating by way of facial recognition (col. 8, line 1-10). Colton discloses the function of performing facial recognition on the detected face to determine whether the face correspond to an authorized user of the container (via verifying a user’s identity by comparing information received from the sensor to information regarding the one or more recorded personal attributes previously recorded by an identifier user; see col. 8, lines 5-15). Colton discloses that the face of the authorized user is programmed into a memory of the control circuit and the control circuit opens the bottle in response to the detected face matching the face programmed into the memory (via disclosing that the biometric sensor 5 scans the biometric information (face) of the particular user and sends it to the microcontroller for authorization by comparison to the biometric profiles which are already saved in the memory. After verification, and if the profile is authorized to access, then the microcontroller actuating the locking mechanism; see col. 12, lines 5-15).
From the teaching of Colton, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Krafft and Jovanov to perform facial recognition as taught by Colton since performing facial recognition by comparing face of the user with recorded faces is well known technique.
As of claim 2, Kraft discloses a touch sensitive interface configured to detect a user input and communicate the user input to the control circuit (see paragraph [0101], “the lid portion or the body portion may include a sensor to detect the user's touch or swipe across the bottle and send a signal to the lid closure mechanism to move the seals from the closed position to the open position”).
As of claim 3, Kraft discloses that the user input is a user contact with the body or lid detected by the touch sensitive interface (see paragraph [0101], “the lid portion or the body portion may include a sensor to detect the user's touch or swipe across the bottle and send a signal to the lid closure mechanism to move the seals from the closed position to the open position”).
As of claim 4, Colton discloses that the control circuit is configured to compare the detected face against stored facial recognition data corresponding to one or more authorized users of the smart container (via verifying a user’s identity by comparing information received from the sensor to information regarding the one or more recorded personal attributes previously recorded by an identifier user; see col. 8, lines 5-15)).
As of claim 5, Kraft discloses a sensor configured to detect a fingerprint associated with a user and the control circuit is configured to determine whether the user is authorized to use the smart container based on the fingerprint (via using a fingerprint sensor to identify the user; see paragraph [0167]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krafft, Jovanov, Colton and further in view of Cohen (US Pub 2014/0378790).
As of claim 6, combination of Krafft, Jovanov and Colton disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, claim 6 differs from claim 1 in that instead of facial recognition user identification is performed via a lip print sensor.
Cohen discloses a user identification system wherien the identification recognition system comprises a fingerprint scanner, a lip print scanner, face recognition, a retinal scan, a combination code, an activation code (see paragraph [0125]). Even though Cohen does not explicitly state compare the detected lip print against stored lip print data corresponding to one or more authorized users, that technique would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as evident by Colton (via verifying a user’s identity by comparing information received from the sensor to information regarding the one or more recorded personal attributes previously recorded by an identifier user; see col. 8, lines 5-15), so if identification system is a fingerprint, the user’s fingerprint will be compared against stored fingerprints, if identification system is a facial recognition, the user’s face print will be compared against stored face prints, if identification system is a lip print, the user’s lip print will be compared against stored lip prints, in order to perform user’s identification/authentication.
From the teaching of Cohen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Krafft, Jovanov and Colton to include the function of lip print sensor as taught by Cohen since it is well known in the art that user authentication can be a biometric authentication or input pattern authentication such as a password, passcode or touch input pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument regarding combination of the references, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In instance case, Kraft discloses a container comprising all the limitations of the claimed invention and further discloses that biometric authentication comprises fingerprint authentication. Reference of Jovanov and Colton are used to indicate that instead of or in addition to fingerprints, facial recognition could be used in authenticating the user. So, the combination of the references applied discloses the invention as claimed in present application.
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 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 NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights