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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/6/26 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment was made to the certified copy of PCT/AU2023/051044 in the previous Non-Final and Final Office actions mailed 1/8/26 and 2/26/26, respectively. However, it is noted that there is no claim to foreign priority by the applicant (see Application data sheet dated 1/18/25). The acknowledgement of a claim to foreign priority was made in error.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, item A, that Li is not analogous art.
Applicant's arguments, item A and B, that Li is non-analogous art and that Li teaches away have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a “household container…related to freshness monitoring” have been fully considered. However, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a household container related to freshness monitoring) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are directed to a system for allowing a user to automatically measure unspecified contents in an unspecified container.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 4 have been fully considered. These are directed toward curing the deficiencies regarding the prior art of Li and are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armano (US20180141738) in view of Takehito et al. (JP2010066243, translation provided by examiner).
Claim 1: Armano teaches a system for allowing a user to automatically measure contents in a container (A product containment system with telemetric devices adapted to record and retain data for access by a remote computing appliance, abstract; see also Figs. 1-4, 22-23), the system comprising:
(a) a base (bin 1, Figs. 1-4) for holding the contents within the container;
(b) a lid (lid 2) for the base of the container;
(c) a central processing unit (small system on a chop (SoC) 43 [0111]) within the container;
(d) an antenna connected to the central processing unit for transmitting data (the electrical connector (connector 38, FIG. 23) creates a connection between sensors or monitoring devices located inside the closed containment system that can transmit information wirelessly or otherwise to a computer, tablet phone, or other electronic device, para. [0131]);
(e) a software application running on a mobile device for communicating with the central processing unit (a remote computing appliance running a software application by data cable or by a wireless data link, para. [0021]);
(f) a remote server for connecting to the central processing unit and to a network (a user operating the connected access device may, using a software application (SW) application running on the access device, poll or browse the containment system for available data and request access to the data for transfer to the mobile device or fixed computer system or terminal at step 100, para. [0160]);
(g) a sensor device connected to the central processing unit to create data files about the container (the display device may be wired to the sensor-based circuit board internally. The circuitry enables data collection, data processing, value calculation, data transmission, and data reception, para. [0113]); and
wherein the sensor device has a particle detector for measuring the contents of the container (The containment system may include a monitoring system that monitors and tracks the containment system. In one embodiment, the monitoring system determines if the containment system has a leak, or has been opened, by detecting pressure changes, or internal gas compositions. para. [0132]).
Armano fails to teach wherein the sensor device includes a laser to ablate the contents of the container to assist the particle detector.
However, Takehito teaches detecting substances adhering to food using an inspection apparatus 300, Fig. 3. Takehito teaches a container 303 with a specimen (food 301) therein. The food is subject to heating by a heater 333 which can take the form of microwave irradiation or laser light (end pg. 5- top pg. 6; middle pg. 10). The substance inspection apparatus 300 includes a storage container (inspection target storage container) 303 that stores the food 301, a heater (heating unit) 333 that heats the food 301 in the storage container 303 and vaporizes the sample (end pg. 9). By the operation of the heater 307, the food 301 in the container body 305 is heated to vaporize the sample (heating process) (middle pg. 10). The vaporized sample is introduced into a detection device 27.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a laser, as taught by Takehito, with the device of Armano in order to improve work efficiency and increase sensitivity (Takehito, pg. 6, last full para.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armano in view of Takehito further in view of Christensen et al. (US20200191580)
Claim 4: Armano in view of Takehito teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the laser is used as a time-of-flight sensor to determine a height of the contents within the container.
However, Christensen teaches a storage container (Figs. 3, 4A, 4B) including a sensor 2 which is a time-of-flight camera including a laser to detect a fill level within the container 32 [0092-0096].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a time of flight sensor including a laser to detect the height of contents within a container, as taught by Christensen, with the device of claim 1 in order to obtain multiple points of height along the surface [of the contents in the container] (Christensen [0096]) therefore a more complete determination of fill level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 7/29/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights