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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 remain pending and are examined herein on the merits.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection/112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/01/2025 (hereinafter the OA).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 (hereinafter, Remarks) have been fully considered, regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 (starting on p.6 of the Remarks), but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant begins by arguing “that Young or Nivala does not disclose (or suggest) at least the above underlined distinguishing features” (Remarks, p.7; referencing the amendments to claim 1 which are from former, now canceled, claim 5).
Applicant then characterizes the language of claim 1 and asserts that the benefit is that “the overall structure is very compact, which makes the overall structure of the Bluetooth thermometer simpler and smaller (para. 0015 of the description of the present application).” (Remarks, p.8, emphasis in original).
Applicant then characterizes Young (Remarks, p.8) and concludes:
It can be seen from the above excerpt of Young that the disclosure of Young does not involve "probe is a variable-diameter steel tube", "an outer diameter of the first connecting tube is smaller than an outer diameter of the second connecting tube", "front end of the first connecting tube is a sharp structure", or "circuit board and capacitor are located in the second connecting tube" as recited in the amended claim 1 of the present application.
Remarks p.8, final ¶
Applicant then characterizes Nivala (Remarks, pp.9-10) and concludes:
It can be clearly seen that the disclosure of Nivala does not involve "probe is a variable- diameter steel tube", "an outer diameter of the first connecting tube is smaller than an outer diameter of the second connecting tube", "front end of the first connecting tube is a sharp structure", or "circuit board and capacitor are located in the second connecting tube" as recited in the amended claim 1 of the present application, either.
Remarks p.10, 2nd full ¶
This reasoning cannot be agreed with as these limitations are taught by the prior art and are cited to in the OA. Here is a more clarified mapping of these specific limitations referenced by applicant:
-- "probe is a variable-diameter steel tube"
Young: [0136] “The sensor tube … may be fabricated … a metal such as steel (e.g., stainless steel)”; see figs. 3 and 16 both showing that the tube varies in diameter at least near the tip.
Nivala: [0120] “the metallic outer shell … can include a stainless steel material”; see figs. 10B, 12, 16B and 17B all showing that the tube varies in diameter at least near the tip – see also figs. 11E and 12 further showing that the coaxial tube 916/1016 also varies in diameter.
-- "an outer diameter of the first connecting tube is smaller than an outer diameter of the second connecting tube"
Nivala: see at least figs. 11E and 12 where an outer diameter of the first tube at the tip is less than an outer diameter of the second tube.
-- "front end of the first connecting tube is a sharp structure"
Young: see at least figs. 3 and 6 showing this sharp structure at the tip
Nivala: see at least figs. 10A, 12, 16B and 17B showing this sharp structure at the tip
-- "circuit board and capacitor are located in the second connecting tube"
Young: see at least figs. 16 and 3 showing that the circuit board and capacitor are in the tube.
Nivala: see at least figs. 16B and 17B in view of figs. 10A, 10B and 11A showing that the circuit board and capacitor(s) are located in the tube behind the tip portion; see also [0107-108] teaching that the PCB(s) and capacitors may be specifically in the rear/second tube at the rear as drawn element 946 as shown specifically in fig. 11A.
Further, while the citations above are to the specific portions of the prior art that Examiner felt were most pertinent the documents are large and the entire disclosures of the Young (US 20220381624) and Nivala (US 20220049992) publications are cited broadly for all they teach (see MPEP 2123 stating that references “are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”)
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the alleged insufficiencies of Young are not cured by the other cited references (Remarks, p.10, 3rd full ¶), 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).
As outlined in detail above the references teach each and every element applicant argues regarding and further suggest and motivate the specific configuration claimed as well as providing substantial teaching regarding modifications and implementations (see [0148] of Young and [0220] of Nivala).
Therefore, the position of the office must remain that upon knowledge of the cited art one of ordinary skill in the art would have had all the information and motivation required to make the invention as claimed at the time it was made.
See rejections under 35 USC 103 updated for the amended language and reiterated below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 20220381624; hereinafter Young) in view of Nivala et al. (US 20220049992; hereinafter Nivala).
Regarding claim 1, Young teaches a Bluetooth ([0107] “the radio 606 includes a 2.4 GHz radio, such as an nRF52832 Bluetooth® radio”) thermometer (at least 100/300; see also abstract “a wireless, multi-sensor food thermometer”; see fig. 1 and fig. 14), comprises
a probe (at least 102/302; see at least [0078] and abstract) with a hollow structure (see fig. 3 and fig. 16; [0006]) and a handle (at least 312; [0006]; [0128]; see fig. 21) arranged at a tail end of the probe (see at least figs. 3 and 16 showing this arrangement),
wherein a circuit board (at least 114/115 and/or 314) is provided inside the probe (see at least fig. 16 showing such provision in exploded view; [0043]), and
a first temperature sensor (at least one of the linear array of temperature sensors 106/306; [0080-81]; [0127]; see also abstract) for detecting food temperature (abstract “a temperature probe having a linear array of temperature sensors that are operative to measure: temperature profiles within a food product”) is provided on the circuit board that is adjacent to a front end of the probe (see at least fig. 9B in view of fig. 3 showing this configuration with at least a first temperature sensor of the linear array of temperature sensors adjacent the front of the probe and on the circuit board; see [0100] teaching regarding “the flexible circuit board 115, and the sensors 106 populating it” in view of figs. 9B/C where 106 is at the tip of the FPC 115),
a capacitor (C13.2; [0105]; see fig. 35) that provides power for the circuit board ([0105] teaches providing DC power to the system “using the series capacitor C13.2” [0105] and that “diplexer 604 includes a capacitor C13.2” [0105]; see also [0108] --see specifically “system power and/or battery charging rail 608 (VDD) is connected to the diplexer's DC current path” see fig. 34) is electrically connected to the circuit board (see figs. 9A-C in view of figs. 34-35), and
the circuit board is also provided with a first Bluetooth module (606 -- which is the radio portion of control unit 150; [0116] “PCBA 114 and FPC 115 include the control unit 150 (e.g., microprocessor, radio)”; [0107] “the radio 606 includes a 2.4 GHz radio, such as an nRF52832 Bluetooth® radio”; see fig. 9A), a tail end of the handle is provided with a metal head (at least 123/323; see figs. 9A, 20B and 23 showing this metal charging contact at the tail end; [0128] “metal charging contact 323”), and
a conductive wire (at least “charging contact trace 117” [0116]) for charging the capacitor is electrically connected between the metal head and the circuit board (see at least fig. 9C showing this connection; see also figs. 34 and 35 showing the contact connected to the diplexer which contains the capacitor)
wherein the Bluetooth is a 2.4 GHz RF/wireless radio ([0107] “the radio 606 includes a 2.4 GHz radio, such as an nRF52832 Bluetooth® radio”);
wherein the probe is a variable-diameter steel tube ([0136] “The sensor tube … may be fabricated … a metal such as steel (e.g., stainless steel)”; see figs. 3 and 16 both showing that the tube varies in diameter at least near the tip.; see also Nivala at [0120]), and a front end of the first connecting tube is closed (see at least figs. 3 and 6 showing a sharp structure at the tip which is closed; see also Nivala at least figs. 10A and 10B showing a closed sharp structure at the tip), and the front end of the first connecting tube is a sharp structure (see at least figs. 3 and 6 showing a sharp structure at the tip which is closed; see also Nivala at least figs. 10A and 10B showing a closed sharp structure at the tip); the circuit board and capacitor are located in the connecting tube (see at least figs. 16 and 3 showing that the circuit board and capacitor are in the tube).
Young does not directly and specifically state that the capacitor that provides power for the circuit board is electrically connected to a side of the circuit board facing away from the front end of the probe, a first connecting tube and a second connecting tube fixedly connected coaxially and an outer diameter of the first connecting tube is smaller than an outer diameter of the second connecting tube and that the circuit board/capacitor are in a second tube.
However, Nivala teaches a wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer (abstract; title; 1700; see fig. 17B; see [0049-50] teaching the thermometer uses “a short range point to point communication protocol, such as a Bluetooth connection”) having a plurality of temperature sensors (at least 1736a-e --[0203]; see also 1738 --[0200]; see fig. 17B) on a circuit board (at least 1720a; [0191]) in a probe (see figs. 17A-B) with a charging contact for providing power to the circuit board (1750) electrically connected to the side of the circuit board facing away from the tip/front end of the probe (via charging path 1752; [0189]; see figs. 17A-B showing this configuration; see especially connection adapter 1760) where the probe has a first and a second tube which are coaxially fixed (see at least fig. 12, elements 1016 and 1044) and where an outer diameter of the first connecting tube is smaller than an outer diameter of the second connecting tube (see fig. 12 showing that the outer diameter of the tip of the tube/shell 1044 is less than the outer diameter of the hilt tube 1016; see also figs. 11E and 10A/B where an outer diameter of the first tube at the tip is less than an outer diameter of the second tube) and that the circuit board/capacitor are in a second tube (see at least fig. 10B showing this configuration; see also at least figs. 16B and 17B in view of figs. 10A, 10B and 11A showing that the circuit board and capacitor(s) are located in the tube behind the tip portion; see also [0107-108] teaching that the PCB(s) and capacitors may be specifically in the rear/second tube at the rear as drawn element 946 as shown specifically in fig. 11A).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer of Young with the knowledge of using the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer having electrical power connection for a circuit board specifically having a connection facing away from the front end of the probe, coaxial tubes and circuit board / capacitors in the second tube as in Nivala.
This is because having the charging port / connection at the back / tail end of the thermometer transferring power to a circuit board nearer the front end allows for a short connection between the two points and the coaxial tubes with circuit board and capacitors in the rear allows for simplified assembly of the probe.
This is important in order to simplify the device and allows power to pass to the circuit board in a direct manner in a compact construction of the device (see [0101] of Young teaching that a consumer desire for a very small probe is a design consideration; see [0042] of Nivala teaching that “a relatively small cross sectional area so as not to significantly disrupt the composure of the food” is desired).
Further, while the citations above are to the specific portions of the prior art that Examiner felt were most pertinent the documents are large and the entire disclosures of the Young (US 20220381624) and Nivala (US 20220049992) publications are cited broadly for all they teach (see MPEP 2123 stating that references “are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”)
Regarding claim 2, Young teaches that a second temperature sensor for detecting an ambient temperature is also electrically connected to the circuit board, and the second temperature sensor is close to the tail end of the probe (at least furthest toward the tail temperature sensor 106/306 of the linear array of temperature sensors; see figs. 9B and 20B showing the connection to circuit board 114/314).
Regarding claim 3, Young teaches that a through hole through the handle is provided on the handle (at least 332; see figs. 21 and 22), a stepped surface facing the probe is provided in the through hole (see fig. 21 in view of fig. 23 showing that the inside of the handle hole is stepped/contoured to provide fit with the seal 338; [0130-131]; see also fig. 16 showing the probe in exploded view), the tail end of the probe is tightly sleeved in the through hole and attached to the stepped surface (see fig. 21 showing this configuration; [0129]; [0131]), and the metal head is arranged at other end of the through hole (fig. 21 shows this arrangement; see fig. 16); the metal head comprises a socket portion and an outer cover portion fixedly connected (see fig, 23 showing an example of the socket and outer portions of metal charging contact 323), the socket portion is tightly inserted into the through hole ([0129] teaches regarding securing of these elements together), the outer cover portion is smoothly transitioned to the tail end of the handle (see fig. 21), and a peripheral edge of the outer cover portion is smoothly transitioned to a peripheral edge of the tail end of the handle (see fig. 21; see also fig. 4B showing this smooth transition of the contact outer portion and handle/overmold – 123 and 112 respectively in fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 4, Young teaches that the probe is made of stainless steel, and the handle is made of ceramics ([0136] "The sensor tube … may be fabricated from ... a metal such as steel (e.g., stainless steel), and the handle … may be fabricated from ... a ceramic material."); a gap is remained between the capacitor and an inner wall of the probe (see at least fig. 3 showing that the circuit board which has the capacitor has a gap from the inner wall of the probe; see also fig. 16).
Regarding claim 6, Young lacks direct and specific teaching regarding that an insertion depth line is provided on an outer wall of the second connecting tube, and the insertion depth line is located between the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor.
However, Nivala teaches a wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer (abstract; title; 1700; see fig. 17B; see [0049-50] teaching the thermometer uses “a short range point to point communication protocol, such as a Bluetooth connection”) having a plurality of temperature sensors (at least 1736a-e --[0203]; see also 1738 --[0200]; see fig. 17B) on a circuit board (at least 1720a; [0191]) in a probe (see figs. 17A-B) with an insertion depth line ([0197] “a minimum food insertion depth indicator 1764a, which may include a shallow groove, abraded marking, weld line, or other visual indicator on the exterior of food thermometer”) between at least temperature sensors 1036a and 1040 which are at extreme ends of the probe (see fig. 12).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer of Young with the knowledge of using the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer having an insertion depth line between sensors as in Nivala. This is because an insertion depth line allows for a measurement of insertion to be visible to a user. This is important in order to allow more accurate user insertion of the probe into food.
Regarding claim 7, Young lacks direct and specific teaching that the conductive wire is a conductive metal rod.
However, Nivala teaches a wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer (abstract; title; 1700; see fig. 17B; see [0049-50] teaching the thermometer uses “a short range point to point communication protocol, such as a Bluetooth connection”) having a plurality of temperature sensors (at least 1736a-e --[0203]; see also 1738 --[0200]; see fig. 17B) on a circuit board (at least 1720a; [0191]) in a probe (see figs. 17A-B) with conductive wiring (at least 1642/1652) which is a metal shell/hollow rod ([0166] “sensor wiring 1642 may only include a single sensor wire … and may use inner shell 1652 as a second sensor wire”; see fig. 16A).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer of Young with the knowledge of using the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer having a hard conductive metal rod as in Nivala. This is because such a hollow rod as a wire allows for saving space in the probe. This is important in order to allow for a more compact form to be used.
Regarding claim 8, Young teaches that the conductive element has flexibility (see at least the flexible printed circuit (FPC) – [0113]; [0116]).
Young lacks direct and specific teaching that the flexible conductive element is a wire.
Regardless, Nivala teaches a wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer (abstract; title; 1700; see fig. 17B; see [0049-50] teaching the thermometer uses “a short range point to point communication protocol, such as a Bluetooth connection”) having a plurality of temperature sensors (at least 1736a-e --[0203]; see also 1738 --[0200]; see fig. 17B) on a circuit board (at least 1720a; [0191]) in a probe (see figs. 17A-B) with conductive wiring (at least 1642/1652) which is a general wire and/or a metal shell/hollow rod ([0166] “sensor wiring 1642 may only include a single sensor wire … and may use inner shell 1652 as a second sensor wire”; see fig. 16A).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer with FPC of Young with the knowledge of using the wireless/Bluetooth food thermometer having standard wire as in Nivala. This is because such a wire allows for conventional transmission of power or signals. This is important in order to allow for a simplified design.
Regarding claim 9, Young teaches a charging stand (at least 304; see fig. 14) matched with the metal head (see at least fig. 15C), a display screen ([0004] teaches that this feature is conventional) for displaying temperature data detected by the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor ([0092] teaches that displaying food and ambient temperatures), and a second Bluetooth (see 112(b) section above for best understanding of this tradename limitation) module (184; see fig. 13 showing such networked wireless communication; see [0119] “communications interfaces 184 (e.g., Bluetooth LE radio”) matched with the first Bluetooth module is arranged on the display screen (see fig. 13 showing that the I/O interfaces and communications interfaces are arranged together and configured to transmit to external devices in view of [0004] teaching displays are known).
Regarding claim 10, Young teaches that the display screen is also provided with a USB interface for power supply, and the charging stand is connected with a USB plug that can be inserted into the USB interface (see at least [0123] teaching that “The communications interfaces 184 may include one or more wired interfaces (e.g., USB®) … as discussed above.”); the charging stand is provided with a conductive terminal electrically connected to the USB plug and matched with the metal head (see fig. 15C); the charging stand is also provided with a first placement slot for placing the probe and a second placement slot for placing the handle (see fig. 14 showing these slots), the conductive terminal is located in the second placement slot (see figs. 14 and 15C), and the charging stand is also provided with a groove communicating with a middle position of the first placement slot, a bottom of the groove is lower than the first placement slot and the groove runs through both sides of the charging stand (see fig. 14 showing this configuration with a double-sided groove; see also fig. 9A of Nivala).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855