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 .
The response dated 11/4/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending. Claim 7 was cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are considered on the merits below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments, filed 11/4/2028, are acknowledged.
In response to the applicant's amendments, the grounds of rejection for claims 1-6 and 8-10 are new compared to the previous action due to the amendment but rely on the same prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10: put a semi colon after “thereof”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“universal attachment … structured to receive and advance the substance” The term "attachment" does not provide any structure elements, and is just indicating a way (means) for receiving and advancing to occur. The specification indicates that “In some embodiments, the universal attachment compris[es] a vacuum mechanism structured to advance the substance from the modular testing attachment to the multispectral tester.”[0010] However it is not clear as to whether this is intended to be limiting (see 112b rejection below.)
“multispectral tester…structured to receive the substance… and test the substance” The term "tester" does not provide any structure elements, and is just indicating a way (means) for testing to occur. The specification indicates that “In some embodiments, the multispectral tester includes at least one of a refractometer, a mass spectrometer, an infrared camera, a visible light camera, a thermometer, modular bays, and a digital scale for mass measurements.” [0010].
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, limitation “ “universal attachment … structured to receive and advance the substance”;” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, it is unclear if the written description clearly links or associates the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. The specification indicates that “In some embodiments, the universal attachment compris[es] a vacuum mechanism structured to advance the substance from the modular testing attachment to the multispectral tester.”[0010] However it is not clear based on the specification as to whether this is intended to be limiting under 112f.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims follow the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilboa-Geffen et al. (US 10,835,897 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Gilboa-Geffen describes a mobile testing system (abstract and figure 9), comprising:
a modular testing attachment comprising at least one of a crusher attachment, a squeezer attachment, and a blender attachment, the modular testing attachment configured to obtain a substance from food or crop products (column 3 “food samples” and figure 9 column 15 “the components of the detection device 100, include a motor 510 which may be connected to the homogenizer assembly 570” and column 17 “break up food, including grinding, cutting, blending, abrading or mixed movements.”);
a universal attachment coupled to the modular testing attachment and structured to receive and advance the substance from the food or crop products (column 30 “a vacuum micro pump is used as means for driving and controlling the flow of the extracted allergen protein solution.”).);
a multispectral tester coupled to the universal attachment and structured to receive the substance from the universal attachment and test the substance to output scientific values (column 5 “the optical detector may be a spectrometer such as an ultraviolet-visible spectrometer and a fluorescent spectrometer, or a camera.” And column 15 “an optical assembly 520”); and
a computing system operably coupled to the modular testing attachment and the multispectral tester and configured to selectively or automatically operate components thereof (column 5 “the detection system may comprise a user interface that may be accessed and controlled by a software application. The software may run by a software application on a personal device such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a smartwatch and/or other device” and column 24 “When external to the chemical sensor device the software may be configured to run on a smartphone, a smartwatch, a personal computer (PC), a laptop computer, a tablet computer, other medical devices and/or other device. The software application may be used for [selective] operations such as, but not limited to receiving data from the device, analyzing data, reporting data and storing data.”);
wherein the computing system is configured to provide human-readable scores related to at least one of sweetness, balance, weight, size, color, and bitterness (column 20 “The result might also be displayed as number, colors, icons and/or letters.” And column 23 “In addition to above described detection method comprising fluorescence and absorbance measurement, the detection mechanism may be based on a chemiluminescence measurement, a colorimetric measurement,”).
.
Regarding claim 2, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 1, the multispectral tester comprising at least one of a refractometer, a mass spectrometer, an infrared camera, a visible light camera, a thermometer, modular bays, and a digital scale for mass measurements (column 5 “the optical detector may be a spectrometer such as an ultraviolet-visible spectrometer and a fluorescent spectrometer, or a camera. “ and column 19 “the detector (e.g., a spectrometer and a camera)”).
Regarding claim 3, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 1, the universal attachment comprising a vacuum mechanism structured to advance the substance from the modular testing attachment to the multispectral tester (column 30 “a vacuum micro pump is used as means for driving and controlling the flow of the extracted allergen protein solution.”).
Regarding claim 4, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 1 the universal attachment coupled to multiple testing attachments and the computing system configured to determine a type of food or crop product that is being tested, and automatically select and activate one of the multiple testing attachments that correspond to the type of food or crop product that is being tested (column 23 “In the process of the detection testing, the total protein of the test sample is determined and the signal from the allergen detection reaction is compared to the total protein absorbance.” allergen protein indicates what food it is based on table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 1, the computing system configured to access baseline data from a database to process testing data for the substance and scale or weight the scientific values based on the baseline data (column 5 “the detection assay may include a signal analysis algorithm that is used to subtract the background and compare to a known threshold determined by standard binding curves.”).
Regarding claim 6, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 5, further comprising a network interface coupled to the computing system, and the computing system configured to generate human-readable scores based on the scientific values, and store the human-readable scores and the scientific values within the database (column 5 “the detection system may comprise a user interface that may be accessed and controlled by a software application…” and column 23 “A printed circuit board (PCB) 550 may be used to convert the fluorescent signals into digital signals or comparing analog signals to thresholds for displaying the readouts (score) of the detection testing to the user.” And column 24 “The software application may be used for operations such as, but not limited to receiving data from the device, analyzing data, reporting data and storing data.”).
Regarding claim 8, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 1, further comprising a fluid tank structured to provide a fluid comprising at least one of distilled water, isopropyl alcohol, and disinfectant to flush out the multispectral tester automatically after testing the substance (column 12 “The three chambers may be connected to the fluid channel 215, receiving a portion of the processed test sample solution through the flow tube 221 and the fluid channel 215. To avoid the interference among different chambers which may cause misleading detection results, one or more air vent 217 may be added within the fluid channel 215 to prevent the liquid flow between chambers.” Examiner’s note: the claim is directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used. Thus the fluid tank of the prior art is all that is required as long as it has the capability to perform the function indicated.)
Regarding claim 9, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 1, further comprising two or more multispectral testers, each structured to receive at least a portion of the substance from the universal attachment, the computing system configured to determine a type of food or product being tested and selectively activate one or more of the multispectral testers based on the type of food or product being tested (column 19 “some of the components, such as reaction chambers, excitation sources (LEDs or a diode laser); detectors ( e.g. photodiode or PMT), filters and/or other components might be shared by the assemblies.” And column 18 “The flow control port 820 provides a flow control of the extraction protein solution from the cup body 220 (not shown) to the reaction chambers 223 (not 25 shown) with active feedback (selectively activate) from the optical assembly 520” and column 23 “In the process of the detection testing, the total protein of the test sample is determined and the signal from the allergen detection reaction is compared to the total protein absorbance.” allergen protein indicates what food it is based on table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gilboa-Geffen describes the system of claim 9, further comprising a user-interface screen coupled to the computing system configured to allow a user to select the type of food or product being tested (column 19 “a user interface screen”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argue that (1) limitations “universal attachment… structured to …” and “multispectral tester… structured to…” should not fall under a 112(f) interpretation; (2) the 112 rejection is not applicable as the specification provides structure for a “universal attachment… structured to …”; and (3) the prior art does not describe all the limitation of claim 1, particularly a computing system configured to provide human-readable scores related to specific parameters. In response to the applicant’s argument that (1) limitations “universal attachment… structured to …” and “multispectral tester… structured to…” should not fall under a 112(f) interpretation, the requirements for invoking 112(f) are:
(A) the claim limitation uses the phrase "means for" or "step for" or a non-structural term (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means for") — the limitations use "attachment” and “tester" which are a non-structural terms;
(B) the phrase "means for" or "step for" or the non-structural term must be modified by functional language — the functional language used for both limitations is “structured to receive” and
(C) the phrase "means for" or "step for" or the non-structural term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function (MPEP 2181 (1)(A)) – the claim does not provide sufficient structure.
Thus the limitation invokes 112f and is interpreted accordingly.
In response to the applicant’s argument that (2) the 112 rejection is not applicable as the specification provides structure for a “universal attachment… structured to …”, the specification portions indicated by the remarks (page 5) only provide structure of the modular testing attachments that can be received by the universal attachment. The specification does not provide sufficient structure for the universal attachment itself.
In response to the applicant’s argument that (3) the prior art does not describe all the limitation of claim 1, particularly a computing system configured to provide human-readable scores related to specific parameters, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., very specific steps) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The applicant’s arguments (page 7-8) rely on very specific steps drawn from the specification that are not incorporated into the claim.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R BERKELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9831. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at 571-272-7129. 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.
/EMILY R. BERKELEY/
Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796