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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending per Applicant’s 03/26/2025 filing with the USPTO.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025, 08/19/2025, 12/17/2025, and 06/01/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-20 are to a method (process).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A method for identifying an event during a supply chain process, comprising:
preparing a product during the supply chain process;
determining an occurrence of the event during preparation of the product during the supply chain process via a sensing device engaged against an interior surface of the product, wherein the event causes the sensing device to disengage the interior surface, thereby indicating a change to the product; and
identifying a modification to the supply chain process to inhibit occurrences of the event during subsequent preparations of the product in the supply chain process.
The claims are directed toward identifying issues within a supply chain workflow based on a sensor device within a product. The claims are silent on how the steps are carried out. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed step could be done in the mind of a human using its ability to observe (determining an occurrence . . . ), reason (knowing that sensor has disengaged . . . ), and make a judgement (identifying a modification . . .). The Office finds that claims are direct to the abstract category of mental processes.
Further the claims are not clear how the supply chain process is carried out therefore it is reasonable to assume that a portion of the process is carried out by a human. Where the specification provides “product 10 may interact with one or more personnel (e.g. humans) during one or more of the plurality of stages of process 200, such as the personnel responsible for performing operations associated with the manufacture”, Spec [59]. Therefore all or a portion of the step could be performed by a human following the instructions of the claimed invention.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The sensing elements are determined to be data gathering steps – insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The claimed invention appears to automate a manual process of quality control in a supply chain process. The system uses generic off the shelf components, see for example Spec. [40-41] and [114].
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by Burton et al (US 2022/0274823 A1).
Claim 1
Burton teaches a method for identifying an event during a supply chain process, comprising (Burton [4] “features and methods, withstand the rigours of the supply chain”):
preparing a product during the supply chain process (Burton [91] “ease of manufacture and operation, this valve 115 is typically located in the top centre of the upper domed surface 105 of the beverage container 100 but sometimes may reside in other areas” and [101] “area of overlap 411 between the housing 401 and the expanding member 409 represents a range of adjustment sufficient to vary h2 in order to overcome the dimensional variance between different beverage vessels, be it through manufacturing design and tolerances or deformation during handling, such that one size of smart device housing can be affixed to beverage containers of numerous different makes and shapes. For example, different manufacturers produce beverage containers with different chime wall 103 heights and lip 101 diameters and the range of adjustment 411 is able to accommodate for these differences.”);
determining an occurrence of the event during preparation of the product during the supply chain process via a sensing device engaged against an interior surface of the product, wherein the event causes the sensing device to disengage the interior surface, thereby indicating a change to the product (Burton abstract “ the sensor located and directed such the beam of detection covers a location where a coupler can be attached to the beverage vessel, the smart device configured to determine whether the coupler is attached to the beverage vessel by measuring whether the path is obstructed by the coupler”, [129] “the housing can include a smart device that secures to the beverage vessel 1403, featuring at least one proximity, distance or image sensor 1407 having a beam or vision of detection with a path 1405, the sensor located and directed such the beam or vision of detection covers a location where a coupler can be attached to the beverage vessel, the smart device configured to determine whether the coupler is attached to the beverage vessel by measuring whether the path is obstructed by the coupler.” and [133] “correlated with the status of the beverage container 1403 having another beverage container 1601 stacked on top and furthermore surmising that a coupler is not attached to the beverage container 1403 and that the beverage container is not lying face down on a flat surface”); and
identifying a modification to the supply chain process to inhibit occurrences of the event during subsequent preparations of the product in the supply chain process (Burton [138] “the smart device of claim can be configured to provide data to analyse the difference between having no obstruction (d1), a coupler attached (d2), or having another beverage vessel stacked on top (d3), or being laid against a flat surface (d4)” and [140] “smart device and associated data processing platform may use data collected from an internal temperature sensor to calculate the loss of freshness of its contents over time, as freshness is known to correlate with time and temperature, and this information may be combined with information about when the coupler was connected or disconnected form the beverage container in order to determine the level of freshness at the time its contents were dispensed. The information collected may be used to keep a running inventory of beverages at customers locations and may also be used with machine learning algorithms to predict the fill levels of the beverage containers based on their previous behaviour as well as predicting when to collect empty containers or dispatch new full beverage containers to customer locations. The information collected from the aforementioned one or more sensors may also be used to pre-emptively detect and alert scenarios where a shortage of beverage is about to occur at a customer site, or if a product has been pulled for sale, allowing intervention or communication to potentially prevent the loss of a long-term contract with the customer.”).
Claim 2
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a source in the supply chain process causing the occurrence of the event, wherein identifying the modification includes identifying an adjustment to an operation of the source (Burton [108]).
Claim 3
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 2, wherein prior to identifying the modification, the method comprises:
determining a parameter is applied to the product during the event by the source, the parameter changing or causing damage to the product (Burton [134-136]).
Claim 4
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 3, wherein the sensing device is configured to detect the parameter applied to the product during the occurrence of the event (Burton [21], [28], and [123-126]).
Claim 5
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 4, wherein the sensing device is configured to move relative the interior surface of the product in response to detecting the parameter during the occurrence of the event (Burton [57]).
Claim 6
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 5, wherein the sensing device is coupled to the product against the interior surface at a fixed position prior to application of the parameter, and dislodged from the fixed position upon application of the parameter to the product (Burton [57] and [161]).
Claim 7
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 3, wherein the parameter includes a pressure, a force, a velocity, a compression, a tilt, or a rotation experienced by the product during the event (Burton [95] and [104] , where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
Claim 8
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 4, wherein the sensing device includes an accelerometer, a gyro sensor, or a pressure sensor (Burton [135] and [140], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
Claim 9
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 2, wherein:
the product includes a device, a tool, a machine, an instrument, a mechanism, an appliance, a gadget, or an apparatus (Burton abstract and [186-187], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art); and
the source includes a surface, a tool, an assembly, a machinery, an equipment, an instrumentation, or a system responsible for performing operations in the supply chain process to prepare the product (Burton abstract and [141-144], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
Claim 12
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 9, wherein preparing the product during the supply chain process includes one or more of manufacturing, assembling, testing, sterilizing, packaging, labeling or marking, storing, shipping, selling, or delivering the product (Burton [96] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
Claim 13
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 2, wherein the event is a first event occurring during a first stage of the supply chain process for preparing the product, and the source causing the occurrence of the event is a first source in the supply chain process for preparing the product at the first stage (Burton fig. 25, [64], and [166]).
Claim 14
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the change includes a structural change to the product, a change in a level of sterility of the product, or a change in a level of substance stored in the product (Burton [136], [140] and [165], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al (US 2022/0274823 A1) as applied above and in view of Bardina et al (US 2015/0253289 A1).
Claim 10
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 9, Burton does not teach wherein the product includes a medical device and the source includes an automated instrumentation for manufacturing the medical device, such that identifying the modification to the supply chain process includes an adjustment to computer-executable instructions defining an operation of the automated instrumentation.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the product includes a medical device and the source includes an automated instrumentation for manufacturing the medical device, such that identifying the modification to the supply chain process includes an adjustment to computer-executable instructions defining an operation of the automated instrumentation (Bardina [47] and [49]).
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 invention of Burton the wherein the product includes a medical device and the source includes an automated instrumentation for manufacturing the medical device, such that identifying the modification to the supply chain process includes an adjustment to computer-executable instructions defining an operation of the automated instrumentation as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 10, Burton does not teach, but wherein the medical device includes an autoinjector or a syringe; and
wherein the autoinjector or the syringe includes a container or a vial, wherein the sensing device is disposed inside an interior cavity of the container or the vial.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the medical device includes an autoinjector or a syringe (Bardina [47] where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art) ; and
wherein the autoinjector or the syringe includes a container or a vial, wherein the sensing device is disposed inside an interior cavity of the container or the vial (Bardina fig. 2 and 16, where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
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 invention of Burton the wherein the medical device includes an autoinjector or a syringe; and wherein the autoinjector or the syringe includes a container or a vial, wherein the sensing device is disposed inside an interior cavity of the container or the vial as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Burton does not teach wherein the sensing device includes a biasing mechanism and a pair of retention mechanisms disposed at opposing ends of the biasing mechanism;
wherein the biasing mechanism is biased towards an expanded configuration, such that the biasing mechanism is configured to urge the pair of retention mechanisms away from one another; and
wherein each of the pair of retention mechanisms is configured to abut against the interior surface of the product, thereby coupling the sensing device to the product at a fixed position within the product.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the sensing device includes a biasing mechanism and a pair of retention mechanisms disposed at opposing ends of the biasing mechanism (Bardina fig. 2 and 16);
wherein the biasing mechanism is biased towards an expanded configuration, such that the biasing mechanism is configured to urge the pair of retention mechanisms away from one another (Bardina fig. 2 and 16); and
wherein each of the pair of retention mechanisms is configured to abut against the interior surface of the product, thereby coupling the sensing device to the product at a fixed position within the product (Bardina [47] and [56]).
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 invention of Burton the wherein the sensing device includes a biasing mechanism and a pair of retention mechanisms disposed at opposing ends of the biasing mechanism; wherein the biasing mechanism is biased towards an expanded configuration, such that the biasing mechanism is configured to urge the pair of retention mechanisms away from one another; and wherein each of the pair of retention mechanisms is configured to abut against the interior surface of the product, thereby coupling the sensing device to the product at a fixed position within the product as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 15, Burton does not teach wherein the sensing device is configured such that at least one of the pair of the retention mechanisms is configured to move relative to the interior surface upon the occurrence of the event to the product.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the sensing device is configured such that at least one of the pair of the retention mechanisms is configured to move relative to the interior surface upon the occurrence of the event to the product (Bardina fig. 2 and 16).
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 invention of Burton the wherein the sensing device is configured such that at least one of the pair of the retention mechanisms is configured to move relative to the interior surface upon the occurrence of the event to the product. as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 16, Burton does not teach wherein the at least one of the pair of retention mechanisms is configured to move in response to the biasing mechanism compressing or expanding in response to the occurrence of the event, thereby dislodging the sensing device from engagement with the interior surface of the product.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the at least one of the pair of retention mechanisms is configured to move in response to the biasing mechanism compressing or expanding in response to the occurrence of the event, thereby dislodging the sensing device from engagement with the interior surface of the product (Bardina fig. 2 and 16 and [56])
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 invention of Burton the wherein the at least one of the pair of retention mechanisms is configured to move in response to the biasing mechanism compressing or expanding in response to the occurrence of the event, thereby dislodging the sensing device from engagement with the interior surface of the product as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Burton does not teach wherein the product includes an attachment mechanism defining a base that is removably coupled to a body of the product;
wherein the base includes a pair of tracks positioned on opposing sides of the base, the pair of tracks are received inside an internal cavity of the product and positioned along the interior surface when the base is coupled to the body of the product; and
wherein the pair of tracks are configured to couple with the sensing device such that the sensing device is disposed between the pair of tracks and positioned inside the internal cavity at a fixed position.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the product includes an attachment mechanism defining a base that is removably coupled to a body of the product (Bardina fig. 2 and 16);
wherein the base includes a pair of tracks positioned on opposing sides of the base, the pair of tracks are received inside an internal cavity of the product and positioned along the interior surface when the base is coupled to the body of the product (Bardina fig. 2 and 16 and [83]); and
wherein the pair of tracks are configured to couple with the sensing device such that the sensing device is disposed between the pair of tracks and positioned inside the internal cavity at a fixed position (Bardina fig. 2 and 16 and [83]).
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 invention of Burton the wherein the product includes an attachment mechanism defining a base that is removably coupled to a body of the product; wherein the base includes a pair of tracks positioned on opposing sides of the base, the pair of tracks are received inside an internal cavity of the product and positioned along the interior surface when the base is coupled to the body of the product; and wherein the pair of tracks are configured to couple with the sensing device such that the sensing device is disposed between the pair of tracks and positioned inside the internal cavity at a fixed position as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 19
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Burton does not teach wherein the product includes a pair of attachment mechanisms disposed along opposing sides of the interior surface of the product for securely coupling the sensing device to the product; and wherein the pair of attachment mechanisms include: a planar surface that is configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface; a concave surface that is configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface; a recess disposed between a pair of arms, wherein the recess and the pair of arms are configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface; or a pair of arms configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface, wherein at least one of the pair of arms is flexibly movable to allow receipt of the sensing device between the pair of arms.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the product includes a pair of attachment mechanisms disposed along opposing sides of the interior surface of the product for securely coupling the sensing device to the product (Bardina [42]); and
wherein the pair of attachment mechanisms include:
a planar surface that is configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface (Bardina fig. 2 and 16 and [49], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art);
a concave surface that is configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface (Bardina fig. 2 and 16, where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art);
a recess disposed between a pair of arms, wherein the recess and the pair of arms are configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface (Bardina fig. 2 and 16 and [50], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art); or
a pair of arms configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface, wherein at least one of the pair of arms is flexibly movable to allow receipt of the sensing device between the pair of arms (Bardina fig. 2 and 16 and [50], where the limitation is made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art).
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 invention of Burton the wherein the product includes a pair of attachment mechanisms disposed along opposing sides of the interior surface of the product for securely coupling the sensing device to the product; and wherein the pair of attachment mechanisms include: a planar surface that is configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface; a concave surface that is configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface; a recess disposed between a pair of arms, wherein the recess and the pair of arms are configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface; or a pair of arms configured to engage and maintain the sensing device at a fixed position relative to the interior surface, wherein at least one of the pair of arms is flexibly movable to allow receipt of the sensing device between the pair of arms as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20
Burton teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 19, Burton does not teach wherein the planar surface is formed of a material that is configured to generate a frictional resistance between the pair of attachment mechanisms and the sensing device.
Bardina in the analogous art of characterizing and/or detecting structural characteristics of syringes (e.g., bare syringes or syringes included in automatic injection devices) using acoustic vibrations teaches the claimed limitations of wherein the planar surface is formed of a material that is configured to generate a frictional resistance between the pair of attachment mechanisms and the sensing device (Bardina fig. 2 and 16, [50] and [90]).
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 invention of Burton the wherein the planar surface is formed of a material that is configured to generate a frictional resistance between the pair of attachment mechanisms and the sensing device as taught by Bardina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hershberger et al (US 2015/0109143 A1) teaches Supply chain systems and methods are disclosed for monitoring fluid levels in liquid containers, such as kegs. Embodiments include sensors that fit within a keg's false bottom, measure the weight of the keg, and transmit the weight information to a computer database via a wireless network. Other embodiments include an RFID device with information about a characteristic of the liquid within a keg (such as brand and/or type of beer) that may be attached to the keg and paired with the sensor so the sensor can transmit information about the characteristic of the liquid in the keg.
Foucher et al (US 2024/0286161 A1) teaches processing unit can contain a memory for storing at least temporarily one or more of the information from each time the sensor detects an external surface, a fluid connecting bottle being disconnected or connected to the system 100, and time-stamps associated with sensor activation, bottle connections/disconnections to the system 100 or other events.
Leyden et al (US 2003/0128118 A1) teaches advanced systems may also incorporate an electronic alarm system that alerts store personnel both visually and audibly in the event the alarm sensor becomes disconnected either from the product or from the product display.
Herlin (US 10,384,924 B2) teaches alarm can be transmitted if no data is recorded by the data center. Alarms can be set for temperature variations from a standard temperature range during transport or use of the keg including over temperature and under temperature. It is important that the beer not be exposed to temperatures outside of the preselected range, which may vary depending on the beer. If data transmission is for some reason temporarily interrupted i.e. not fulfilling the daily reporting requirements, communication begins with the last confirmed communication, at least 24 hours of data. The location of the keg (longitude and latitude) can be provided as well.
Meyer et al (US 4,703,781) teaches a method for manufacturing a prefilled single-dose syringe, comprising on one hand an ampoule open at one end, provided with a neck of contricted section for containing a medicine to be injected, and on the other hand an injector composed of a capsule adaptable to the ampoule neck and a piston-valve solid with the capsule and adapted for insertion into the ampoule, wherein the ampoule containing the medicine to be injected and the injector are conveyed via two separate paths to the same assembling station, these two components are positioned above one another and brought together for assembly, and wherein gassing of the ampoule or of the ampoule and of the injector is effected prior to assembly of these components, in said assembling station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights