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
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
2. Claims 2, 7, 15 and 16 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.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Jovanov (US 11,678,812 B1).
4. Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jovanov.
Claim Objections
The claim set has informalities. For example, there is a semicolon after comprises in claim 18. Please carefully review the claim set.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the holder as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
a. The independent claim recites 3 components: i) one or more housings; ii) one or more sensors and iii) one more displays, and then a couple of system features, having certain labels/names. Thus, it unclear where the device ends and the system actually begins. It is understood that the invention works with water bottle(s) while such container is not actually part of the device and/or system; nor is a processor part of it either. Dependent claim 2 creates further indefiniteness by being directed to “[t]he bottle holder.”
b. The term “hydration target” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
c. In claims 2 and 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the receptacle and the base, respectively. Overall, the dependent claims, including but not limited to 2-18, reflect redundancy and/or inconsistency. Correction is required.
d. Claims 19 and 20 are directed to user actions. Thus, it is unclear when infringement would occur.
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.
2. Claims 2, 7, 15 and 16 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.
Claim 2 actually broadens the independent claim by not including the device.
Claim 7 lacks a proper transition, namely “further comprising.”
Claims 15 and 16 further limit only the application, and the application is not yet part of the device and/or system as it is on an electronic device (to potentially be communicated with).
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Jovanov (US 11,678,812 B1).
Jovanov discloses:
-a housing configured to hold a water bottle in an in-use configuration (exterior surface of container 11; interior 13; cavity 26 );
-a weight sensor disposed in the housing to detect a weight of the water bottle in the in-use
configuration (capacitive sensor 20);
-a display operably connected to the weight sensor; a weight tracking system having a logic, that when executed by a processor causes water consumption to be tracked by measuring a change in the weight of the water bottle over time (smart object 10; controller 24; electronic devices 70 with displays);
-a notification system configured to provide visual notification to the display when a rate of water
consumption falls below a hydration target
(C4, L25-45 “display the one or more warnings or indications. As an example, the control logic may be configured to track the hydration of the user or the consumption of the liquid in a beverage container over time based on at least one parameter indicative of an amount of liquid in the beverage container. If the amount of liquid consumed or the hydration level of the person during a time period is inconsistent with a target hydration profile throughout the day (e.g., more or less than a desired amount to be consumed or more or less than a desired hydration level during the day) for the user”).
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.
4. Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jovanov.
Jovanov teaches:
2.handle extending from an exterior of the receptacle (Fig 34 cup with handle).
3. substantially cylindrical shape (10).
4. base removably securable to a receptacle(70) .
5. sleeve when detached from the base. (Fig 33 bottle with jacket, grips)
6. a timer integrated into the housing, wherein the timer is configured to track a duration between weight detections by the weight sensor (clock 46).
7. a thermometer integrated into the base to measure the ambient air temperature (32).
8. a power source for powering the weight sensor and display (43).
9 . a rechargeable battery, and wherein a charging port is disposed on the housing for charging the battery (“power source 43 may include a battery such as a lithium-ion battery, lithium-polymer battery, nickel-cadmium battery, or nickel-metal-hydride battery. Power source 43 may include a charging interface such as a physical connector to attach to a charger or wireless inductive charging circuitry”).
10. the display comprises an interface adapted to receive a user weight and user activity level to calculate a personalized hydration target (“a formula that is personalized to the user (e.g., accounts for the height and weight of the user). In an embodiment, the impedance sensor 35 can incorporate 2 (or more) first electrodes and 2 (or more) second electrodes to measure complex impedance”).
11. the display is a touch screen (“user interface 12 may be a complex user interface. Although a complex user interface may be implemented in any suitable manner, an example of a complex user interface may be a touch screen interface”).
12. the touch screen is adapted to manage settings of the device and display messages (step 2010).
13. a speaker disposed on the housing for delivering audible notifications to the user (step 2010 audible messages).
14. a transceiver disposed within the housing for wireless communication with an application on an electronic device (“wireless interface of communication interface 42 may include a wireless transceiver”) .
15. the application is configured to calculate a desired hydration rate based on a user profile data and activity levels.
16. the application comprises an application interface adapted to receive a user weight and user activity level to calculate a personalized hydration target.
17. the weight tracking system is synchronized between the display and the application.
18. the notification system comprises; [sic] a plurality of default voice and text notifications stored in the base, which can be customized via the application; wherein the notifications are triggered by real-time tracking of the user's hydration status via the weight sensor.
19. the hydration target is set via a manual entry into the display.
20. the manual entry comprises entering a target water consumption amount, a number of hours to reach the target water consumption amount, and a notification frequency.
(“monitoring program of electronic device 70 may become aware that a user is engaging in a sports or fitness activity, for example based on a user input, input from motion sensor 33)
To the extent that some of the above teachings might fairly involve more than one embodiment of Jovanov, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to combine such features, and the results would have been predictable. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, having things like a handle; base/holder and/or sleeve are design choices. One would have been motivated to make the combinations to monitor hydration status directly using unobtrusive sensors on an object of everyday use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FUELLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1367.
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.
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 FUELLING/ Supervisory Patent Examiner