Detailed Action
Objections
Claim(s) 2-3 and 22 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 2, the claim recites in lines 7-8 “the second language different than the first language”. The aforementioned sentence appears incomplete because the sentence is missing a verb. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “the second language being different than the first language”.
In regards to claim 3, lines 7-8 of the claim have the same issue described in the objection of claim 2 above. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 22, the claim recites in line 2 “Display a message”. The first letter of the word “Display” must not be capitalized. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “display a message”.
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) 6 and 21-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 6, the claim recites in line 6 “the hole is air tightly sealed around the wire”. The claim previously defines a set of one or more wires. It is unclear to which wire of the set of one or more wires the limitation of line 6 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “the hole is air tightly sealed around the set of wires”.
In regards to claim 21, the claim recites in line 5 “send the acceleration measurements to the process”. The word “the” in front of the limitation(s) “process” means that the limitation(s) was/were previously defined. However, the limitation(s) was/were not previously defined. For this reason, the limitation(s) lack of antecedent basis and the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “send the acceleration measurements to the processor”.
Also, the claim recites in line 9 “based on the acceleration measurements the duration of shaking, determine”. It appears that come word are missing between “the acceleration measurements” and “the duration of shaking” because acceleration measurements and the duration of shaking are two different limitations. Therefore, it is unclear what the claim is trying to recite. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “based on the acceleration measurements and the duration of shaking, determine”.
Furthermore, the claim recites in line 10 “before opening the beverage container”. The word “the” in front of the limitation(s) “beverage container” means that the limitation(s) was/were previously defined. However, the limitation(s) was/were not previously defined. For this reason, the limitation(s) lack of antecedent basis and the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “before opening the wine bottle”.
In regards to claim(s) 22, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-10 and 23-25 is/are allowed.
In regards to claim 1, Manwani et al. (US-9,914,631) teaches a wine bottle comprising a quality sensor, a processor and a display [fig. 1 elements 124 and 126, fig. 9 element 914, col. 6 L. 3-21 and L. 50-51, col. 15 L. 3-4, col. 18 L. 3-6].
Volfson (US-12,276,446) teaches a wine bottle comprising a quality sensor and processor [fig. 5, fig. 18-19, col. 3 L. 25-32, col. 5 L. 46-51, col. 12 L. 62-67, col. 13 L. 1-8].
The cited prior art does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: a wine bottle comprising a quality sensor configured to measure a set of one or more quality parameters comprising at least one of an acidity of wine and an oxidation level of wine and a second compartment configured to: hold a second quantity of wine; encompass at least a portion of the quality sensor to bring the quality sensor in contact with the wine in the second compartment; wherein the second compartment comprises an opening to the inside of the wine bottle, and wherein the opening of the second compartment is sealed after the second quantity of the wine and said at least a portion of the quality sensor are placed in the second compartment.
In regards to claims 4-5, 7-10 and 23-25, the claims are allowed due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2-3, 6 and 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claims 2-3, 6 and 21-22, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 1.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rezayat (US-10,254,265) teaches a quality sensor for a wine bottle [fig. 7, col. 2 L. 65-67, col. 3 L. 1-2, col. 8 L. 3-5, col. 11 L. 65-67, col. 12 L. 1-5].
Taheri (US-10,996,207) teaches a quality sensor for a wine bottle [figs. 1 and 3].
Trauner et al. (WO-0233404A2) teaches a quality sensor for a wine bottle [fig. 1, pg. 7 L. 18-22, pg. 8 L. 20-22].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST 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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688