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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the phrase “processing, via a server-side computer vision model executing on the remote server, the digital image to determine a type of food inside the food-item container as the stored food;” The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Though the specification teaches use of such an issue exists as to whether the disclosure is adequate to perform the entire claimed function(s). In the instant case the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a “vision model executing”. For example, mere reference to appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting such without providing detail about the programming to accomplish a specific software function, is not an adequate disclosure of the corresponding function. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a “vision model executing”), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., “vision model executing”), “logic,” “code,” or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, is not sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. The specification must explicitly disclose the programming for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification in the instant case is not a sufficient disclosure.
In the instant case the specification is silent to the required specifics of the illustrated boxes of figures 6 and 7 and thus the claims lack written description since mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting “executing” without providing detail is not an adequate disclosure.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement due to the phrase “wherein the mobile device application comprises a virtual assistant AI residing in a cloud-computing platform, where the virtual assistant AI maintains an inventory of the stored food that a user accesses via verbal queries to the virtual assistant AI through mobile device application” The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Though the specification teaches use of such, an issue exists as to whether the disclosure is adequate to perform the entire claimed function(s). In the instant case the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a “the mobile device application comprises a virtual assistant AI residing in a cloud-computing platform”. For example, mere reference to appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting such without providing detail about the programming to accomplish a specific software function, is not an adequate disclosure of the corresponding function. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a “the mobile device application comprises a virtual assistant AI residing in a cloud-computing platform”), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., “residing”), “logic,” “code,” or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, is not sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. The specification must explicitly disclose the programming for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification in the instant case is not a sufficient disclosure.
In the instant case the specification is silent to the required specifics of the illustrated boxes of figures 6 and 7 and thus the claims lack written description since mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting “residing” without providing detail is not an adequate disclosure.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Feng (20190124957) in view of Jarvis (4112124), Espinosa (20060117763), Shur et al. (20170100495) and Buehler (20050193901).
Feng teaches a method for automating operation of an ultraviolet (UV) light lamp (par. 0039 4th from last line) and vacuum pump (par. 0040) comprising:
providing a UV light lamp (par. 0040) in the ultra-violet food sterilization device (par. 0040; fig. 19 ref. 10; device as a whole);
providing a vacuum pump in the ultra-violet food sterilization device (par. 0040);
detecting that a food-item container is placed inside the ultra-violet food sterilization device (par. 0040 last 3 lines; detecting relative measured weight met), and wherein a food-item container comprises a vacuum-pump receptacle (par. 0039, 0040; fig. 19 ref. 48), where the ultraviolet food sterilization device detects the food item container via a load sensor that measures a weight of the stored food (par. 0040 last 4 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the same weight measurement as taught by Feng detects the food item container thus providing a same indication of a desired treatment and more specifically for the same purpose as taught of recognizing a fixed amount of food at a time to a user (par. 0039 last 4 lines)
turning on the UV light lamp for a specified period of time (par. 0040 lines 5-6 user input parameter and 5th from last line lamp function); and
with a vacuum pump (par. 0038 ref. 30), generating a vacuum within the food-item container (par. 0042).
the UV-C lamp and vacuuming pump are turned on simultaneously to sterilize food and seal the food container, where seal the food container is taken with respect to relative a sealed vacuum atmosphere (par. 0040).
wherein the UV-C lamp and vacuum pump are turned on simultaneously to sterilize the stored food (par. 0040) and generate the specified vacuum within the food-item container (par. 0040).
Feng teaches a UV sterilization device and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food sterilization devices as taught by Jarvis.
Jarvis teaches a food product in a container which is irradiated with ultraviolet radiation (col. 8 lines 57-68) and that the container is of a transparent material (col. 4 lines 39-46)
Thus since Feng teaches a storage container for food such that different kinds of foods can be stored in different containers (par. 0042), since Feng teaches a container which comprises a vacuum pump receptacle (par. 0042) and since Feng teaches a device comprising a container which both vacuum is applied and UV light sterilization (par. 0040 second room ref. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the container of room 2 comprising a same vacuum pump receptacle as storage room ref. 12, thus achieving a packaged food as taught by Jarvis which provides a mechanical surface to the external environment that protects the food product from chemical reactions with oxygen in the air as taught by Jarvis (col. 4 lines 55-59) and simultaneous advantage of vacuum as taught by Feng.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach the food item container comprises a material that is transparent to UV light as taught by Jarvis thus achieving a same benefit of providing vacuum to the food as desired by Feng and a material of the container which is transparent thus allowing the UV light to access the food product within and achieving the benefit of sterilization.
Though silent to specifically stating turning on a UV light lamp for a specified period of time, Feng does teach user input for setting parameters including the germicidal lamp (par. 0040).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach turning on a UV light lamp for a specified period of time thus achieving the desired sterilization of the stored food as taught by Feng (par. 0040) depending upon the amount of time required for ultraviolet sterilization of the food product as determined by the nature of the food being treated as taught by Jarvis (col. 5 lines 59-61).
Feng teaches a food storage cabinet with provides vacuum to a food container and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of vacuum storage devices as taught by Espinosa et al. (20060117763).
Espinosa teaches an apparatus for storing, preserving and dispensing perishable and degradable food and goods comprising a vacuum pump for creating a preset partial vacuum (par. 0027) with a container or bag (par. 0028).
Thus since both teach a container comprising a valve for vacuum, since both teach the advantage of providing vacuum during perishable storage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach generating a specified partial vacuum within the food-item container as taught by Espinosa (par. 0027) with respect to a same vacuum container of Feng thus achieving a same storage environment which substantially extend the shelf-life, freshness and quality of a wide range of perishable and degradable items by controlling and/or eliminating their exposure to oxidation, moisture, insects, spoilage bacteria and other organic and non-organic chemical reactions that degrade items and accelerate ripening and decay as taught by Espinosa (par. 0023).
Feng teaches a UV sterilization device for food products and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food sterilization devices as taught by Shur.
Shur teaches food life prolongation, disinfection, ethylene decomposition, and/or the like, through the use of UV source(s), such as UV light emitting diode(s), capable of emitting UV radiation of different wavelengths and/or intensities. Shur teaches monitoring perishable food items within the storage area and determine and apply a target amount of ultraviolet radiation to preserve and/or disinfect the items, without affecting the quality of the items (par. 0007-0008).
Shur teaches the ultra-violet food sterilization device captures a digital image of the stored food via a built-in camera in the ultra-violet food sterilization device (par. 0076).
Though silent to a camera, Feng teaches input of desired parameters specific to a food type (par. 0040). Thus since both teach the same advantage of treating food, since Feng teaches storing of different kinds of foods (par. 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and incorporate known technology, such as in the instant case a camera which captures a digital image of the stored food via a built-in camera in the ultra-violet food sterilization device (par. 0076) as taught by Shur for its art recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input.
Shur teaches wireless communication over networks (par. 0065). Since both teach the same advantage of treating food, since Feng teaches storing of different kinds of foods (par. 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and incorporate known technology, such as, transmitting the digital image wirelessly to a remote server with respect to wireless communication and processing, via a server-side computer vision model executing on the remote server for its art recognized purpose to determine a type of food inside the food-item container as taught by Shur (par. 0076) for its recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and incorporate known technology, such as at least one computer vision model (par. 0076; logic unit, weight map), determining the type of food inside the food-item container as taught by Shur (par. 0076) for its recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input.
In addition, applicant is using known components to obtain expected results, i.e. wireless communication. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected components, which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. In the absence of unexpected results, it is not seen how the claimed invention differs from the teachings of the prior art. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results, i.e. UV system control.
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case incorporating known technology, i.e. a camera which captures a digital image of the stored food via a built-in camera in the ultra-violet food sterilization device (par. 0076) for its art recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input since in addition to being known to work in one field of endeavor which may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. a camera for its art recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input.
Since both teach the same advantage of treating food, since Feng teaches storing of different kinds of foods (par. 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings and incorporate known technology, such as simultaneously with detecting the food-item container via the load sensor, capturing, via a built-in camera in the ultra-violet food sterilization device, a digital image of the stored food placed inside the food-item container for its art recognized purpose of determining the type of food inside the food-item container as taught by Shur (par. 0076) for its recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input.
Shur teaches recognizing perishable items with a short storage time (par. 0080) and Feng teaches treatment to prolong storage time (par. 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to based on the type of food inside the food-item container, as taught by Shur, determining shelf-life expectancy of the stored food as further taught by Shur (par. 0080) thus providing relevant information to the control unit for operation unique to the food type and automatically adjust and control aspects of the UV according to such and achieving a same desired prolonging of storage time as desired by both.
Shur teaches wireless communication with other computer systems (par. 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to maintain a fresh food inventory data of the stored food in a database thus providing a collection of instructions, in any language, code or notation, that cause a computing device having an information processing capability to perform a particular function either directly or after any combination of the following: (a) conversion to another language, code or notation; (b) reproduction in a different material form; and/or (c) decompression. To this extent, the analysis program 30 can be embodied as any combination of system software and/or application software as taught by Shur (par. 0063).
Shur teaches wireless communication with other computer systems (par. 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to push, via an electronic message, the shelf-life expectancy of the stored food and the fresh food inventory data to a mobile device application using the wireless communication of Shur thus providing a collection of instructions, in any language, code or notation, that cause a computing device having an information processing capability to perform a particular function either directly or after any combination of the following: (a) conversion to another language, code or notation; (b) reproduction in a different material form; and/or (c) decompression. To this extent, the analysis program 30 can be embodied as any combination of system software and/or application software.
Shur teaches a collection of instructions, in any language, code or notation, that cause a computing device having an information processing capability to perform a particular function where "the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case incorporating known technology, i.e. a virtual assistant Al as a software agent, in a cloud computing platform that is used to access the fresh food inventory data for its art recognized purpose of providing wireless communication as opposed to manual input for operation since in addition to being known to work in one field of endeavor which may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Shur of a collection of instructions, in any language, code or notation, that cause a computing device having an information processing capability to perform a particular function either directly or after any combination of the following: (a) conversion to another language, code or notation; (b) reproduction in a different material form; and/or (c) decompression. To this extent, the analysis program 30 can be embodied as any combination of system software and/or application software.
Feng teaches storage of food and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of additional food storage considerations as taught by Buehler.
Buehler teaches a vision system which monitors the contents of each ingredient (par. 0319) and provides the user with ingredient notification of ingredients which are most likely to go bad soon (par. 0463).
Thus since both teach food storage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to look to the art of food storage controllers as taught Feng and combine the teachings and determine an amount of food that has not been consumed before an expiry date as taught by Buehler (par. 0463) thus achieving the combined advantage of food storage and providing a user notification of stored foods which are approaching an expiry date, i.e. an amount that has not been consumed prior to the expiry date for its art recognized purpose of achieving the advantage of providing the user with foods which stored which may go bad soon prompting the user to consume as taught by Buehler (par. 0463).
Since both teach food storage of food, since shopping suggestions are not limited by the vacuum sterilizing step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to look to the art of food storage controllers as taught Feng and combine the teachings and provide additional food storage considerations (par. 0472), such as shopping suggestion (par. 0472), thus providing the user with the advantage of evaluating the current amount of each ingredient in food storage and determining which food needs to be restocked as taught by Buehler (par. 0472).
Buehler further teaches a same wireless communication as taught by Shur, in addition to teaching a user interface with voice recognition (par. 0461).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the user access via verbal commands as taught by Buehler for its art recognized purpose of telling the control system specific information, such as in the instant case food type.
Since the claims are drawn to UV sterilization, since AI, cloud computing and mobile devices are known. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case incorporating known technology, i.e. a virtual assistant Al through a mobile device application as a software agent, in a cloud computing platform for its art recognized purpose of providing wireless communication as opposed to manual input for operation since in addition to being known to work in one field of endeavor which may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Shur of a collection of instructions, in any language, code or notation, that cause a computing device having an information processing capability to perform a particular function either directly or after any combination of the following: (a) conversion to another language, code or notation; (b) reproduction in a different material form; and/or (c) decompression. To this extent, the analysis program 30 can be embodied as any combination of system software and/or application software.
With respect to claim 2, Feng teaches wherein the UV light can be installed inside the ultra-violet food sterilization device (par. 0040).
Shur teaches with respect to claims 3 and 4, the set of ultraviolet radiation sources can include peak wavelengths at 275 nm and 295 nm. The UV peak wavelengths are responsible for disinfection and food preservation (par. 0082). Shur teaches UV-C having a wavelength of 100nm to approximately 280nm (par. 0059).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to teach a specific UV band relative the genus of UV treatment of Feng, specifically a UV-C band having a wavelength of 200nm to approximately 280nm (par. 0059) for its art recognized and intended purpose of Feng for disinfection and food preservation (par. 0082) as also desired by Shur.
With respect to claim 5 Feng teaches, ultra-violet food sterilization device detects that the food-item container has been placed on a load sensor (par. 0040 last 3 lines; where it is noted detects the food item container is taken with respect to the load of the container changing relative a measured amount, i.e. operation).
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicants urging of impermissible hindsight. Importantly, Feng teaches the method for automating UV light and vacuum. Though silent to claimed specifics, and in response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Importantly Feng teaches UV sterilization. Though silent to the claimed remote control, or the “comprehensive systems” as urged relative the claimed method for automating UV light and vacuum, Feng teaches the controller specific to application of UV of food. The addition of remote processing of a same information for a same purpose, i.e. the addition of computer technology as opposed to food processing technology, merely because it is not disclosed, in the constantly developing art of wireless technology and virtual assistance, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the “method for automating operation of an ultraviolet light lamp and vacuum pump” and mobile device application and communications which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function.
With respect to applicants urging directed to KSR, importantly as noted above Feng teaches the method for automating UV light and vacuum. As opposed to hindsight, in the instant case so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
Importantly, Shur and Buehler teach wireless communication for acquiring information and more specifically as taught by Shur a method of generating a system for managing. In this case, the generating can include configuring a computer system, such as the computer system 20 (FIG. 1), to implement a method of managing the storage area as described herein. The configuring can include obtaining (e.g., creating, maintaining, purchasing, modifying, using, making available, etc.) one or more hardware components, with or without one or more software modules, and setting up the components and/or modules to implement a process described herein. To this extent, the configuring can include deploying one or more components to the computer system, which can comprise one or more of: (1) installing program code on a computing device; (2) adding one or more computing and/or I/O devices to the computer system; (3) incorporating and/or modifying the computer system to enable it to perform a process described herein; and/or the like (par. 0130).
Applicant is using known components of a different technology from UV treatment of food to obtain expected results, i.e. wireless communication to a server, processing on a remote server, a mobile device application, i.e. app, AI, and cloud computing platforms. There is nothing patentable unless the applicant, by a proper showing, further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected components, which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. In the absence of unexpected results, it is not seen how the claimed invention differs from the teachings of the prior art. Applicant's claims are drawn to a combination of known components which produces expected results, i.e. UV system control.
"The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case incorporating known technology, for its art recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input since in addition to being known to work in one field of endeavor which may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e. a camera for its art recognized purpose of providing sensors which control the operating conditions and automated recognition of a type of food as taught Shur as opposed to manual input.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792