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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 and 20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-12, 18, and 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 13-17 are rejected. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/02/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/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 13, the meaning of “removing the interface module from the jar lid after the pressure canning process is complete, without disturbing while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar” is unclear. Is the jar lid, the canning jar, the interface module or something else not disturbed? The Examiner notes that neither the Applicant’s Specification nor the claims define or clarify the scope of “without disturbing”. Is “without disturbing” meaningfully different in scope than “leaving the jar lid on the canning jar”? Consequently, claim 13 is rejected as indefinite. For the purposes of further examination, the Examiner has understood “leaving the jar lid on the canning jar” to constitute “without disturbing”, i.e., “without disturbing” does not further limit the claim.
Claims 14-17 are rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13, 16-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wassenaar (US 3875854 A) in view of Hedrington (US 20190110503 A1), Sanseverino (US 20140322416 A), Maniere (FR 2491595 A1) Lhuerre (GB 1460707 A), Siegmund (DE 19825166 A1), Jenkins (US 20160051078 A1), and Johncock (US 20150351579 A1) as evidenced by Dictionary.com (integral).
Regarding claim 13, Wassenaar teaches (Col. 1, lines 37-43; Fig. 2 #10, 14, 18, 20) canning food by filling a jar 10 and providing a cap 14 (lid) having a central hole 18 and a thermocouple 20 (probe/temperature sensor) held vertically in the hole by suitable means 22 as shown in Figure 2 (i.e., integral with the lid, according the broadest reasonable interpretation of “integral” meaning consisting or composed of parts that together constitute a whole (Dictionary.com)). Additionally, Figure 2 of Wassenaar shows that thermocouple 20 (probe/temperature sensor) extends into an interior volume of the canning jar, and where the end of the thermocouple extending into the jar 10 is understood to be proximate a distal end of the probe. Wassenaar further teaches (Col. 2, lines 2-11, 18-19; Fig. 3 #21, 32, 34) an amplifier 34 connected at its input via cable 21 to the couple is connected at its output to relay 32, wherein when the selected voltage value appears at the input, the amplifier produces a voltage sufficient to energize the relay and energize the timer, which runs for its preset period and turns the oven off when the period ends, wherein different temperature settings cause the amplifier to be energized. Furthermore, since the thermocouple is located inside the canning jar, the temperatures measured are understood to be temperatures representing a temperature within the canning jar during a canning process. Also, Wassenaar teaches (Col. 1, lines 44-47) jar 10 is disposed in the center of a group of canned food containing jars 24 disposed in pan 26 which in turn is loaded into oven 28, wherein the jars 24 use the same liquid such as water or syrup as jar 10 (where syrup is understood to be a foodstuff). Additionally, Wassenaar teaches (Col 1. Lines 44-48, Claim 1) the jar (which would include the lid and thermocouple) is disposed in pan 26 which in turn is loaded into oven 28, wherein the oven is used for canning the food. Therefore, the oven of Wassenaar is understood to be a canner under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term: an enclosed vessel for heating a canned food.
Furthermore, the use of canners for canning food is well known in the art. For example, Hedrington teaches (Paragraph 0003) residential canner appliances are well known and are frequently used to prepare food recipes in jars. Hedrington further teaches (Paragraph 0023, 0026-0027) a canner 100 comprising a vessel body 104 for receiving a jar filled with food and a heating element 186.
The substitution or use of a canner, such as the canner disclosed by Hedrington, for the oven of Wassenaar would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the inclusion of an enclosed vessel for heating a jar in a canning process is known in the art from Wassenaar, since the use of a canner as the enclosed vessel for heating a jar in a canning process is known in the art from Hedrington, and since substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 I. B.).
Wassenaar is silent on the method of canning being pressure canning. Wassenaar does not explicitly stated that multiple foodstuffs are added to the canning jar. Additionally, Wassenaar is silent on removably mounting an interface module to the jar lid such that the interface module is disposed outside of the interior volume of the canning jar and is electrically coupled to the temperature sensor through the jar lid; causing the interface module to be in electronic communication with a receiver, the receiver comprising a user interface; receiving temperature sensor data by the interface module; wirelessly transmitting the received temperature sensor data by the interface module; receiving the transmitted temperature sensor data by the receiver; displaying, using the user interface, temperatures represented by the temperature sensor data; and removing the interface module from the jar lid when the pressure canning process is complete, without disturbing while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar.
Sanseverino teaches (Paragraph 0009, 0036) methods of providing a pressurized oven for cooking purposes, wherein the pressure of gas in the oven is higher than atmospheric pressure due to expansion of steam when heated.
Maniere teaches (Abstract, Page 2, Page 5) an oven allowing selection of the method of oven heating including above atmospheric pressure using water vapour, comprising a steam generator under controlled pressure wherein injection of steam can be used for the sterilization of preserves in glass or metal containers (canning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar to perform the canning method under pressure in view of Sanseverino and Maniere since each of Wassenaar, Sanseverino, and Maniere is directed to a method of heating foodstuffs in an oven, since heating foodstuff in an oven under pressure is known in the art as shown by Sanseverino, since pressurized canning in an oven is known in the art as shown by Maniere, since injection of steam into a cooking chamber brings unexpected advantages, in particular for the rapid reheating of frozen items as well as for the sterilization of preserves in glass or metal containers (Maniere, Page 5), since heating a steam generator by resistance of the cooking chamber provides the added benefit of recovering the calories needed to operate the oven (Maniere, Page 2), and since a pressurized oven is that has a fully sealed cavity, reduces heat lost, shortens food cooking time and saves energy of oven operation (Sanseverino, Paragraph 0009).
Lhuerre teaches (Page 1, lines 18-22; Page 2, lines 10-13) measuring and recording successive values of a physical quantity of an environment located within predetermined boundaries by passing the device into the environment using a measuring device, wherein the device can be used in canned food sterilization units where sealed cans of food are treated. Lhuerre further teaches (Page 6, lines 109-113) the device detector is seated in a preserving can, with a first sensor inside the foodstuffs in the can.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar to add foodstuffs to the canning jar in view of Lhuerre, since both are directed to methods of canning using sensors inside food containers, since adding foodstuffs to a canning container that has a temperature sensor is known in the art as shown by Lhuerre, since detecting the temperature of a canning jar containing foodstuffs will provide the most accurate information about the temperature of foodstuffs during canning, and since adding foodstuffs to the can allows foodstuffs to be canned in the canning jar with the temperature sensor, improving efficiency by collecting temperature data and canning foodstuffs at the same time.
Siegmund teaches (Paragraph 0001; Paragraph 0018; Figure #2, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24) a method and a device for measuring temperature data in a pasteurization plant in which containers are transported, wherein a measuring device 2 (interface module), together with bottles 22, passes through a pasteurization system 21, and sensor element 14 for measuring the internal product temperature is guided into the reference bottle 23 filled with a beverage 24. Siegmund further teaches (Paragraph 0016, 0019; Figure #7, 17, 18, 19) a transmitting unit integrated in the stainless steel housing 7 of the measuring device 2 includes a transmitting antenna 17 for radio transmission (wirelessly transmitting by the interface module) of the measured temperature data to a receiving antenna 18 connected to a receiving computer 19 with graphically displays the received temperature data. Also, Siegmund teaches (Paragraph 0010, 0016; Figure #13) a built in coupling is provided for a built-in coupling 13 for the replaceable attachment of sensor element 14, and the internal temperature sensor can be replaced via the built-in coupling. Additionally, Siegmund teaches (Paragraph 0019, 0020) measurement is terminated when the measuring device 2 leaves the pasteurization plant, and measuring device can then be removed from the conveyor automatically or manually and placed in the same or another starting position in the infeed area, offset transversely to the transport direction, for a new run. Furthermore, Siegmund teaches (Paragraph 0016, 0018; Figure #15), as shown in the Figure, measuring device 2 (interface module) is disposed outside of the interior volume of the beverage bottle and is electrically coupled to the temperature sensor through the closure 25 (lid) via connecting cable 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar to provide an interface module such that the interface module is disposed outside of the interior volume of the canning jar and is electrically coupled to the temperature sensor through the jar lid; cause the interface module to be in electronic communication with a receiver; receive temperature sensor data by the interface module, the temperature sensor data representing a temperature within the canning jar during a canning process; wirelessly transmit by the interface module the received temperature sensor data to the receiver while the canning jar, jar lid, and interface module are disposed in a canner; receive the transmitted temperature sensor data by the receiver; and display temperatures represented by the temperature sensor data in view of Siegmund since both are directed to methods of treating food items in containers with internal temperature sensors that send electrical signals, since providing an interface module such that the interface module is disposed outside of the interior volume of the product container and is electrically coupled to the temperature sensor through the lid, wherein the interface module is in electronic communication with a receiver, receiving temperature sensor data by the interface module, the temperature sensor data representing a temperature within the product container during a heat treatment process; wirelessly transmitting by the interface module the received temperature sensor data to the receiver while the product container, product container lid, and interface module are disposed in a treatment apparatus; receiving the transmitted temperature sensor data by the receiver; and displaying temperatures represented by the temperature sensor data is known in the art as shown by Siegmund, since the transmitter and receiver system of Siegmund can convey information wirelessly, allowing the container to be placed in any location without limitations from the cable length between the receiver and the jar, since connecting the temperature sensor wirelessly to a display would allow a user to monitor the temperature and verify if the temperature is too high or low, adversely affecting the food or the canning process, since wirelessly connecting a transmitter to a receiver would allow a user to monitor the canning process from a distance, providing greater convenience, since the ability to regularly measure and read temperature data in and/or in the immediate vicinity of at least one container allows the process to be more effectively controlled and regulated based on the currently measured and not just simulated parameters (Siegmund, Paragraph 0008), and since connecting the interface module to the temperature sensor via an electrical coupling through the lid will ensure that the temperature sensor data is directly conveyed to the interface module and allow the interface module to wirelessly transmit data without interference resulting from being placed inside the container.
Jenkins teaches (Paragraph 0125; Fig. 10 #1012, 1030, 1040, 1072) a method of using cooking equipment 1030 shown in FIG. 10, wherein the temperature sensing cooking equipment 1030 may include at least one supplemental temperature sensor 1072 (e.g., a thermocouple or thermistor) coupled to a lid 1040 to sense a temperature within a closed cooking environment 1012. Jenkins further teaches (Paragraph 0125; Fig. 10 #1058, 1074) the temperature sensing cooking equipment 1030 may further include a supplemental wireless communication module 1074 (interface module) that is provided in or coupled to the lid 1040 to enable temperature information sensed by the at least one supplemental temperature sensor 1072 to be transmitted from the piece of cooking equipment 1030, as represented by the wireless signal labeled 1058, wherein, in some embodiments, the supplemental wireless communication module 1074 may be removably coupled to lid 1040.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar, to removably mount the interface module to the jar lid, and to remove the interface module from the jar lid in view of Jenkins since both are directed to methods of treating food items in containers with internal temperature sensors that send electrical signals, since removably mounting an interface module to a container for holding a food item and removing the interface module from the container is known in the art as shown by Jenkins, since Wassenaar already discloses a temperature sensor located on a lid with a cable that conveys electrical signals from the sensor also extending from the lid, and since positing the interface module on the lid would minimize the length of material/cable needed to connect the temperature sensor to the module, since placing the interface module on the lid would allow it to be removed with the lid for maintenance if needed, without having to move the whole jar, and since placing the interface module of the lid would reduce the horizontal space occupied by the jar and interface module, allowing other jars or containers to be placed alongside the canning jar, saving space and allowing a greater production rate.
Also, while Wassenaar, as modified above, does not explicitly state that the interface module is removed from the jar lid when the canning process is complete, without disturbing while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar, doing so would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Siegmund and Jenkins.
As stated above, Siegmund teaches (Paragraph 0010, 0016; Figure #13) a built in coupling 13 is provided for the replaceable attachment of sensor element 14, and the internal temperature sensor can be replaced via the built-in coupling. Additionally, Siegmund teaches (Paragraph 0019, 0020) measurement is terminated when the measuring device 2 leaves the pasteurization plant, and measuring device can then be removed from the conveyor automatically or manually and placed in the same or another starting position in the infeed area, offset transversely to the transport direction, for a new run.
Thus, while Siegmund does not explicitly state that the device 2 (interface module) is detached from the beverage container after treatment, Siegmund discloses that the interface module is removably coupled to the temperature sensor inside the container and that the interface module is reused. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the same beverage container would be unlikely to be processed again, and that the interface module would likely be disconnected after processing and reconnected to a new beverage container.
Also, as shown above, Jenkins teaches an interface module removably attached to a lid of a food cooking container.
In view of the prior art, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar to removing the interface module from the jar lid when a canning process is complete, without disturbing while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar, since removable interface modules that do not require removal of a container lid are known in the art as shown by Siegmund and Jenkins, since removing the interface module after canning, while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar would allow the interface module to be reused with a different canning jar in a later canning process, lowering costs, since leaving the jar lid on the canning jar would ensure that the foodstuff remains seal in the canning jar, enabling preservation, and since removing the interface module from the jar lid after canning would reduce the space occupied by the jar, allowing more efficient storage of the canned food.
Johncock teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0016; Fig. 3 #20, 30, 34) a method of regulating temperature for sous vide cooking and a cooking vessel and cooktop therefor, wherein a first temperature sensor 34 is affixed to the interior surface 30 of a cooking vessel 20. Johncock further teaches (Paragraph 0023; Fig. 6 #52, 60, 62) first temperature sensor 34 communicates with a controller 52 via a transmitter 60 (interface module)and a receiver 62 of the controller 52, wherein the communication may be wireless and wherein the controller 52 receives information from the first temperature sensor 34 including the temperature of the cooking liquid. Additionally, Johncock teaches (Paragraph 0023; Fig. 6 #56, 67) user interface 56 is in communication with the controller 52 of the cooktop 24, to transmit user input 67 to the controller 52, and to receive information from the controller 52 to display to the user. Furthermore, Johncock teaches (Paragraph 0023, 0025) the user interface 56 has a user input device 64 and a display 66, wherein the temperature of the cooking liquid 16 is displayed on the display 66.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar to provide a receiver comprising a user interface and display, using the user interface, temperatures represented by the temperature data in view of Johncock since both are directed to methods of treating food items in containers with internal temperature sensors that send electrical signals, since providing a receiver comprising a user interface and displaying, using the user interface, temperatures represented by the temperature data is known in the art as shown by Johncock, since connecting the temperature sensor wirelessly to a user interface would allow a user to monitor the temperature and stop or adjust the process (such as when the temperature changes too slowly or quickly relative to expectations), and since a user interface wirelessly connected to the temperature sensor would allow a user to monitor the canning process from a distance.
Regarding claim 16, Wassenaar teaches (Col 1. Lines 44-48) the jar is disposed in pan 26 which in turn is loaded into oven 28 (enclosure/heat source), wherein the oven is turned on and set at 212 °F (i.e. controlling a heat source). Wassenaar further teaches (Claim 1) canning (performing a food preservation process) the food in the oven. Also, as noted above with regard to claim 13, the use of a canner as the enclosure for the canning jar would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 13.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar to include a transmitter (interface module) on the container for the reasons stated above, with regard to claim 1, and such a transmitter would necessarily be located inside the oven with the rest of the equipment as a result of being attached to the container.
Regarding claim 17, Wassenaar teaches (Col. 1, lines 41-43; Col. 2, lines 2-4, 7-9) the thermocouple (temperature sensor/probe) is designed to produce a voltage or EMF which increases with increasing water temperature to a selected value, wherein, when the selected voltage value appears at the input, the amplifier produces a voltage sufficient to energize the relay and energize the timer, wherein hen relay 32 is energized, the timer is energized, runs for its preset period and turns the oven off when the period ends (i.e., a signal is sent from the temperature sensor that controls the operation of the heat source which applies heat to the enclosure).
Wassenaar is silent on a receiver providing the controlling instructions to the heat source.
Johncock teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0016; Fig. 3 #20, 30, 34) a method of regulating temperature for sous vide cooking and a cooking vessel and cooktop therefor, wherein a first temperature sensor 34 is affixed to the interior surface 30 of a cooking vessel 20. Johncock further teaches (Paragraph 0023; Fig. 6 #52, 60, 62) first temperature sensor 34 communicates with a controller 52 via a transmitter 60 (interface module)and a receiver 62 of the controller 52, wherein the communication may be wireless and wherein the controller 52 receives information from the first temperature sensor 34 including the temperature of the cooking liquid. Additionally, Johncock teaches (Paragraph 0022) the controller 52 adjusts the power supply 54 to the burner 22 based on the temperature of the cooking liquid 16, the predetermined cooking temperature and the predetermined cooking time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Wassenaar, as modified above, for the receiver to provide controlling instructions to the heat source in view of Johncock, since both are directed to methods of operating heat sources using temperature data from a temperature sensor inside a food container, since using a receiver to provide controlling instructions to a heat source is known in the art as shown by Johncock, since the transmitter and receiver system of Johncock can convey information wirelessly, allowing the container to be placed in any location without limitations from the cable length or risk of the cable getting stuck or caught on an object, since adjusting the power supply to the heat source based on the temperature reading would ensure that the temperature was sufficient to seal the jar in the canning process and prevent overheating the could damage the food, and since controlling the heat source via the receiver would remove the need for manual operation, providing convenience to the user.
Regarding claim 21, Wassenaar is silent on the probe chamber being integral with the jar lid.
As shown above with regard to claim 1, Parmentier teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0072, 0084; Fig. 10 #5, 8, 12, 26, 38) a method for operating a cooking appliance with a sensor for detecting a state of a food, wherein a sensor 12 (probe) can be used as a temperature sensor, wherein the sensor 12 is inserted into a recess 38 (probe chamber), which is formed in (i.e. is integral with) the lid 6 of the cookware 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar for the probe chamber to be integral with the jar lid in view of Parmentier since both are directed to methods of treating food items in containers with internal temperature sensors, since a lid comprising a probe chamber that is integral with a container lid is known in the art as shown by Parmentier, since providing the indentation in the lid element of the cookware means that no opening needs to be provided in the lid element, yet the temperature inside the cookware can be measured very reliably, and in this way, it can be ensured that, when the cookware is closed by means of the lid or lid element, the condition of the food inside the cookware can be reliably determined (Parmentier, Paragraph 0029), and since a probe chamber that is integral with the lid will have greater structural integrity due to the integral connection as opposed to a separable connection and will have fewer pieces that would need to be manufactured, installed, cleaned, etc., improving efficiency of management and operation.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wassenaar (US 3875854 A) in view of Hedrington (US 20190110503 A1), Sanseverino (US 20140322416 A), Maniere (FR 2491595 A1) Lhuerre (GB 1460707 A), Siegmund (DE 19825166 A1), Jenkins (US 20160051078 A1), and Johncock (US 20150351579 A1) as evidenced by Dictionary.com (integral), and further in view of Barth (US 20140292536 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Wassenaar teaches (claim 1) canning food in a timer controlled oven, said timer when energized running for a preset period and at the expiration of the period turning the oven off comprising: a mason jar insertable into and removable from the oven, said jar containing liquid; a removable cap for said jar; a temperature sensor set to produce a preselected voltage when ambient temperature reaches 212 °F; first means to secure said sensor to said cap in such manner that the sensor contacts the water; and second means coupled to said sensor and to said timer to energize said timer when the sensor produces said voltage. Thus, Wassenaar discloses a canning process with time and temperature dependent steps.
Also, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wassenaar to perform pressure canning and to transmit temperature sensor data by an interface module for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 13.
Wassenaar, as modified above, is silent on displaying messages using the user interface where such messages are determined by the temperature data and time data and related to the pressure canning process.
Wassenaar is also silent on the messages comprising steps in the pressure canning process based on the temperature sensor data transmitted by the interface module.
Barth teaches (Paragraph 0007) a control, regulation and operating device for a cooking appliance, which essentially consists of at least one primary unit attachable to the associated cooking appliance and a secondary unit (user interface) wirelessly communicating therewith, wherein the primary unit is designed as a sensor device and is able to detect at least one parameter, including temperature, influencing the cooking process taking place inside the respective cooking appliance and to transmit the same to the secondary unit. Barth further teaches (Paragraph 0007) the secondary unit is configured in particular as a smartphone that processes the incoming signals (which would include temperature signals) and outputs corresponding handling instructions (messages comprising steps in the cooking process), e.g. on a display of the secondary unit. Also, Barth teaches (Paragraph 0009) the sequence of adding food to the cooking appliance can be calculated in advance with the aid of the respectively suitable cooking times and then be communicated to the user at the appropriate time via the secondary unit during the cooking process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wassenaar, as modified above, to displaying messages using the user interface where such messages are determined by the temperature data and time data and related to the pressure canning process, wherein the messages comprise steps in the pressure canning process based on the temperature sensor data transmitted by the interface module in view of Barth, since both are directed to methods of heating containers holding food products wherein operation is affected by time and temperature data that is wireless transmitted, since a canning process with steps dependent upon time and temperature is known in the art as shown by Wassenaar, since transmission of temperature sensor data by an interface module is an obvious modification of the method of Wassenaar as shown above with regard to claim 1, since displaying messages determined by time and wirelessly transmitted temperature data regarding steps in a process for heating a container holding food products is known in the art as shown by Barth, since providing a user with messages/instructions regarding canning process steps can remind or inform the user of steps that must be performed manually, ensuring accurate completion of the canning process, since sending messages to the user interface which can be located at a distance from the heating source can inform the user of canning steps that are occurring or need to be performed even if the user is not in immediate proximity to the heating source, and since messages on the user interface can instruct the user to perform steps if the control system is not automated or is not working properly, providing a backup to ensure desired outcomes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026, with regard to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 13-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, these arguments have been made in view of amendments to the claims, and, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Wassenaar (US 3875854 A) in view of Hedrington (US 20190110503 A1), Sanseverino (US 20140322416 A), Maniere (FR 2491595 A1) Lhuerre (GB 1460707 A), Siegmund (DE 19825166 A1), Jenkins (US 20160051078 A1), and Johncock (US 20150351579 A1) as evidenced by Dictionary.com (integral), as shown above.
Regarding the Applicant's argument that Wassenaar does not disclose adding foodstuffs to a canning jar since Wassenaar clearly differentiates the syrup and/or liquid from food because Wassenaar refers to the jar 10 as a liquid carrying container rather than "canned food containing jars 24". The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wassenaar states: "This jar is disposed in the center of a group of canned food containing jars 24 disposed in pan 26 which in turn is loaded into oven 28. The jars 24 use the same liquid such as water or syrup as jar 10." Simply stating that jars 24 contain canned food and jars 10 contain liquid is not the same as saying the liquid is not a foodstuff, and Wassenaar does not explicitly contrast the liquid with the food. Wassenaar is simply silent on whether or not the liquid constitutes a foodstuff, and the Examiner maintains that liquids such as syrup constitute a foodstuff according the broadest reasonable interpretation of foodstuff.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the pending application also differentiates foodstuffs from liquids since, in paragraph [0024] of the pending application, foodstuffs are placed in the canning jar with a necessary amount of liquid, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has not clearly defined "foodstuffs" to exclude liquids, and the placing a liquid foodstuff in the jar with additional liquid of the same or different type or even no additional liquid would still satisfy the description of Paragraph 0024, which, the Examiner notes is also not a claimed feature.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art of canning for food preservation would understand that liquids such as water and syrups are distinct from foodstuffs and are used to ensure that heat is evenly distributed within the canning jars as demonstrated by USDA Complete Guide to Home Canning, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simply stating that syrup can be added to foods such as fruit prior to canning as indicated by the reference does not mean the syrup is not a foodstuff.
The Examiner maintains that liquids may also be understood to be foodstuffs. For example, Villines teaches (Paragraph 5, 6) a full liquid diet comprises foods including water, juice, honey, tea, etc. The Human Foods Program Office of Inspections and Investigations also states (Paragraph 1) that "water is a food as defined in section 20l(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (2l USC 32l(f)). It is a normal constituent of many foods and is essential in the preparation and processing of most commercially prepared foods." Consequently, the liquid such as water or syrup as used in Wassenaar is understood to be a foodstuff under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the inclusion of sensors in cans comprising foodstuffs is also known in the art from Lhuerre as shown above.
In response to the Applicant's argument that Applicant has amended the claim to restrict the claim to pressure canning and disagrees with the Office that using an oven would be understood to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner notes that this argument has been made in view of amendments to the claims, and upon, further consideration, a new grounds of rejection has been made as shown above.
Regarding the Applicant's argument that the USDA document teaches away from methods such as using an oven, as disclosed in Wassenaar since, due to safety concerns, pressure canning is the only recommended method for canning meat, poultry, seafood, and vegetables, with boiling-water canners suitable for high-acid foods, the Examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed generally to foodstuffs and not to the particular foods listed.
In response to the Applicant's argument that there is no disclosed provision in Lhuerre for removing the device from the can while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar as required by the limitations of the claim, the Examiner notes that Lhuerre is a secondary reference relied upon simply to teach placing multiple foodstuffs in the cans. Not every feature of a secondary reference need be incorporated into the primary reference. Removing he device from the can while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Siegmund (DE 19825166 A1) and Jenkins (US 20160051078 A1) as shown above with regard to claim 13.
Regarding the Applicant's arguments against Parmentier, the Examiner notes the Parmentier is no longer relied upon in the rejection in view of Applicant's amendments to the claims.
In response to the Applicant's argument that, while Siegmund discusses processing, the interface module is not mounted to a lid, nor does the lid remain sealed after the bottle, and Jenkins does not discuss sensors with separable interface modules, the Examiner notes first that Jenkins teaches (Paragraph 0125) the supplemental wireless communication module 1074 (interface module) may be removably coupled to lid 1040. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, while Siegmund does not explicitly state that the device 2 (interface module) is detached from the beverage container after treatment, Siegmund discloses that the interface module is removably coupled to the temperature sensor inside the container and that the interface module is reused. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the same beverage container would be unlikely to be processed again, and that the interface module would likely be disconnected after processing and reconnected to a new beverage container. Jenkins teaches an interface module removably attached to a lid of a food cooking container. For the reasons stated above with regard to claim 13, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to removing the interface module from the jar lid after the pressure canning process is complete, without disturbing while leaving the jar lid on the canning jar in view of Siegmund and Jenkins.
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).
Therefore, claim 13, and all dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, 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 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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights