DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 02/05/2026
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 with regards to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant in page 13-14 argues,
“Because the claims recite a technological solution to a technological problem, they are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two for at least the reasons described in the August 2025 Memo.
Accordingly, the claims are not directed to any abstract idea, but rather to a practical application that includes improvements to technology, is tied to a particular machine/system (e.g., cooler, temperature sensor unit, control center unit, and alarm server), and apply the improved techniques in a meaningful way beyond generally linking.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to applicant’s remarks page 10 the supposed improvement comes from determining predicted temperature of a food item without needing to continuously measure the core temperature of the food items in an invasive way. However the limitations directed to determining the predicted temperature and whether the predicted temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item is directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. The additional limitations directed to using a processor and memory amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using the abstract idea an cooler amounts to reciting a Field of Use and Technological Environment to perform the Abstract idea and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, according to published specification appears to describe prior state of the art which already include methods of determining temperature in a non-invasive way. For example in published specification ¶0013 describes US 2010/128755 A1 in which “a calculation device calculates the temperature inside the item to be cooked using the surface temperature of the item to be cooked and/or the ambient temperature, the distance or multiple distances, elapsed time, and the start temperature of the item to be cooked”. ¶0014 describes U.S. Pat. No. 6,299,920 B1 which “provides a non-contact system and method for approximating the internal temperature of food being cooked upon a cooking surface of a cooking apparatus, such as a grill or griddle.”
Applicant in page 17 argues,
“The claimed system works only because the system "knows" where the temperature sensor unit and the food item are located in the cooler and how the cooler affects the food items at their specific location (through the heat transfer parameters and food specific coefficients that are stored in the control center unit). The way in which the equation in the claim is applied is not generic, but uses this knowledge. Therefore, there is clearly a non-trivial interdependence between the equation and the specific system of the claim. The method of determining the core temperature change, determining predicted temperature, and determining whether predicted temperature is above a threshold, therefore, clearly does depend on the specific cooler and the specific location of the temperature sensor, as well as on the location and properties of the food item itself. The properties of the cooler and the location of the temperature sensor unit, as well as the location and properties of the food item, therefore, do meaningfully limit the judicial exceptions or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the deterministic mode function uses h as the stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler and “the stored heat transfer parameters depending on a type of cooler and on food item positions”, the claimed equation and the invention itself is not specific to any cooler or food item positions. The claimed equation and invention can be applied to myriad of different coolers and food item position and therefore the equation to use the position and cooler type as a mere input parameter for predicting the temperature does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula.
Applicant in page 18 argues,
“Similarly, the present claims are directed to an improvement in the process of monitoring food items in a cooler, not a mathematical formula. The claims implement or apply the mathematical formula in a system which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function (monitoring food items in a cooler) "which the patent laws were designed to protect."”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvement solely comes from using the equation to determine a predicted temperature of a food item, determining whether the predicted temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item, all of which are directed to abstract ideas. Using generic components such as temperature sensors, processor, alarm server etc. as tool to execute the abstract idea and simply acquiescing to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a cooler, does not provide any improvement to the cooler since, there are not specific function or the aspect of the cooler affected by the claimed invention.
Applicant in page 21 argues,
“Claim 1 is similar to the claims of Diehr and Thales Visionis in that the claimed equation "serves only to tabulate the information about" the core temperature of the food items. See e.g., id. at 1348. Just as the claims in Diehr reduced the likelihood that the rubber molding process would result in "overcuring" or "undercuring," the claims here result in a system that reduces errors in the determination of a food item's actual temperature - which is very similar to the effect in Thales Visionix.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention is not similar to that of the claims of Diehr or Thales Visionis, that were found to be eligible. In case of Diehr, The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. In case of Visionis the claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. In the present application there is no particular configuration of the cooler, the temperature sensor or food item. It also doesn’t appear from the specification that having any specific configuration of these elements would make provide any improvement. Also, the cooler does not perform particular function other than alerting when the predicted temperature is above a threshold. Simply sending an alert based on a threshold doesn’t improve the functioning of the cooler in any way. Additionally, there doesn’t
Applicant’s arguments, see page 22-25 of remarks, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 22-25 of remarks, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4-6 and 8-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
With regards to claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s)
“wherein the at least one computer processor of the control center unit is configured to receive the measured values of the environment temperature and execute a deterministic mode function to generate a predicted core temperature change of a food item on a predefined food item position in the cooler based on each received measured value of the environment temperature according to a following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
67
235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Tc is a predicted current core temperature of the food item, f is the deterministic mode function, hare the stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler, Q are the stored values for food specific coefficients related to the kind of food item taken from the group of food types, and Te is the received measured value of the environment temperature, wherein the deterministic mode function depends on the predefined food item positions in the cooler, the stored values for food specific coefficients related to the kind of food item taken from the group of food types, the received measured value of the environment temperature and the predicted current core temperature of the food item,” This limitation, as drafted, is directed to performing a calculation using a mathematical formula. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation is considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Additionally claim also recites, “wherein the at least one computer processor of the control center unit is configured to integrate the equation to obtain values of a predicted temperature of the food item at a plurality of points in time,” This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is without any recitation limiting the process of generating predicted temperature, human mind is capable of determining a predicted temperature based on the predicted core temperature change. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform the calculation does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. With regards to limitation, “wherein the at least one computer processor of the control center is configured to determine whether the predicted temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item,” This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than computer processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Human mind is capable of comparing temperature to a threshold and determining if the temperature is above a threshold. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claim recites additional limitation directed to A food safety system for food items in cooled environments in a cooler, the food safety system comprising: a cooler comprising a plurality of predefined food item position, a temperature sensor unit comprising: a temperature sensor, a power supply, a data transmission element and a control unit, a control center unit having: at least one computer processor, and a memory comprising memory data, and an alarm server, the alarm server connected to the control center; wherein the temperature sensor unit positioned at a predetermined position in the cooler, wherein the temperature sensor of the temperature sensor unit measures values of an environment temperature at the predetermined position in the cooler in a plurality of predetermined time intervals, and wherein the memory data in the control center comprises a database comprising stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler and stored values for food specific coefficients the stored heat transfer parameters depending on a type of cooler and on food item positions in the cooler, the food specific coefficients related to a kind of food item taken from a group of food types, the stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler comprising predefined food item position in the cooler, and wherein, the alarm server is configured to transmit an alert to an electronic communication device of a user in response to determining predicted temperature of the food item is above the threshold value for the food item to alert the user. Limitations directed to food safety system, a cooler, temperature sensor unit and a control center unit having: at least one computer processor, and a memory comprising memory data, are incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item is performed. Limitations directed to a food safety system and a cooler are merely reciting components used in the art area of cooler and is directed to limiting the reach of the abstract idea to a particular technological use of food cooling system. Therefore, these limitation amounts to reciting a Field of Use and Technological Environment to perform the Abstract idea and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations regarding the temperature sensor unit amounts to invoking a temperature sensor as a tool perform an existing process (measure temperature), and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to a control center having a computer processor and memory, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to memory storing a database of stored heat transfer parameters and stored values for food specific coefficients, amounts to reciting a computer component performing functions it performs in its ordinary capacity (storing data). Storing the data in a memory to be used in execution of the abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to an alarm server, the alarm server connected to the control center, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components (alarm server) after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to alarm server transmitting an alert to an electronic communication device of a user in response to determining the predictive core temperature of the food item is above the threshold value, this limitation also doesn’t integrate the judicial exception related to determining whether the predictive core temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item because, the limitation is merely transmitting the result of the judicial exception directed to determining whether the predictive core temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item. Therefore, it is an insignificant extra-solution activity and doesn’t integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, additional limitations directed to food safety system, a cooler, temperature sensor unit and a control center unit having: at least one computer processor, and a memory comprising memory data, are incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item is performed. Limitations directed to a food safety system and a cooler are merely reciting components used in the art area of cooler and is directed to limiting the reach of the abstract idea to a particular technological use of food cooling system. Therefore, these limitation amounts to reciting a Field of Use and Technological Environment to perform the Abstract idea and fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations regarding the temperature sensor unit amounts to invoking a temperature sensor as a tool perform an existing process (measure temperature), and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to a control center having a computer processor and memory, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to memory storing a database of stored heat transfer parameters and stored values for food specific coefficients, amounts to reciting a computer component performing functions it performs in its ordinary capacity (storing data). Storing the data in a memory to be used in execution of the abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and thus fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to an alarm server, the alarm server connected to the control center, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components (alarm server) after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to alarm server transmitting an alert to an electronic communication device of a user in response to determining the predictive core temperature of the food item is above the threshold value, this limitation also does not add significantly more than the judicial exception because, the limitation is merely transmitting the result of the judicial exception directed to determining whether the predicted temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item. Courts have found transmitting data over a network (OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 1, wherein white noise is added to the deterministic mode function. This limitation is directed to further recitation regarding deterministic mode function, which is recited as an equation and thus is a limitation affecting the equation itself. Therefore, this limitation is also directed to the mathematical formula and is also directed to an abstract idea of the mathematical concept category.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, wherein the measured environment temperature is measured in predetermined time intervals. This limitation regarding the interval of temperature measurement is an extension of the limitation regarding using a temperature sensor to measure temperature and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 4 further recites, wherein the plurality of predetermined time intervals are regular intervals. This limitation regarding the interval of temperature measurement is an extension of the limitation regarding using a temperature sensor to measure temperature and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 5 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of predetermined time intervals are between one and ten minutes. This limitation regarding the interval of temperature measurement is an extension of the limitation regarding using a temperature sensor to measure temperature and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 1, wherein the temperature sensor unit is connected with the control center unit via a Long Range Wide Power Network. This limitation narrows the temperature sensor communication aspect, however it amounts to an incidental or token addition to the claim as it does not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item is performed. This limitation amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a Long Range Wide Power Network connected temperature sensor unit and control center unit as a tool to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 8 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 1, wherein the stored heat transfer parameters of the cooler are related to at least one type of cooler from the group encompassing one or more types of an open cooler, a closed cooler having a lid, a closed cold storage room, a cooler of a refrigerated car, a tray, or a coolbox. This limitation merely recites list of cooled environment and therefore it amounts to an incidental or token addition to the claim as it does not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item is performed. Therefore, these limitation amounts to reciting a Field of Use and Technological Environment to perform the Abstract idea and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to provide significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 9 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 1, The food safety system according to claim 1 , wherein the food types are taken from a group including meat, fish, fluid dairy products, solid dairy products, canned food, and solid convenience products. This limitation merely recites list of food types and therefore it amounts to an incidental or token addition to the claim as it does not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item is performed. Therefore, these limitation amounts to reciting a Field of Use and Technological Environment to perform the Abstract idea and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to provide significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regards to claim 10, the claim(s) recite(s)
“wherein the at least one computer processor of the control center unit is configured to receive the measured values of the environment temperature and execute a deterministic mode function to generate a predicted core temperature change of a food item on a predefined food item position in the cooler based on each received measured value of the environment temperature according to a following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
60
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Tc is a core temperature of the food item, f is the deterministic mode function, h are the stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler, Q are the stored values for food specific coefficients related to the kind of food item taken from the group of food types, Te is the received measured value of the environment temperature, and ƞ(t) is s stochastic noise describing unpredictable random events that can perturb the system;
wherein the deterministic mode function depends on the predefined food item position in the cooler, the stored values for food specific coefficients related to the kind of food item taken from the group of food types, the received measured environment temperature and the predicted current core temperature of the food item,
wherein the at least one computer processor of the control center unit is configured to:
determine the predicted core temperature change of a first food item on a first predefined food item position in the cooler using the deterministic mode function;
integrate the equation to obtain values of a predicted temperature of the first food item at a plurality of points in time; and
determine that the predicted temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item; and”
This limitation, as drafted, is directed to performing a calculation using a mathematical formula. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation is considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Additionally claim also recites, “integrate the equation to obtain values of a predicted temperature of the first food item at a plurality of points in time;” This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is without any recitation limiting the process of calculating predicted temperature, human mind is capable of determining a predicted temperature based on the predicted core temperature change, mentally or with pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform the calculation does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. With regards to limitation, “determine that the predicted temperature of the food item 1s above a threshold value for the food item,” This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than computer processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Human mind is capable of comparing temperature to a threshold and determining if the temperature is above a threshold. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claim recites additional limitation directed to A food safety system for food items in cooled environments in a cooler, the food safety system comprising: a cooler comprising a plurality of predefined food item positions, a temperature sensor unit comprising: a temperature sensor, a power supply, a data transmission element and a control unit, a control center unit having: at least one computer processor, and a memory comprising memory data, and an alarm server, the alarm server connected to the control center; wherein the temperature sensor unit positioned at a predetermined position in the cooler, wherein the temperature sensor of the temperature sensor unit measures values of an environment temperature at the predetermined position in the cooler in a plurality of predetermined time intervals, and wherein the memory data in the control center unit comprises a database comprising stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler and stored values for food specific coefficients, the stored heat transfer parameters depending on a type of cooler and on food item positions in the cooler, the food specific coefficients related to a kind of food item taken from a group of food types, and wherein, the alarm server is configured to transmit an alert to an electronic communication device of a user in response to determining the predictive core temperature of the food item is above the threshold value for the food item to alert the user. Limitations directed to food safety system, a cooler, temperature sensor unit and a control center unit having: at least one computer processor, and a memory comprising memory data, are incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item is performed. Limitations directed to a food safety system and a cooler are merely reciting components used in the art area of cooler and is directed to limiting the reach of the abstract idea to a particular technological use of food cooling system. Therefore, these limitation amounts to reciting a Field of Use and Technological Environment to perform the Abstract idea and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations regarding the temperature sensor unit amounts to invoking a temperature sensor as a tool perform an existing process (measure temperature), and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to a control center having a computer processor and memory, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to memory storing a database of stored heat transfer parameters and stored values for food specific coefficients, amounts to reciting a computer component performing functions it performs in its ordinary capacity (storing data). Storing the data in a memory to be used in execution of the abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to an alarm server, the alarm server connected to the control center, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components (alarm server) after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to alarm server transmitting an alert to an electronic communication device of a user in response to determining the predictive core temperature of the food item is above the threshold value, this limitation also doesn’t integrate the judicial exception related to determining whether the predictive core temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item because, the limitation is merely transmitting the result of the judicial exception directed to determining whether the predictive core temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item. Therefore, it is an insignificant extra-solution activity and doesn’t integrate the claim into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, additional limitations directed to food safety system, a cooler, temperature sensor unit and a control center unit having: at least one computer processor, and a memory comprising memory data, are incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item is performed. Limitations directed to a food safety system and a cooler are merely reciting components used in the art area of cooler and is directed to limiting the reach of the abstract idea to a particular technological use of food cooling system. Therefore, these limitation amounts to reciting a Field of Use and Technological Environment to perform the Abstract idea and fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Limitations regarding the temperature sensor unit amounts to invoking a temperature sensor as a tool perform an existing process (measure temperature), and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to a control center having a computer processor and memory, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to memory storing a database of stored heat transfer parameters and stored values for food specific coefficients, amounts to reciting a computer component performing functions it performs in its ordinary capacity (storing data). Storing the data in a memory to be used in execution of the abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and thus fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Limitation directed to an alarm server, the alarm server connected to the control center, amounts to simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components (alarm server) after the fact to an abstract idea and therefore fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to alarm server transmitting an alert to an electronic communication device of a user in response to determining the predictive core temperature of the food item is above the threshold value, this limitation also does not add significantly more than the judicial exception because, the limitation is merely transmitting the result of the judicial exception directed to determining whether the predicted temperature of the food item is above a threshold value for the food item. Courts have found transmitting data over a network (OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 11 depends on claim 10 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 10. Claim 11 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 10, wherein the data transmission element of the temperature sensor unit is directly connected with the control center unit. This limitation regarding the data transmission element of the temperature sensor unit is an extension of the limitation regarding using a temperature sensor unit to measure temperature and it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. This limitation amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a directly connected temperature sensor unit and control center unit as a tool. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12 depends on claim 10 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 10. Claim 12 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 10, wherein the temperature sensor unit is positioned centrally in the cooler. This limitation regarding the placement of the temperature sensor unit doesn’t appear to have any described effect on the process steps of calculating core temperature change of a food item and thus it fails to meaningfully limit or alter the process steps of calculating a core temperature change of a food item. This limitation amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a centrally positioned temperature sensor unit as a tool. Therefore, this limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13 depends on claim 10 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 10. Claim 13 further recites, The food safety system according to claim 10, wherein the at least one computer processor of the control center is unit configured to: perform a model calibration procedure on the deterministic mode function with an assumption of constant white noise and a normal distribution of core temperatures. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than computer processor being claimed as performing this function, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Without any specific limitation requiring otherwise, under broadest interpretation human mind, with or without pen and paper, is capable of calibrate the deterministic mode function with an assumption of constant white noise and normal distribution of core temperature . The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) and under 35 USC§ 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) and under 35 USC§ 101 set forth in this Office action.
Independent claim 1 recites in part,
“wherein the memory data in the control center unit comprises a database comprising stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler and stored values for food specific coefficients the stored heat transfer parameters depending on a type of cooler and on food item positions in the cooler, the food specific coefficients related to a kind of food item taken from a group of food types,
wherein the at least one computer processor of the control center unit is configured to receive the measured values of the environment temperature and execute a deterministic mode function to generate a predicted core temperature change of a food item on a predefined food item position in the cooler based on each received measured value of the environment temperature according to a following equation:
PNG
media_image3.png
78
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein Tc is the predicted current core temperature of the food item, f is the deterministic mode function, hare the stored heat transfer parameters for the cooler, Q are the stored values for food specific coefficients related to the kind of food item taken from the group of food types, and Te is the received measured value of the environment temperature,”
Thybo (US20090210102Al) in ¶0072-¶0073 teaches heat transfer coefficient and specific thermal capacity of the product (Q food specific coefficient). However, it doesn’t specifically teach the above limitations in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Jacobson (US9752810B1) in Column 6 Line 44-67 teaches memory but it doesn’t specifically teach the above limitations in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Garsd (US20180003572A1) in ¶0267-¶0268 teaches using variations of heat transfer parameters in a thermal model. ¶0283 teaches calculating a core temperature of a Product using the thermal model. However it doesn’t specifically teach the above limitations in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Young (US20220092877A1) in ¶0076 teaches food item specific surface heat transfer coefficient but it doesn’t specifically teach the above limitations in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches it doesn’t specifically teach the above limitations in view of the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) and under 35 USC§ 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also allowable due to its dependency.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore would also be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) and under 35 USC§ 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-13 depend on claim 10 and are therefore also allowable due to its dependency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116