DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 06/22/2023, Claims 1-21 are pending. The claim set submitted on 06/22/2023 is considered because this is the most recent claim set with some preliminary amendments. Claims 1-10 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/13/2026.
Group I, Claims 1-10 are considered on the merits below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because certain reference characters in figures, including Fig. 2 is not legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 compares each of said plurality of output signals received from said gas sensor system to a corresponding threshold value” (math step)”. 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 to compare each of said plurality of output signals received from said gas sensor system to a corresponding threshold value” (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 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. The claimed “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 Jeppesen et al. (US20130096030A1). (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible.
Moreover, Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on 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.
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 Jeppesen et al. (US20130096030A1).
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.
In the analogous art of a multisensor array for detection of analytes in the gas phase or in the liquid phase, Jeppesen teaches that at least some of the said plurality of gas sensors (referred to as sensor array [Para 0093]; or multisensor array [Abstract]); See Para 0098… sensor array according to the present invention for detection and/or identification of an analyte or mixtures thereof in gas or liquid phase) are 2D sensors (See Para 0093… preferred solid support of the sensor array include graphene. It is known that a 2D gas sensors use materials including graphene).
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, as taught by Jeppesen for the benefit of providing a preferred solid support for the sensor array (Jeppesen, Para 0093), allowing for the provision of an improved sensor array in particular a more efficient and/or reliable sensor array, with a new class of sensor molecules (Jeppesen, Para 0005).
Regarding Claim 2, the food freshness detection device of claim 1 is obvious over Taylor in view of Jeppesen.
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 Jeppesen.
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 Jeppesen.
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 Jeppesen.
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”) comprise transfer of electrons (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 that control circuits absolutely involve the movement and transfer of electrons) from said gas mixture (‘collective gas emission of any and all apples’) to or from said plurality of gas sensors (referred to as sensor array [Para 0093]; or multisensor array [Abstract]); See Para 0098… sensor array according to the present invention for detection and/or identification of an analyte or mixtures thereof in gas or liquid phase).
In addition, Claim 5 recites a gas mixture and a plurality of 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 Jeppesen.
Taylor teaches that 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) compares each of said plurality of output signals (See Para 0015… product gas emission outputs; Also see ‘gas emission measurement data’… “measures from light producing sensors”);See Para 0029…“measured gas emission”; ) received from said to a corresponding threshold value (‘stored gas emission data’; See Para 0029… the stored gas emission data may be one or more threshold values) (See Para 0029…In step 205, the control circuit compares the measured gas emission with stored gas emission data).
In addition, Claim 6 recites 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 Jeppesen.
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 Jeppesen.
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 Jeppesen.
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 Jeppesen.
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).
Conclusion
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