DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 06/22/2023, Claims 1-23 are pending. The claim set submitted on 06/05/2023 is considered because this is the most recent claim set with some preliminary amendments. Claims 1-10 and 22-23 are considered in the current office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/22/2023 and 01/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims have been analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation. All claims are directed to statutory categories, i.e., Apparatus (Claims 6-10) (Step 1: YES).
Analysis:
Claim 6: Ineligible.
Step 1:
The claim recites a device, including “food freshness detection device”. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites “detection system is operatively connected to the memory unit for comparing said plurality of output signals to the threshold values” (math step)”, See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea, and more specifically to the abstract idea group of a math or mental process since claim 6 relates to using a math process for “detection system is operatively connected to the memory unit for comparing said plurality of output signals to the threshold values”.
Specifically, Applicants provide a comparison, which is an abstract idea. That a detection system and memory (a processor/computer per [17] of the specification) performs the abstract idea does preclude the limitation from being considered abstract. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III states that using a processor/computer to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Once the determination is done, No further action takes place, much less a particular practical application.
In addition, the additional elements , the “memory unit” ; “gas sensor system”; “detection system” and “display unit” appear to be a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b), Specifically the section about why the antenna was considered particular (included details such as shape of the antenna, length, conductors, etc.). The presently claimed “memory unit” ; “gas sensor system”; “detection system” do not appear to recite that degree of particularity. In addition, the gas sensor system (detector) of claim 1 is used to gather data which is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the courts have found that limitations adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, such as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, are limitations found not to be enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility of the Federal Register dated December 16, 2014; and MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Note that mere data gathering is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, there are no additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea in dependent Claim 6 and Claim 1. The claimed “memory unit”; “gas sensor system”; “a detection system” and “a display unit” appears to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the field of in the field of gas detection, as evidenced by Taylor et al. (US20180007453A1, submitted in the IDS of 06/22/2023) and Miranda et al. (US9753001B1) (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible.
Moreover, Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 6. In addition, the limitations of Claims 7-10 do not solve the issues of Claim 6.
Claim 7: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claim 7 updates values which is still just an abstract idea. No further action takes place.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible.
Moreover, Claims 8-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 7.
Claims 8-9: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claims 8-9 recite a network/cloud, and storage which is insignificant extra solution activity to allow access to the data, and also would be considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor 2106.05 (h).
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claims 8-9 are ineligible.
Moreover, Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 8.
Claim 10: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claim 10 recites the location of the machine learning system. The claims do not provide any practical application
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180007453A1, submitted in the IDS of 06/22/2023) and Miranda et al. (US9753001B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Taylor teaches a food freshness detection device (See Claim 1… A system for automatically monitoring gas emissions of perishable goods in a retail sales environment; See Fig. 1, ref. 100… a system for providing a gas emission monitoring) for determining food freshness (See Para 0023…By comparing the gas emission reading from the display fixture 110 and the stored gas profile, the processor 152 may estimate the freshness and/or the remaining shelf life of the perishable item), said food freshness detection device (See Claim 1… A system for automatically monitoring gas emissions of perishable goods in a retail sales environment; See Fig. 1, ref. 100… a system for providing a gas emission monitoring) comprising:
a gas sensor system (referred to as a system for providing a gas emission monitoring [Para 0016; Fig. 1, ref. 100] … system 100 includes a display fixture 110 having gas sensors 121, 122, and 123) configured to generate a plurality of output signals based on gaseous compounds (See Para 0015… product gas emission outputs; Also see ‘gas emission measurement data’… “measures from light producing sensors”) released by a test food sample (any and all apples’) (See Para 0018…. The sensor(s) 121, 122, and 123 associated with each of the compartments 131, 132, and 133 are configured to collect gas emission measurement data from the items in the compartment. For example, gas sensor 121 is configured to read the collective gas emission of any and all apples in compartment 131), wherein said gas sensor system (referred to as a system for providing a gas emission monitoring [Para 0016; Fig. 1, ref. 100]… system 100 includes a display fixture 110 having gas sensors 121, 122, and 123) comprises a plurality of gas sensors (See Para 0018…. The sensor(s) 121, 122, and 123 associated with each of the compartments 131, 132, and 133…), configured to detect (See Para 0018…to collect gas emission measurement data from the items in the compartment. For example, gas sensor 121 is configured to read the collective gas emission of any and all apples in compartment 131) a level of a gas mixture (‘collective gas emission of any and all apples’) emitted by said test food sample (‘apples’);
a detection system (referred to as gas emission monitor [Para 0019; Fig.1, ref. 150]) that is operatively connected (See Para 0019…The gas emission monitor 150 receives the gas emission measurement from the gas sensors 121, 122, and 123; See Para 0016…having gas sensors 121, 122, and 123 in communication with a gas emission monitor 150) to said gas sensor system (referred to as a system for providing a gas emission monitoring [Para 0016; Fig. 1, ref. 100]… system 100 includes a display fixture 110 having gas sensors 121, 122, and 123) and configured to receive (See Para 0019…The gas emission monitor 150 receives the gas emission measurement…) and process (See Para 0019… The gas emission monitor 150 may be generally described as a control circuit and may be any processor…) said plurality of output signals (‘collected gas emission data’) to generate a plurality of test results (See Para 0013… the sensors would measure the gas emissions from the produces displayed on the fixture) for said gas mixture (See Para 0010…The processor 152 may be configured to compare the gas emission measurements from the gas sensors 121, 122, and 123 with gas emission data from stored in a gas emission database 160. The comparison is described in more detail below with reference to FIGS. 2-4 below. The gas emission monitor 150 may further include or be accessible by user interface devices for a user to interact with the collected gas emission data); and
a display unit (referred to as a display fixture 110 [Para 0026]) operatively connected to said detection system (See Para 0016…system 100 includes a display fixture 110 having gas sensors 121, 122, and 123 in communication with a gas emission monitor 150) and configured to display freshness of said test food sample based on said plurality of test results (See Para 0021…‘gas sensor readings’; See Para 0017…‘data collected from the gas sensors’) (See Claim 1… a gas emission measurement taken at the display fixture ;See Para 0023…By comparing the gas emission reading from the display fixture 110 and the stored gas profile, the processor 152 may estimate the freshness and/or the remaining shelf life of the perishable item; See Para 0015… in order to match sensor measurements of product freshness with product gas emission outputs, a database of gas emissions across product lifecycle may be used).
Taylor does not teach that at least some of the said plurality of gas sensors are 2D sensors, each 2D sensor including a material surface defined by a single crystal layer thickness and electrical resistance for physical adsorption of gas molecules of the gas mixture.
In the analogous art of a nanostructure device including a doped semiconducting substrate, an insulating layer disposed on the doped semiconducting substrate, an electrode formed on the insulating layer, and at least one polymer nanofiber deposited on the electrode where the at least one polymer nanofiber provides an electrical connection between the electrode and the substrate and is the electroactive element in the device, Miranda teaches that at least some of the said plurality of gas sensors (referred to as nanosensors [Col. 7, lines 14-16], thereby teaching “plurality of gas sensors” ); Further See Col. 4, lines 25-29… specifically, due to the following characteristics of graphene, the innovation has extreme sensitivity to different gaseous species with a remarkable attribute of having reversibility properties, thereby serving as a building block for a volatile species sensor) are 2D sensors (See Col. 4, lines 31-32…Thus, graphene is a 2-dimensional material) , each 2D sensor (See Col. 4, lines 31-32…Thus, graphene is a 2-dimensional material) including a material surface (See Col. 4, lines 31-32…Thus, graphene is a 2-dimensional material and, as such, its entire volume is exposed to its surroundings; wherein the surface is taught by the entire volume being exposed to the surrounding. ) defined by a single crystal layer thickness (See Col. 4, lines 29-31… As is known, graphene is formed from a single layer (one atom thick) of carbon and has a hexagonal shape) and electrical resistance (See Col. 4, lines 39-43…This high electrical conductance also contributes to graphene's sensitivity to the adsorption and desorption of a single gas molecule. Because graphene is sensitive to the adsorption and desorption of gas molecules, the resistivity of graphene also changes, thereby giving the graphene-based innovation its sensing ability) for physical adsorption of gas molecules of the gas mixture (See Col. 4, lines 31-34…Thus, graphene is a 2-dimensional material and, as such, its entire volume is exposed to its surroundings, thereby making it sensitive to the adsorption and desorption of a single gas molecule; See Col. 4, lines 12-14…For example, the innovation has been experimentally tested under ammonia gas (NH3 ), but could operate under other volatile or toxic gases, such as hydrogen, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, thereby teaching “gas molecules of the gas mixture”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Taylor to incorporate that at least some of the said plurality of gas sensors are 2D sensors, each 2D sensor including a material surface defined by a single crystal layer thickness and electrical resistance for physical adsorption of gas molecules of the gas mixture, as taught by Miranda for the benefit of harnessing the remarkable sensing ability of graphene in providing a sensitive volatile species sensor (Miranda, Col. 4, lines 20-24), allowing the provision of a graphene-based dual use nano-switch/sensor device for toxic gases (Miranda, Col. 2, lines 55-56).
In addition, Claim 1 recites a gas sensor, a detection system and a display unit and then recites how these structures function. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 2, the food freshness detection device of claim 1 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor teaches further comprising a memory unit (See Para 0019… The gas emission monitor 150 may include…memory 154.)
Regarding Claim 3, the food freshness detection device of claim 2 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor teaches that said memory unit (referred to as memory 154 [Para 0021]) is configured to store results of said plurality of test results (See Para 0021…‘gas sensor readings’; See Para 0017…‘data collected from the gas sensors’) (See Para 0021… The memory 154 may store a set of instructions executable by the processor to process the data collected from the gas sensors 121 as described with reference to FIGS. 2-4. The memory 154 may further store a history of gas sensor readings. For example, the gas sensor 122 may be configured to take a gas measurement every 10 minutes, and the memory 154 may store a log of such readings.)
Regarding Claim 4, the food freshness detection device of claim 1 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor further teaches wherein said plurality of output signals (See Para 0015… product gas emission outputs; Also see ‘gas emission measurement data’… “measures from light producing sensors”) comprise electric conductance, electric resistance, or a combination thereof (See Para 0014…a control circuit coupled to the one or more gas emission sensors and configured to receive a gas emission measurement; It is known an control circuits extensively use electrical resistance to manage, limit, and regulate current and voltage, ensuring components operate within safe, efficient parameters.)
Regarding Claim 5, the food freshness detection device of claim 1 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor further teaches wherein generation of said plurality of output signals (See Para 0015… product gas emission outputs; Also see ‘gas emission measurement data’… “measures from light producing sensors”) includes a change in electrical resistance upon electron transfer (See Para 0014, 0019…a control circuit coupled to the one or more gas emission sensors and configured to receive a gas emission measurement; See Para 0026…or any system including one or more control circuits, such as computing devices, processor-based devices, and the like; It is known that control circuits and computers fundamentally rely on the transfer of electrons, as evidenced by PennState) with the gas molecules (referred to as ethylene, ammonia, acetylene, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen [Para 0017].
Taylor does not explicitly teach “a change in electrical resistance upon electron transfer between the material surfaces of the 2D sensors and the gas molecules”.
In the analogous art of a nanostructure device including a doped semiconducting substrate, an insulating layer disposed on the doped semiconducting substrate, an electrode formed on the insulating layer, and at least one polymer nanofiber deposited on the electrode where the at least one polymer nanofiber provides an electrical connection between the electrode and the substrate and is the electroactive element in the device, Miranda teaches “a change in electrical resistance (See Col. 4, lines 39-43…This high electrical conductance also contributes to graphene's sensitivity to the adsorption and desorption of a single gas molecule. Because graphene is sensitive to the adsorption and desorption of gas molecules, the resistivity of graphene also changes, thereby giving the graphene-based innovation its sensing ability, thereby teaching “a change in electrical resistance”) upon electron transfer between the material surfaces (See Col. 4, lines 31-32…Thus, graphene is a 2-dimensional material and, as such, its entire volume is exposed to its surroundings; wherein the surface is taught by the entire volume being exposed to the surrounding, thereby teaching “the material surfaces”) of the 2D sensors and (See Col. 4, lines 31-32…Thus, graphene is a 2-dimensional material and, as such, its entire volume is exposed to its surroundings; wherein the surface is taught by the entire volume being exposed to the surrounding; See Col. 7, lines 14-16, nanosensors thereby teaching “plurality of 2D sensors) the gas molecules (See Col. 4, lines 12-14…For example, the innovation has been experimentally tested under ammonia gas (NH3 ), but could operate under other volatile or toxic gases, such as hydrogen, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide; See Col. 4, lines 40-42…Because graphene is sensitive to the adsorption and desorption of gas molecules…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Taylor to incorporate “a change in electrical resistance upon electron transfer between the material surfaces of the 2D sensors and the gas molecules”, as taught by Miranda for the benefit of harnessing the remarkable sensing ability of graphene in providing a sensitive volatile species sensor (Miranda, Col. 4, lines 20-24), allowing the provision of a graphene-based dual use nano-switch/sensor device for toxic gases (Miranda, Col. 2, lines 55-56).
In addition, Claim 5 recites gas molecules and a plurality of 2D sensors and then recites how they function with respect to the output signals. Claim 5 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 6, the food freshness detection device of claim 1 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor further teaches a memory unit (See Para 0019… The gas emission monitor 150 may include…memory 154.) having threshold values stored therein (referred to as history of gas sensor readings [Para 0021]; other data used in analyzing the gas emission data [Para 0021], thereby teaching “threshold values”), wherein said detection system (referred to as gas emission monitor [Para 0019; Fig.1, ref. 150]) operatively coupled (See Para 0019…The gas emission monitor 150 may include a processor 152 and a memory 154.) to the memory unit (See Para 0019… The gas emission monitor 150 may include…memory 154) for comparing (See Para 0021…the memory 154 may further store other data used in analyzing the gas emission data such as a store's planogram, a store's inventory information, product throughput data, projected sales data, product usage information etc. Planograms generally refers to a schematic or a floor plan that defines Where and when products should be placed on each shelving unit of a retail space) said plurality of output signals (See Para 0015… product gas emission outputs; Also see ‘gas emission measurement data’… “measures from light producing sensors”) to the threshold values (referred to as history of gas sensor readings [Para 0021]; other data used in analyzing the gas emission data [Para 0021], thereby teaching “threshold values”).
In addition, Claim 6 recites a memory unit, the detection system and then recites how it functions. Claim 6 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 7, the food freshness detection device of claim 6 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor teaches that said food freshness detection device (See Claim 1… A system for automatically monitoring gas emissions of perishable goods in a retail sales environment; See Fig. 1, ref. 100… a system for providing a gas emission monitoring) is operatively connected (Para 0016; See Fig. 1… system 100 includes a display fixture 110 having gas sensors 121, 122, and 123 in communication with a gas emission monitor 150, thereby teaching “operatively connected”) to a machine learning system (See Para 0028…the embodiment of a computing device, cloud-based server or a local computer for analysis; the display fixture may further include a microprocessor and/or a communication module for communicating the data gathered by the sensor to the gas emission monitor 150 (Para 0017); Further See Para 0017, 0021-0025 for the elements of the embodiment of a machine learning system ), whereby said threshold value (‘stored gas emission data’; See Para 0029… the stored gas emission data may be one or more threshold values) is updated ‘the rate of change in the measured gas emission over time (for example, last 3 hours, last day) may be compared to the rate of change in a stored profile to determine the freshness of the product)’, thereby teaching “updated”) based on said plurality of test results (See Para 0021…‘gas sensor readings’; See Para 0017…‘data collected from the gas sensors’). (Further see Para 0029…The threshold values may correspond to different actions to be taken, for example, there may be threshold values for level one discount, level two discount, and discard. In some embodiments, a history of gas emission reading is compared to the stored emission profile. For example, the rate of change in the measured gas emission over time (for example, last 3 hours, last day) may be compared to the rate of change in a stored profile to determine the freshness of the product).
In addition, Claim 7 recites the food freshness detection device and a machine learning system and then recites how they function. Claim 7 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 8, the food freshness detection device of claim 7 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor further teaches a network or cloud access system (See Para 0019… a server, a cloud computing device, etc; See Para 0025… store or cloud based servers; See Para 0028… the sensor data may be provided to a cloud-based server; See Para 0017… the communication may be via one or more of WiFi, long or short range radio frequency communication channel, wired connection, local area network, the Internet, and the like.) for accessing said machine learning system (See Para 0028…the embodiment of a computing device, cloud-based server or a local computer for analysis; the display fixture may further include a microprocessor and/or a communication module for communicating the data gathered by the sensor to the gas emission monitor 150 (Para 0017); Further See Para 0017, 0021-0025 for the elements of the embodiment of a machine learning system).
In addition, Claim 8 recites a network or cloud access system and then recites how it functions. Claim 8 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 9, the food freshness detection device of claim 8 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor further teaches that said network or cloud access system (See Para 0019… a server, a cloud computing device, etc; See Para 0025… store or cloud based servers; See Para 0028… the sensor data may be provided to a cloud-based server; See Para 0017… the communication may be via one or more of WiFi, long or short range radio frequency communication channel, wired connection, local area network, the Internet, and the like.) is configured to store said plurality of test results (See Para 0021…‘gas sensor readings’; See Para 0017…‘data collected from the gas sensors’).
In addition, Claim 9 recites a network or cloud access system and then recites how it functions. Claim 9 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 10, the food freshness detection device of claim 7 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor further teaches that said machine learning system (See Para 0028…the embodiment of a computing device, cloud-based server or a local computer for analysis; the display fixture may further include a microprocessor and/or a communication module for communicating the data gathered by the sensor to the gas emission monitor 150 (Para 0017); Further See Para 0017, 0021-0025 for the elements of the embodiment of a machine learning system) is located within (See Fig. 1…for the embodiment of the processor, memory, gas emission monitor and Gas emission database, thereby teaching “located within”) said food freshness detection device (See Claim 1… A system for automatically monitoring gas emissions of perishable goods in a retail sales environment; See Fig. 1, ref. 100… a system for providing a gas emission monitoring).
Regarding Claim 22, the food freshness detection device of claim 1 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda.
Taylor further teaches a shield (referred to as the physical embodiment of the dividers, such as a shelf, a bin, a rack surrounding the compartments [Para 0017]) defining a headspace (referred to a compartments [Para 0017; Fig. 1, refs. 131, 132 and 133]) over the food sample (referred to as apples, pineapples and carrots [Para 0018]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180007453A1, submitted in the IDS of 06/22/2023) and Miranda et al. (US9753001B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US20190391099A1).
Regarding Claim 23, the food freshness detection device of claim 1 is obvious over Taylor in view of Miranda (See Claim 1 rejection).
The combination of Taylor and Miranda does not explicitly teach that the 2D sensors detect a gas at a concentration level of at least 1 ppb.
In the analogous art of a chemiresistor gas sensor using MXene and a method of manufacturing the same, wherein the chemiresistor gas sensor, manufactured in a manner in which a Ti3C2Tx MXene thin film is formed and transferred onto a sensor substrate, can exhibit good response and sensitivity, Jung teaches that the 2D sensors detect a gas at a concentration level of at least 1 ppb (See Para 0025…The gas sensor thus manufactured enables sensing of typical VOC candidates in the concentration range of 100 ppb or less, and can exhibit a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which indicates sensitivity, at least tens of times as high as other 2D materials; See Para 0043…As MXene used in the chemiresistor gas sensor according to an embodiment of the present invention, Ti3C2Tx MXene (available from Yury Gogotsi) is adopted, and, as illustrated in FIG. 1, Ti3C2Tx MXene is a 2D nano material comprising double elements of a heavy metal atom such as titanium (Ti) and a carbon (C) atom, with a 2D planar structure having a thickness of 1 nm and a length of ones of μm; Also see Para 0006…Meanwhile, MXene (a transition metal carbide material) is a 2D nano material comprising double elements of a heavy metal atom such as titanium (Ti) and a carbon (C) atom, with a 2D planar structure having a thickness of 1 nm and a length of ones of m.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Taylor and Miranda to incorporate that the 2D sensors detect a gas at a concentration level of at least 1 ppb, as taught by Jung for the benefit of enabling the sensing of typical VOC candidates in the concentration range of 100 ppb or less, and can exhibit a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which indicates sensitivity, at least tens of times as high as other 2D materials (Jung, Para 0015), allowing for the manufacturing of a chemiresistor-type gas sensor having high sensitivity and good response (Jung, Abstract, Para 0025).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/05/2026, with respect to the objections on the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant submits that FIG. 2 is replaced with an enlarged drawing on a separate sheet. In view of the replacement drawing, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection.
Examiner respectfully agrees and the Drawing objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections on Claims 6-10 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that claim 6 is amended to recite a food freshness detection device having "a memory unit having threshold values stored therein" and a detection system "operatively coupled to the memory unit for comparing" certain signals to the threshold values. As recited in claim 1, the claimed detection system is "configured to receive and process [a] plurality of output signals," which is generated "based on gaseous compounds released by a test food sample." Thus, the claimed detection system includes limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and is instead integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prongs 1-2). In addition, claim 6 as amended recites additional structural elements that are physical components (e.g., memory unit) of the claimed device and significantly more than abstract idea (Step 2B).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 6-10 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner assertively identifies the judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claim 1 as “… for comparing said plurality of output signals to the threshold values” (math step)”, See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as a mathematical step.
Specifically, Applicants provide a comparison, which is an abstract idea. That a detection system and memory (a processor/computer per [17] of the specification) performs the abstract idea does preclude the limitation from being considered abstract. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III states that using a processor/computer to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
In addition, Examiner found that the additional elements “memory unit” ; “gas sensor system”; “detection system” and “display unit” appear to be a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b), Specifically the section about why the antenna was considered particular (included details such as shape of the antenna, length, conductors, etc.). The presently claimed “memory unit” ; “gas sensor system”; “detection system” do not appear to recite that degree of particularity. In addition, the gas sensor system (detector) of claim 1 is used to gather data which is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Further these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception (Step 2B) because they are well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of gas detection (See 101 rejection Supra), as evidenced by Taylor et al. (US20180007453A1, submitted in the IDS of 06/22/2023) and Miranda et al. (US9753001B1) (Step 2B: NO).
As a result, Examiner submits that the claims do not amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claim 1 by Taylor et al. (US20180007453A1, submitted in the IDS of 06/22/2023) and Miranda et al. (US9753001B1).
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a food freshness detection device for determining food freshness, said food freshness detection device comprising (emphasis added):
a gas sensor system configured to generate a plurality of output signals based on gaseous compounds released by a test food sample, wherein said gas sensor system comprises a plurality of gas sensors configured to detect a level of a gas mixture emitted by said test food sample, and wherein at least some of said plurality of gas sensors are 2D sensors, each 2D sensor including a material surface defined by a single crystal layer thickness and electrical resistance for physical adsorption of gas molecules of the gas mixture;
a detection system that is operatively connected to said gas sensor system and configured to receive and process said plurality of output signals to generate a
plurality of test results for said gas mixture; and a display unit operatively connected to said detection system and configured to display freshness of said test food sample based on said plurality of test results. The combination of Taylor with Jeppesen does not disclose or suggest "a material surface defined by a single crystal layer thickness and electrical resistance for physical adsorption of gas molecules of the gas mixture", as recited in amended claim 1…
Accordingly, claim 1 is allowable over Taylor and Jeppesen. Claims 2-10 and new claims 22-23 depend from claim 1 and are therefore also allowable for at least the same reasons set forth above. The dependent claim also may be allowable for reasons not explicitly explained herein. In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of amended Claim 1 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 1 (Supra) by Taylor et al. (US20180007453A1, submitted in the IDS of 06/22/2023) and Miranda et al. (US9753001B1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PennState (https://science.psu.edu/news/penn-state-researching-ways-improve-computer-speed-efficiency) discloses that transistor today is a small but essential computer component that switches the flow of electrons on and off. It is the flow of these electrons against the resistance of the surrounding materials that creates the troublesome heat.
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 OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights