DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 4 are pending. Claims 2-3 and 5-14 are previously cancelled.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication received on 02/01/2026. The response presented amendment to claims 1 and 4 is hereby acknowledged. See sections 8-9 for examiner’s response.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armano et al. hereinafter Armano (US 20180141738 A1) in view of Li (US 20040091588 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Armano discloses 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, 22-22), the system comprising:
(a) a base (7) for holding the contents within the container (1);
(b) a lid (2) for the base of the container (1);
(c) a central processing unit (43) within the container (1);
(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, para. [0132]).
Armano discloses the claimed subject matter except the sensor device includes a laser to ablate the contents of the container to assist the particle detector.
Li invention directed to a tool employing an ultraviolet laser that operates based on photo-ablation (para. [0003]) discloses the sensor device includes a laser to ablate the contents of the container to assist the particle detector (an apparatus for processing a food product includes a laser emitting radiation, whereby said laser directs the radiation towards a food product so as to photo-ablate the food product, para. [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Armano to include the laser-based ablation taught by Li. Armano discloses a closed containment system with a sensor device and particle detection for measuring container contents but does not expressly disclose a laser to assist particle detection. Li teaches using an ultraviolent laser to photo-ablate material to enhance particle detection and analysis. An ordinarily skilled artesian would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s laser into Armano’s sensor device to improve measurement accuracy and detection sensitivity, yielding predictable results. Such a modification represents the use of a known technique to improve a known system and would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 4, Armano and Li disclose the system of claim 1 above. Armano modified by Li is silent about the laser is used as a time-of-flight sensor to determine the height of the contents within the container.
Kapinos invention related to the field of a touch-enabled display accessible to the at least one processor, and storage accessible to the at least one processor (para. [0003]) discloses the laser is used as a time-of-flight sensor to determine the height of the contents within the container (The device may identify height using an image(s) from a camera on or in communication with the device to then execute spatial analysis software and/or object recognition software to determine the height based on the known sizes and known locations of other objects also shown in the same image(s). A laser rangefinder, ultrasonic sensor, infrared (IR) proximity sensor, light emitting diode (LED) time of flight sensor, and still other types of sensors may also be used for determining the height, para. [0062]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Armano, as modified by Li, to use the laser as a time-of-flight sensor for determining the height of the contents within the container, as taught by Kapinos. Kapinos teaches employing a laser time-of-flight sensor to determine object height. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Kapinos’ laser-based height sensing into Armano’s system to improve measurement accuracy and reliability, yielding predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-5, with respect to the objection of claims 1 and 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment made to the claims. Accordingly, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With respect to applicant argument “Li is Non-Analogous Art and Teaches Away from the Claimed Invention” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the analogous art test (MPEP §2141.01(a)), a reference is analogous if it is from the same field of endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed. Both the claimed invention and Li involve interaction with food material in a contained environment using laser-based technology. Differences in scale or end use (industrial Vs. consumer) do not render the reference non-analogous when the underlying technology is relevant.
With respect to applicant argument “Li Teaches Away from the Claimed Invention” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Li’s disclosure of laser ablation does not teach away from claimed invention. A reference teaches away only when it discourages the claimed approach. Li does not criticize, or discredit laser use in detection systems. Modifying laser intensity or configuration for sensing rather than cutting would have been a predictable design choice within the level of ordinary skill. Furthermore, incorporating known laser-based technology from Li into Armano’s container monitoring system represents the predictable use of known elements to improve a similar device. Under KSR, applying a known technique to enhance an existing system in a related field is obvious when it yields predictable results.
With respect to applicant argument “Claim 4 (Height Sensor) …Kapino[s] does not cure Li’s deficiencies...” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Kapinos is cited for teaching the additional height/time-of-flight sensing feature. When considered in combination with the primary references, the claimed limitations are collectively suggested. Applicant has not shown that the combined teaching fail to disclose the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, the rejection made in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 01/08/2026 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 2/23/26