DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 12, 15-16, and 20 (and claims 6 and 21 by dependency) are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 20: “a number dispense events” should read “a number of dispense events”.
Regarding claim 12: “the main body portion” should read “the body portion”.
Regarding claim 16: It appears that line 4 should read “cross-sectional area;” instead of “cross-sectional area, and”.Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites “before taking the fluid level measurement” whereas claim 7, on which claim 8 depends, recites “before detecting an indication of fluid level”. It is unclear if claim 8 introduces a new step or is reciting the same step as claim 7. For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification, in claim 8 “before taking the fluid level measurement” is interpreted as “before detecting the indication of fluid level”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 2-4, 9-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vilag et al. (US 20160097668 A1).Regarding claim 2:Vilag teaches a fluid dispenser comprising:
a reservoir having a body portion (FIG. 6 - 10 / 10 + 12) and a nozzle portion (FIG. 6 - general area indicated by 11), the body portion having a different cross-sectional area than the nozzle portion;
a fluid detection sensor (FIG. 6 - 100) configured to detect an indication of the fluid level within the reservoir (abstract);
a controller communicatively coupled to the fluid detection sensor, the controller configured to: receive a plurality of detected indications of the fluid level from the fluid detection sensor; determine a rate of change of the received plurality of detected indications of the fluid level;(e.g., FIG. 9; FIG. 8B; [0030]-[0031], [0069]-[0073], etc.)
in response to the rate of change reaching a threshold value, determine that the fluid level within the reservoir has dropped below a low point or an “empty” point(e.g., FIG. 9; FIG. 8B; [0030]-[0031], [0069]-[0073], etc.)
Regarding “dropped below the body portion”: this is either taught by or, in the alternative, rendered obvious by Vilag. [0030] of Vilag explicitly teaches that the sensor may detect air within the targeted portion of the container. [0031] and [0069]-[0073] not only confirm the container above the sensor being empty but also (as for obviousness) contemplates various thresholds and sensor trigger/target points, as needed. Viewing, for example, FIG. 6, it is clear that when the sensor 100 reads “empty” or just “air in targeted portion of container”, that the fluid level is below the sensor’s sensing target/area and, thus, is dropping below body portion (10 / 10 + 12) and into the nozzle/necked area (roughly indicated by 11). Alternatively, the aforementioned explanation in conjunction with Vilag’s explicit teaching of customizable thresholds and sensor trigger/target points render obvious “dropped below the body portion”. Further, [0074] of Villag contemplates allowing the pump to continue for a predetermined period of time even after the threshold is reached. This provides a motivation for the threshold being reach during transition to the nozzle/necked portion as it allows for the pump to finish pumping the last small amount of fluid/liquid in the reservoir, preventing waste.
Regarding claim 3:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
wherein each of the received plurality of detected indications of the fluid level used to determine the rate of change correspond to a same dispense event (FIG. 9 and associated discussion; e.g., the single dispense event of 907A…also 903A shows a single monitored dispense event and there are other clear single dispense events that are unlabeled in FIG. 9 prior to the triggering dispense event 907A)
Regarding claim 4:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
a dispensing mechanism configured to cause dispensing of the fluid from the reservoir, wherein the dispensing mechanism is communicatively coupled to the controller (e.g., [0069]-[0073])
Regarding claim 9:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the controller is further configured to cause a notification to be provided or a modification in operation of the fluid dispenser (e.g., [0064], [0074]-[0075]) in response to determining that the fluid level within the reservoir has dropped below the body portion (see claim 2 rejection above regarding “dropped below the body”)
Regarding claim 10:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
wherein the notification comprises at least one of a notification on an interface of the fluid dispenser or transmitting instructions to a remote computing device to cause occurrence of an alert (e.g., [0064], [0074]-[0075])
Regarding claim 11:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
wherein the fluid detection sensor comprises a capacitive sensor configured to detect a capacitance level within the reservoir
Regarding claim 12:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
wherein the fluid detection sensor is positioned to detect a capacitance level within at least a portion of the reservoir that includes where the main body portion changes to the nozzle portion(e.g., FIGS. 3 and 6; see claim 2 rejection above)
Regarding claim 13:Vilag teaches a method for monitoring fluid in a fluid dispenser (e.g., [0069]-[0073]), wherein the fluid dispenser includes a reservoir having a body portion (FIG. 6 - 10 / 10 + 12) and a nozzle portion (FIG. 6 - general area indicated by 11), the body portion having a larger cross-sectional area than the nozzle portion, and a fluid detection sensor (FIG. 6 - 100) configured to detect an indication of the fluid level within the reservoir, the method comprising:
receiving, via a controller, a plurality of detected indications of the fluid level from the fluid detection sensor; determining, via the controller, a rate of change of the received plurality of detected indications; determining that the fluid level within the reservoir has dropped below the low or empty point in an instance in which the rate of change reaches a threshold value; and(e.g., FIG. 9; FIG. 8B; [0030]-[0031], [0069]-[0073], etc.)
causing notification to be provided or modification in operation of the fluid dispenser in response to determining that the fluid level within the reservoir has dropped below the low or empty point (e.g., [0064], [0074]-[0075])
Regarding “dropped below the body portion”: this is either taught by or, in the alternative, rendered obvious by Vilag. [0030] of Vilag explicitly teaches that the sensor may detect air within the targeted portion of the container. [0031] and [0069]-[0073] not only confirm the container above the sensor being empty but also (as for obviousness) contemplates various thresholds and sensor trigger/target points, as needed. Viewing, for example, FIG. 6, it is clear that when the sensor 100 reads “empty” or just “air in targeted portion of container”, that the fluid level is below the sensor’s sensing target/area and, thus, is dropping below body portion (10 / 10 + 12) and into the nozzle/necked area (roughly indicated by 11). Alternatively, the aforementioned explanation in conjunction with Vilag’s explicit teaching of customizable thresholds and sensor trigger/target points render obvious “dropped below the body portion”. Further, [0074] of Villag contemplates allowing the pump to continue for a predetermined period of time even after the threshold is reached. This provides a motivation for the threshold being reach during transition to the nozzle/necked portion as it allows for the pump to finish pumping the last small amount of fluid/liquid in the reservoir, preventing waste.
Regarding claim 14:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
wherein each of the received plurality of detected indications of the fluid level used to determine the rate of change correspond to a same dispense event(FIG. 9 and associated discussion; e.g., the single dispense event of 907A…also 903A shows a single monitored dispense event and there are other clear single dispense events that are unlabeled in FIG. 9 prior to the triggering dispense event 907A)
Regarding claim 16:Vilag teaches a fluid dispenser comprising:
a reservoir having a first portion (FIG. 6 - 10 / 10 + 12) with a first cross-sectional area and a second portion (FIG. 6 - general area indicated by 11) with a second cross-sectional area, wherein the second cross-sectional area is different than the first cross-sectional area, and
a fluid detection sensor (FIG. 6 - 100) configured to sense an indication of a fluid level (abstract) within at least a portion of the reservoir;
a dispensing mechanism (e.g., [0069]-[0073]) configured to cause dispensing of the fluid from the reservoir; and
a controller in communication with the fluid detection sensor, the controller configured to: receive a plurality of detected indications of the fluid level from the fluid detection sensor; determine that a rate of change of the plurality of detected indications of the fluid level satisfies a threshold rate of change value; determine, based on the determined rate of change of the plurality of detected indications of the fluid level satisfying the threshold rate of change value, that the fluid level changed to a low or an empty state wherein satisfaction of the threshold rate of change value indicates a change in slope corresponding to the fluid level changing from a fuller level to a low or an empty level(e.g., FIG. 9; FIG. 8B; [0030]-[0031], [0069]-[0073], etc.)
Regarding the portion of the reservoir “that includes a change between the first portion and the second portion” and the limitation of “that the fluid level changed from the first portion to the second portion, the first portion to the second portion within the reservoir”: this is either taught by or, in the alternative, rendered obvious by Vilag. [0030] of Vilag explicitly teaches that the sensor may detect air within the targeted portion of the container. [0031] and [0069]-[0073] not only confirm the container above the sensor being empty but also (as for obviousness) contemplates various thresholds and sensor trigger/target points, as needed. Viewing, for example, FIG. 6, it is clear that when the sensor 100 reads “empty” or just “air in targeted portion of container”, that the fluid level is below the sensor’s sensing target/area and, thus, is dropping below body portion (10 / 10 + 12) and into the nozzle/necked area (roughly indicated by 11). Alternatively, the aforementioned explanation in conjunction with Vilag’s explicit teaching of customizable thresholds and sensor trigger/target points render obvious “dropped below the body portion”. Further, [0074] of Villag contemplates allowing the pump to continue for a predetermined period of time even after the threshold is reached. This provides a motivation for the threshold being reach during transition to the nozzle/necked portion as it allows for the pump to finish pumping the last small amount of fluid/liquid in the reservoir, preventing waste.
Regarding claim 17:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
wherein each of the received plurality of detected indications of the fluid level used to determine the rate of change correspond to a same dispense event(FIG. 9 and associated discussion; e.g., the single dispense event of 907A…also 903A shows a single monitored dispense event and there are other clear single dispense events that are unlabeled in FIG. 9 prior to the triggering dispense event 907A)
Regarding claim 18:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to determine, based on the determined rate of change of the plurality of detected indications of the fluid level satisfying the threshold rate of change value, that the fluid dispenser entered a low or empty product level state corresponding to a low amount or empty amount of fluid within the reservoir(e.g., FIG. 9; FIG. 8B; [0030]-[0031], [0069]-[0073], etc.)
Regarding claim 19:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Vilag also teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the controller is further configured to cause a notification to be provided or a modification in operation of the fluid dispenser in response to determining that the fluid level changed from the first portion to the second portion(e.g., [0064], [0074]-[0075]; see claim 16 rejection above regarding “changed from the first portion to the second portion”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilag et al. (US 20160097668 A1) in view of Wegelin et al. (US 20150223646 A1).Regarding claim 5:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Vilag fails to teach:
wherein the controller is configured to maintain a dispense count corresponding to a number dispense events for the reservoirWegelin teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to maintain a dispense count corresponding to a number dispense events for the reservoir ([0007], [0065], [0067], [0081]-[0082])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dispense counting of Wegelin in the device of Vilag to allow for longer-term planning such as inventory per days/weeks (e.g., how many replacements to expect over longer time periods), allow for determining average user dispense amounts, and/or allow for diagnostics of the pumping/dispensing mechanism (i.e., does the expected/correct amount of fluid/liquid get dispensed per dispensing event).
Regarding claim 20:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Vilag fails to teach:
wherein the controller is configured to maintain a dispense count corresponding to a number dispense events for the reservoirWegelin teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to maintain a dispense count corresponding to a number dispense events for the reservoir([0007], [0065], [0067], [0081]-[0082])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dispense counting of Wegelin in the device of Vilag to allow for longer-term planning such as inventory per days/weeks (e.g., how many replacements to expect over longer time periods), allow for determining average user dispense amounts, and/or allow for diagnostics of the pumping/dispensing mechanism (i.e., does the expected/correct amount of fluid/liquid get dispensed per dispensing event).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilag et al. (US 20160097668 A1) in view of Buck et al. (US 20110077772 A1).Regarding claim 7:Vilag teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Vilag fails to teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to implement a time delay after each dispense event before detecting an indication of fluid level to allow for fluid settling within the reservoirBuck teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to implement a time delay after each dispense event before detecting an indication of fluid level to allow for fluid settling within the reservoir ([0052], [0060])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure or a time delay to allow for settling before detecting fluid level/amount, as taught by Buck, in the device of Vilag to increase accuracy and/or to prevent erroneous measurements if there is movement of the fluid after dispensing or user interaction.
Regarding claim 8:Vilag and Buck teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Vilag and Buck fail to teach:
wherein the time delay is between 90 seconds and 120 seconds after each dispense event before taking the fluid level measurement
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05. The examiner notes that Vilag teaches an embodiment in which the level sensing is used for two fluids which are mixed to output a foaming liquid to make, for example, foam-in-bag cushions ([0032]). Vilag is silent as to the exact type of fluids used. Further various types of fluids in fluid dispensing systems may use the low/empty detection of Vilag. Based on the type of fluid (e.g., viscosity), dispense amount, and other factors, different systems would have differing optimal settling time delays.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 15, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and also objected to for minor informalities, as set forth above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious a fluid dispenser wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the fluid dispenser entered a low or empty product level state based on the dispense count having exceeded a predetermined threshold and the rate of change having reached the threshold value, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious a method for monitoring fluid in a fluid dispenser, wherein the fluid dispenser includes a reservoir having a body portion and a nozzle portion, the body portion having a larger cross-sectional area than the nozzle portion, and a fluid detection sensor configured to detect an indication of the fluid level within the reservoir, the method comprising determining a dispense count corresponding to a number dispense events for the reservoir, and determining that the fluid dispenser entered a low or empty product level state based on the dispense count having exceeded a predetermined threshold and the rate of change having reached the threshold value, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 21: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious a fluid dispenser wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the fluid dispenser entered a low or empty product level state based on the dispense count having exceeded a predetermined threshold and the determined rate of change of the plurality of detected indications of the fluid level satisfying the threshold rate of change value, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
The closest prior art is cited in above and is the combination of Vilag and Wegelin. The combination fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
