Patent Application 18547677 - APPARATUS SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROVIDING - Rejection

Patent Application 18547677 - APPARATUS SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROVIDING

Title: APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF PROVIDING AUTO-REPLENISHMENT FOR A CONSUMABLES CONTAINER

Application Information

• Invention Title: APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF PROVIDING AUTO-REPLENISHMENT FOR A CONSUMABLES CONTAINER
• Application Number: 18547677
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-08-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-08-23T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 705
• National Sub-Class: 028000
• Examiner Employee Number: 93958
• Art Unit: 3627
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 1
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
1.	Claims 1-21 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 2/26/2021. 

Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
2.	The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
	

Claim Interpretation
3.	The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; 
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and 
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.  Such claim limitation(s) is/are: 
Claim 1 – “[A] a communications module for communicating the level.” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked. 
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:  (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

Claim Objections
4.	Claim 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: 
Claims 8 and 9 change the spelling of “auto-replenishment” to exclude the hyphen.  Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5.	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.

6.	Claims 1-4, 6, and  8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/321072to Williams et al. (“Williams”).

7.	With regards to claim 1, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
a dispenser capable of physical association with the container (See [0041] discussing generating a message when a container is to be refilled and [0003] discussing the container and dispenser.);
a plurality of electrical conductors forming a sensing module associated at least with the dispenser, the sensing module having associated therewith firmware for converting signals associated with the electrical conductors to an indication of the level of the consumable in the container (See [0050] discussing the firmware of the system and [0054]-[0059] discussing the sensing and communication of liquid level events.);
a communications module for communicating the level to at least a user mobile device over at least one network (See [0006] discussing the communications of information and [0049] discussing communication with smart phone app].; and
a BLE power module having aspects physically distinct from the sensor module, which is capable of at least periodically powering up the sensing module and the communications module absent actuation of an app on the user mobile device (See [0047]-[0050] discussing the system use of a BLE that is separate from the sensing module that can send sensor data to the app and activating the system.).

8.	With regards to claim 2, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
an auto-replenishment of the container responsive to the indication to do so from the app  (See [0041] discussing autoreplenishment in conjunction with the app.).

9.	With regards to claim 3, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the auto-replenishment includes an opt-in in the app (See [0041] discussing additional confirmation by app.).

10.	With regards to claim 4, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the indication is provided to the app to enable a manual replenishment of the container (See [0041] discussing replenishment alert by app.).

11.	With regards to claim 6, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the sensing module is capacitive in nature (See [0032] discussing the sensor as a capacitive sensor module.).

12.	With regards to claim 8, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
a backend that monitors the indication from the sensing module to assess a need for autoreplenishment (See [0035] discussing cloud-based backend for app.).

13.	With regards to claim 9, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the autoreplenishment comprises an online order (See [0028]-[0030] and [0035] discussing seller of the liquids dashboard may be app or web-based.).

14.	With regards to claim 10, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the back end comprises a rules engine (See [0056] discussing the decision making algorithms of the backend.).

15.	With regards to claim 11, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the backend comprises a monitor for a plurality of the containers (See [0028] discussing the cloud based storage and communications with one or more dispensers.).
16.	With regards to claim 12, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the plurality of container corresponds to a plurality of consumers (See [0028] discussing the cloud based storage and communications with one or more dispensers and [0042] discussing multiple consumers.).

17.	With regards to claim 13, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the app comprises a brand dashboard (See e.g., [0041]-[0043] discussing the dashboard.).

18.	With regards to claim 14, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the app comprises a graphical user interface (See [0027] discussing user interfaces.).

18.	With regards to claim 15, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the at least one network comprises one of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, BLE, and cellular (See [0034] discussing the smart phone app may communicate with the dispenser via, for example, WiFi, Bluetooth, BLE, or cellular communication methodologies.).

19.	With regards to claim 16, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the BLE power module additionally provides power awareness (See [0006] discussing the displaying of the power.).

20.	With regards to claim 17, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
 wherein the app is subject to a controls layer of software that further comprises at least an application programming interface (API), hardware and software drivers, and hardware and software communication protocols (See [0050]-[0052] discussing the app including firmware and [0034] discussing the smart phone app may communicate with the dispenser via, for example, WiFi, Bluetooth, BLE, or cellular communication methodologies.).

21.	With regards to claim 18, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the app comprises modifiable triggers based on the sensing module (See [0050]-[0052] discussing the ability to change dosage setting..).

22.	With regards to claim 19, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein behaviors of the app change based on user feedback (See [0050]-[0052] discussing the ability to change settings.).

23.	With regards to claim 20, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the BLE power module comprises rechargeable batteries (See [0032] discussing the power supply being rechargeable batteries.).

24.	With regards to claim 21, Williams disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the dispenser is a pump top (See [0032] discussing the dispenser as a spout, spigot, pump, etc.), and the container is a lotion bottle (See [0032] disclosing the container is for a liquid. See MPEP §2114 discussing intended use.).

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
25.	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.

26.	Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Williams in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11,983,678 to Miller et al. (“Miller”).

27.	With regards to claim 5, Williams silent the limitations of,
 wherein the sensing module includes an accelerometer.
However, Miller teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor art to include the sensing module includes an accelerometer (See [Col. 10, l 25-33] discussing a sop dispenser using an accelerometer.). 
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sensor art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Miller to include the sensing module includes an accelerometer, as disclosed by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as simple substitution of sensors.  
	
28.	With regards to claim 7, Williams is silent the limitations of,
wherein the sensing module includes a time of flight sensor.
However, Miller teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor art to include the sensing module includes a time of flight sensor (See [Col. 7, l. 29-40 ] discussing using a time of flight sensor on a soap dispenser.). 
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the sensor art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Miller to include the sensing module includes a time of flight sensor, as disclosed by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as simple substitution of

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.



/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627                                                                                                                                                                                                        Michael.walker@uspto.gov