DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “by” should be deleted from line 9; “that” should be deleted from line 10; and “being” should be replaced with --is-- in line 10.
In claim 9, “thermally” should be changed to --the thermal-- in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0377490 to Nivala et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0129006 to Nivala.
Referring to claim 1, Nivala et al disclose a food thermometer (900E) (abstract; figure 11E; paragraphs 110-114) comprising:
a housing (944) having a pointed end for a measurement of a temperature inside a product to be cooked (abstract; figure 11E); and
a battery (920b) located inside the housing (944) and arranged at the pointed end of the food thermometer (900E).
Nivala et al does not disclose that the battery is encased by a thermal insulation located between the housing and the battery, or that the battery is only partially covered by a thermal insulation located between the housing and the battery, by the thermal insulation being formed of a plurality of elements and there is a distance between the elements or that the thermal insulation being lattice-shaped.
However, Nivala discloses (figures 27, 29; paragraphs 203-206) that it is desirable to protect a battery (2774) of a food thermometer by encasing the battery with thermal insulation (2772/2797) located between a housing and the battery in order to absorb heat and provide thermal protection (paragraph 203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encase the battery of Nivala et al with thermal insulation located between the housing and the battery in order to absorb heat and provide thermal protection, which Nivala suggests is desirable.
Referring to claim 2, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 2, as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein Nivala et al further discloses that the battery (920b) is located in a space inside the food thermometer (900E) which is filled with a thermally insulating gas (e.g., air) (figure 11E).
Referring to claim 3, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 3, as stated above with respect to claim 2, except for Nivala et al disclosing that the thermally insulating gas is argon or krypton.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use argon or krypton as the thermally insulating gas in Nivala et al in view of Nivala in order to use a more stable and unreactive thermally insulating gas; and since the particular type of gas used for the thermally insulating gas claimed by the applicant is considered to be the use of a “preferred” or “optimum” thermally insulating gas out of a plurality of known thermally insulating gases that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to provide based on the intended use of applicant’s apparatus, i.e., suitability for the intended use of applicant’s apparatus. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), where the courts held that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Referring to claim 4, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 4, as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein Nivala discloses that the thermal insulation comprises a phase change material (paragraph 203).
Referring to claim 5, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 5, as stated above with respect to claim 4, wherein Nivala discloses that
the phase change material is spaced from the housing of the food thermometer (figure 27).
Referring to claims 6 and 7, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claims 6 and 7, as stated above with respect to respective claims 5 and 4, wherein Nivala discloses that the phase change material is dimensionally stabilized (encapsulated) (paragraph 203).
Referring to claim 8, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 8, as stated above with respect to claim 7, wherein Nivala discloses that the phase change material is encapsulated (paragraph 203).
Referring to claim 9, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 9, as stated above with respect to claim 1, except for the thermal insulation being bonded to the battery.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bond the thermal insulation to the battery in Nivala et al in view of Nivala in order to provide a desired thermal protection of the battery, which Nivala suggests is desirable; and since the manner of encasing or partially covering the battery with the thermal insulation claimed by applicant is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice, or design, because the manner of encasing or partially covering the battery claimed by the applicant is considered to be the use of numerous and alternate manners of encasing the battery that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to encase the battery as already suggested by Nivala et al in view of Nivala.
Referring to claim 10, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 10, as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein in Nivala et al in view of Nivala, the battery will be in the enclosure (encapsulation) of the thermal insulation (paragraph 203).
Referring to claim 12, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claim 12, as stated above with respect to claim 1, except for Nivala et al explicitly disclosing that the battery is selected to have a capacity of at least 100µAh and/or of not more than 3mAh.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the battery of Nivala et al in view of Nivala to have a capacity of at least 100µAh and/or of not more than 3mAh in order to provide a desired power source for the thermometer; and since the use of the particular type of battery claimed by the applicant is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice, or design, because the use of the particular battery claimed by the applicant is considered to be the use of numerous and known alternate types of batteries that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to provide a battery as already suggested by Nivala et al in view of Nivala.
Referring to claims 13 and 14, Nivala et al in view of Nivala disclose a thermometer having all of the limitations of claims 13 and 14, as stated above with respect to claim 1, wherein Nivala et al discloses that the housing (944) consists entirely or at least predominantly of metal (paragraph 111) (as in claim 13); and discloses that the housing (944) consists predominantly of stainless steel (as in claim 14) (paragraph 111).
Response to Arguments
The applicants’ comments filed 10/1/25 (pages 5-6 of the response) regarding the objections to the drawings have been considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
The applicants’ arguments filed 10/1/25 (pages 6-8 of the response) with respect to the rejection of the claims over Nivala et al in view of Nivala have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argue (pages 7-8 of the response) that Nivala does not teach encasing or only partially covering a battery by a thermal insulation, as recited in claim 1, because the battery (2774) of Nivala is not fully covered by the insulating layer (2772), thereby not fully encasing the battery (2774). Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive because the battery (2774) of Nivala is considered to be encased (surrounded) by the thermal insulation (2772/2797), which is located between a housing and the battery, in order to absorb heat and provide thermal protection (paragraph 203), as stated in the rejection. Furthermore, applicants’ arguments regarding Nivala not disclosing that the battery is covered by all sides (i.e., fully covered), and not disclosing that the battery is only partially covered by a thermal insulation located between the housing and the battery, by the thermal insulation being formed of a plurality of elements and there is a distance between the elements or that the thermal insulation being lattice-shaped, are not persuasive because these limitations are not positively claimed in claim 1 (e.g., the limitation that the battery is only partially covered by a thermal insulation located between the housing and the battery, by the thermal insulation being formed of a plurality of elements and that there is a distance between the elements or that the thermal insulation being lattice-shaped is claimed as an alternate limitation in claim 1).
Applicants’ statements with respect to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-14 are not persuasive for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claim 1.
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 MIRELLYS JAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8-6.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/MIRELLYS JAGAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
11/25/25