DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 2/2/2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16 and 18-20 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's remarks filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive in full.
Regarding page 10 of remarks, the claims are not limited to physical resonance behavior and container-specific resonance signatures. Rather, the claims recite training data based on sensor measurements of non-radio based transmissions into a container. Non-radio based transmission includes sound and light, which includes image analysis. The scope of the claims include managing personal behavior/following rules or instructions, as this could be done by a human looking at the container. Using a computer and generating a notification is seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity and generally linking the idea to a field of use. Further, the claimed emitter and sensor is seen as data gathering, for the purposes of performing the abstract idea. Therefore, no practical application is seen. Applicant is encouraged to claim the required structure to monitor item dispensing, container opening, and proximity sensing.
Regarding page 12 of remarks, see updated art rejection with relevant citations to Gurumohan teaching comparison of historical measurements to current measurements for determination of current unit amount. The acoustic transmitter of Gurumohan used to sense the interior of a container and to determine a volume of a product in said container, said volume being a number of item units, which reads on the claimed limitations concerning determining a number of item units. Further, the claimed comparing of current measurement to a known measurement is seen in Gurumohan, by at least referencing a calibrated reading for comparison, (para. 172 and 173) as well as comparing past measurements for differences. This reads on the claimed limitation concerning comparing current measurements to training data that maps a measurement to units of product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: monitoring each of a plurality of containers for a change event comprising an indication of at least one of: a fill order, a dispense of an item unit, an opening or closing, sensing a user within a proximity, or within a time, and based on an occurrence of the event, emit a non-radio based (read: light or sound) transmission of one or more waves to an internal space of container, said space fashioned to store one or more item units, receiving a measurement of the one or more waves, determining a supply status based on measurement and training data associated with past measurements and supply statuses, and cause an adjustment to the container or dispensing device/generating a notification when the supply status satisfies a status. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, including an observation, judgement, evaluation and/or opinion. Further they cover certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic behavior, including inventory management.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: storing claimed data in a computer, emitting wave transmission using an emitter, one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Further, these additional limitations are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: namely a container in the context of inventorying item units. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally: the scope of claimed sensors and emitters includes human ears and mouths. Then, this is seen as managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, as an abstract idea. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recite monitoring each of a plurality of containers within a drawer of a dispensing device. Claims 3 recite a replenishment request notification sent to a server. Claims 4 recite the training data comprises an intended supply status and geometry of an interior of the container. These limitations are not subject matter eligible for at least the reasons outlined above, including: linking to an environment/field of use, using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or defining data/part of the abstract idea(s).
Claims 5-6, and 19-20 recite part of said abstract idea of a mental process, at least. Claims 19 and 20 also recite generating a notification. This is seen as part of said abstract idea of inventorying, at least.
Claims 7 recite activating a load cell associated with the container to measure a weight. This is seen as using technology in its ordinary capacity to perform said abstract idea of inventorying.
Claims 8 recites sending a replenishment signal to an inventory system requesting restock. Sending and receiving data is seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity. Claim 9 recites receiving an indication an amount was restocked and updating the training data based on the determined supply status and amount. This is seen as part of said abstract idea(s). Claims 10 recite the notification is a visual or auditory alert at a dispensing device. This is seen as using a computer in its ordinary capacity, as well as following rules or instructions.
For these reasons the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gurumohan (US 2020/0249070).
Claims 1, 11 and 18. Gurumohan teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
storing training data based on sensor measurements of non-radio based transmissions into an internal space within a respective container, each sensor measurement being taken while the respective container is storing a different number of item units, the training data mapping each sensor measurement to a respective number of item units (para. 211 stored data of past measurements, data including volume of content of container, volume being a number of units of the item) so that a current number of item units within the respective container can be estimated based on a current sensor measurement of a current non-radio based transmission into the internal space; (Examiner notes the “so that” portion of the limitation is intended use. Para. 322 shows using the historical measurements to determine current amount in container.)
monitoring each of a plurality of containers for a change event associated with the container, (para. 27 showing sensing a triggering condition for measuring) the change event comprising an indication of at least one of: a fill order for the container, a dispense of an item unit stored within the container, an opening or closing of the container, sensing a user within a predetermined proximity of the container, or a predetermined time; and (para. 27 showing trigger as container opened)
based on an occurrence of the change event for a container of the plurality of containers:
emitting, using an emitter, a non-radio based transmission of one or more waves to the internal space within the container and for receipt by a sensor associated with the container, (para. 152 showing sound based signal for measuring container capacity, and transmitter)
wherein the internal space is fashioned to store one or more item units; (para. 152 showing fill of container as liquid, item units including units of liquid)
receiving a measurement of the one or more waves from the sensor; (para. 152 showing measurement of signal)
comparing the measurement with the training data; (para. 279 showing comparison of new measurement with previous measurement; paragraphs 172-173 showing comparison to reference data)
determining a supply status of an item unit within the container based on comparing the measurement with the training data, wherein the supply status comprises an estimated number of item units within the container; and (para. 164 showing comparing measurement with reference measurement from full status; para. 203 showing comparing measurement with past measurements; para. 322 and 323 showing comparison of past measurements with current measurement to determine current amount of units of the item in the container)
generating, when the supply status satisfies a predetermined status, a notification pertaining to the container and the supply status. (para. 123 showing notification to reorder supply)
Claim 11 additionally: a system comprising one or more containers each configured to store a supply of an item unit; one or more sensors, each configured to measure waves transmitted to an internal space of a container of the one or more containers, wherein the internal space of the container is fashioned to store one or more item units; one or more emitters, each configured to emit a non-radio based transmission of one or more waves to the internal space within for receipt by a respective sensor; (para. 45 showing said container and sensors/transmitters) and one or more processors. (para. 43, processor)
Claim 18 additionally: a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions (para. 43 showing computer embodiment, memory and processor) executed by a dispensing device, (para. 49 showing dispensing device) and cause an adjustment to the container or the dispensing device when the status satisfies a predetermined threshold. (para. 123 showing notification to reorder supply)
Claims 3 and 13. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the notification comprises a replenishment request for additional supply of the item unit stored within the container, the method further comprising: (para. 123 showing server connected to process reordering) sending the replenishment request to a server configured to facilitate replenishment of the item unit. (para. 123 showing server connected to process reordering)
Claims 4 and 12. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein the training data comprises an intended supply status and a geometry of an interior of the container. (paras. 159 and 153 showing supply status and geometry)
Claims 5, 14 and 19. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a plurality of resonance frequencies of the container at different supply levels from the training data; (para. 153 and 159 showing container geometry and intended supply levels from configuration parameters; para. 156 showing resonance frequencies in signal))
wherein emitting the non-radio based transmission of one or more waves to the internal space comprises inducing an acoustic wave within the container for measurement by the sensor; and (para. 81 showing ultrasonic waves as signal)
comparing the measurement with one or more predetermined acoustic wave amplitudes and the plurality of resonant frequencies (para. 159 showing determination of supply status based on preset measurement thresholds).
Claim 19 additionally: wherein causing the adjustment comprises generating a notification pertaining to the container and the status. (para. 123 showing server connected to process reordering)
Claims 6, 15 and 20. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a light wave profile of the container from the training data; (para. 159 configuration parameters matched to signal to determine supply status)
wherein emitting the non-radio based transmission of one or more waves to the internal space comprises inducing a light wave within the container for measurement by the sensor; (para. 165 showing light signal)
comparing the measurement with one or more predetermined light wave amplitudes; and (para. 159 configuration parameters matched to signal to determine supply status; para. 156 showing said parameters including amplitude of signal)
wherein determining the supply status based on the measurement comprises determining the supply status based on the comparing. (para. 159 configuration parameters matched to signal to determine supply status)
Claim 20 additionally: wherein causing the adjustment comprises generating a notification pertaining to the container and the status. (para. 123 showing notification to reorder supply)
Claims 8 and 17. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein generating the notification comprises:
sending a replenishment signal to an inventory system, the replenishment signal requesting a restock of the item unit. (para. 123 showing notification to reorder supply)
Claim 9. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 8, further comprising:
receiving an indication that an amount of the item unit was restocked within the container; and (para. 47 showing indication of automatic restock)
updating the training data based on the determined supply status and the amount. (para. 47 initial control measurement performed)
Claims 10 and 17. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim l, wherein generating the notification comprises:
providing a visual or auditory alert at a dispensing device associated with the container. (para. 291 flashing light on sensor device, including spout)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurumohan (US 2020/0249070) in view of Savage (US 2015/0366377).
Claims 2 and 12. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1. It does not, but Savage teaches wherein monitoring each of the plurality of containers comprises: monitoring each of a plurality of containers within a drawer of a dispensing device. (para. 19 showing drawers, compartments, and cabinet)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of supply measuring in Gurumohan, with the known technique of compartmentalizing in Savage, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for customizable configuration. See para. 18 of Savage for broad scope in configurations for item storage.)
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurumohan (US 2020/0249070) in view of Morita (US 2023/0245185).
Claims 7 and 16. Guruomohan teaches the computer-implemented method of Claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the supply status satisfies the predetermined threshold. (para. 168 showing threshold determination of amount)
Guruomohan details using a scale to determine the remaining amount in the container. Para. 166. It does not teach the following, but Morita does:
responsive to determining that the supply status satisfies the predetermined threshold: (para. 93 showing threshold met, proceeding to step of acquiring new weight data)
activating a load cell associated with the container to measure a weight associated with the determined supply status; (para. 93 showing threshold met, proceeding to step of acquiring new weight data)
measuring the weight associated with the determined supply status; and (para. 93 showing threshold met, proceeding to step of acquiring new weight data)
determining that the measured weight corresponds to the determined supply status. (para. 93 determining new weight data matches said remaining amount)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of acoustic modeling in Gurumohan, with the known technique of secondary confirmation in Morita, because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing for accurate measurements. (Morita para. 93 showing confirmation of amount.)
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 extension fee 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 Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights