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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology such as “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. On lines 6-7 of claim 9, the phrase “configured to enter the content and a level of deterioration of the edible oil” is indefinite since it is not clear how a level of deterioration of the edible oil is determined. Is a level of deterioration of the edible oil determined from the content of aldehydes, Maillard reaction products or fatty acids identified by the first identification section? Claim 10 is indefinite since it recites both the determination device according to claim 1 and the learning device according to claim 9, but both the determination device of claim 1 and the learning device of claim 9 comprise the same acquisition section configure to acquire components generating from an edible oil and the same first identification section configured to identify a content of aldehydes, Maillard reaction products or fatty acids. Therefore, is not clear whether the determination system recited in claim 10 contains two of the same acquisition sections and two of the same first identification sections. On lines 6-7 of clam 13, the phrase “generating a learned model by entering the content and a level of deterioration of the edible oil and causing a learning model to learn” is indefinite since it is not clear how a level of deterioration of the edible oil is determined. Is a level of deterioration of the edible oil determined from the content of aldehydes, Maillard reaction products or fatty acids identified in the first identification step? It is also not clear wh ere the content and the level of deterioration of the edible oil are entered in the generating step of the learning method. Are the content of the components and the level of deterioration of the edible oil entered into a learning model? 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 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “program” and “the computer-readable media” recited in claims 12 and 14 encompasses both non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se, and statutory subject matter such as a compact disc. According to MPEP 2106.03, A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 , for at least this reason. For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). Inventorship This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al (JP 2017049030A, submitted in the IDS filed on September 12, 2023) . With regards to claims 1 and 11 , Sakai et al teach of a method and a device for determining a level of deterioration of an edible oil used in deep-fry cooking for cooking a fried food (see the title and the abstract of Sakai et al where it states “A device (1) for measuring the degree of deterioration in edible oil” ). The device comprises an acquisition section configured to acquire components generating from an edible oil, wherein the acquisition section comprises a test piece 21 having reagents 26 marked A-D thereon for reacting with free fatty acids in an edible oil when the test piece 21 is immersed in a sample of the oil. The free fatty acids are produced in the edible oil as it deteriorates, and thus, a presence of the free fatty acids in the edible oil serves as an indication of its deterioration . The reagent s 26 (A-D) on the test piece turn from a blue color to a yellow color when contacted with free fatty acids in an edible oil sample (see paragraphs 0002 and 0031-0032 in the English-language translation of Sakai et al provided herein ). The device taught by Sakai et al also comprises a first identification section configured to identify a content of fatty acids in the edible oil sample, wherein the first identification section comprises an imaging unit 11 that takes an image of the test piece 21 immersed in the edible oil to be measured and acquire s color information of the reagents 26 (A-D) on the test piece 21 (see paragraphs 0025-0027 in the English-language translation of Sakai et al provided herein). The device also comprises a second identification section configured to identify a level of deterioration based on the content of the free fatty acids in the edible oil sample, wherein the second identification section comprises a chromaticity value acquisition unit 144 for acquiring the chromaticity value of the edible oil on a basis of a color value of the image data of the test piece 21 soaked in the edible oil, and an acid value acquisition unit 145 for acquiring an acid value of the edible oil by referring to a correspondence relation (i.e. calibration curve) stored in a storage/memory part 13 on the basis of the color value of the image data on the test piece 21 soaked in the edible oil and the acquire d chromaticity value. The acid value of the edible oil sample corresponds to a level of deterioration of the oil sample. See paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0020-0028 in the English-language translation of Sakai et al provided herein. With regards to claim 2 , Sakai et al teach that the level of deterioration of an edible oil sample is an acid value of the edible oil. See paragraphs 0002 and 0026 in the English-language translation of Sakai et al provided herein. With regards to claim 6, Sakai et al also teach that the device comprises an output section in the form of a display unit 16 configured to perform output of the results of the testing in the form of a level of deterioration (i.e. an acid value) of the tested edible oil sample. See paragraphs 0025, 0029 and 0034 in the English-language translation of Sakai et al provided herein. With regards to claim 12 , Sakai et al also teach of a program for making a computer execute the determination method for determining a level of deterioration of an edible oil sample. See paragraph 0029 in the English-language translation of Sakai et al provided herein. Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki (US 2017/0219547) . With regards to claims 1 and 11 , Yamasaki teaches of a method and a device for determining a level of deterioration of an edible oil used in deep-fry coking for cooking a fried food (see the abstract and paragraphs 0003-0004 in Yamasaki). The device comprises an acquisition section configured to acquire components generating from an edible oil sample, wherein the acquisition section comprises a sensor 31 that detects a substance arising from a cooking oil contained in an oil tank 12 (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0027 in Yamasaki), a first identification section configured to identify a content of various odors arising from the oil sample in the tank 12 including aldehyde-based odors, wherein the first identification section comprises both a sensitive membrane on the sensor 31 that absorbs gas molecules that are a source of the aldehyde-based odors emitted from the oil sample, and a transducer that converts the gas molecules in the sensitive membrane into an electrical signal (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0027 in Yamasaki), and a second identification section configured to identify a level of deterioration of the edible oil sample based on the content of the aldehyde-based products, wherein the second identification system comprises a controller 32 that analyzes the electrical signal transmitted by the transducer into a level of deterioration of the oil sample (see paragraphs 0027 and 0033-0035 in Yamasaki). With regards to claim 6, Yamasaki also teaches that the device comprises an output section in the form of a notification interface 34 that is configured to perform output based on a level of deterioration of the edible oil sample tested. See Figure 1 and paragraph 0036 and 0039 in Yamasaki. With regards to claim 7 , Yamasaki teaches that the notification interface 34 is configured to provide a notification of a suggestion or guidance of a method of use of the tested edible oil sample, wherein the suggestion or guidance comprises a suggested time for replacement of the oil when a degree of deterioration of the oil sample has exceeded a predetermined threshold. See paragraphs 0039 and 0050 in Yamasaki. With regards to claim 8 , Yamasaki teaches that the output section (i.e. notification interface 34) is configured to control an adjustment unit for performing adjustment of disposing of the edible oil when a level of deterioration in the oil is determined to exceed a predetermined threshold level , wherein the adjustment unit comprises an oil drain pipe 15 connected to the bottom of the oil tank 12 via a valve 14 holding the edible oil sample. See Figure 1 and paragraph 0022 in Yamasaki where it is described how the edible oil sample in the tank 12 can be drained from the tank 12 by opening the valve 14 and allowing the oil to drain into a waste oil tank 16 when it is determined that a level of deterioration of the oil has exceeded a predetermined threshold level. With regards to claims 9-10 and 13 , Yamasaki teaches that the device and method for determining a level of deterioration in an edible oil sample can also include a generation section for performing a generating step comprising generating a learned model by entering a content and a level of deterioration of the edible oil into a learning model and causing the learning model to learn. See paragraph 0037 in Yamasaki where it states “The controller 32 may generate data by performing a learning process in advance to extract the characteristic values of the response of a plurality of sensors for each degradation state of cooking oil. The controller 32 may store the data after learning in the memory 33. The controller 32 may then determine the degree of degradation of cooking oil based on the degree of matching between the data after learning that are stored in memory 33 and the data that are detected by the plurality of sensors. Based on the newly detected data, the controller 32 may update the data after learning that are stored in the memory 33”. With regards to claim 12 , Yamasaki also teaches of a program for making a computer (i.e. the controller 32) execute the edible oil deterioration determination method. See paragraphs 0038, 0065 and 0069 in Yamasaki. 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 . Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (JP 2017049030A, submitted in the IDS filed on September 12, 2023) in view of Ota et al (article entitled “Hydrolysis of Edible Fats and Oils”, submitted in the IDS filed on September 12, 2023) . For a teaching of Sa kai et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action. With regards to claim 5, Sakai et al fail to teach that the free fatty acids detected in the edible oil sample as an indication of deterioration in the oil comprise one of butanoic acid or pentanoic acid. However, Ota et al teach that butyric acid (i.e. butanoic acid) is a characteristic odor component of a fatty acid. See Table 3 on page 13 of Ota et al. Therefore, based upon a combination of Sakai et al and Ota et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect butanoic acid as one of the fatty acids in the edible oil sample taught by Sakai et al as an indication of its deterioration because Sakai et al teach that edible oils produce and/or emit free fatty acids as they deteriorate over time, and Ota et al teach that butanoic acid is a characteristic odor component of a fatty acid. Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2017/0219547) in view of Lloyd (US 2021/0078881) . For a teaching of Yamasaki, see previous paragraphs in this Office action. With regards to claim 3 , Yamasaki fails to teach that the aldehyde-based odors or compounds in the edible oil sample detected in the method as an indication of deterioration in the oil sample comprise one of isobutyraldehyde , 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, heptanal or 2-nonenal. Lloyd teaches that oxygenated α, β-unsaturated aldehydes such as 4-hydroxy-2-trans-nonenal (i.e. a form of 2-nonenal) is generated in cooking oil that has been used for frying foods at elevated temperatures. See paragraph 0184 in Lloyd. Based upon a combination of Yamasaki and Lloyd, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect 2-nonenal as one of the aldehyde-based odors or compounds in the edible oil sample tested in the method and device taught by Yamasaki as an indication of deterioration in the oil sample because Lloyd teaches that 4-hydroxy-2-trans-nonenal (i.e. a form of 2-nonenal) is generated in cooking oil that has been used for frying foods at elevated temperatures, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the tested edible oil used for frying foods taught by Yamasaki to contain 2-nonenal therein as an indication of the use and deterioration of the edible oil. Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2017/0219547) in view of Julian et al (US 2011/0005403) . For a teaching of Yamasaki, see previous paragraphs in this Office action. With regards to claim 4 , Yamasaki fails to teach that Maillard reaction products such as 2-pentylpyridine are detected in the method and device for determining deterioration in an edible oil sample. Julian et al teach that cooking oil subjected to high temperatures during frying causes Maillard reaction products to form. See paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0052 in Julian et al. Based upon the combination of Yamasaki and Julian et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect Maillard reaction products such as 2-pentylpyridine in the edible oil sample tested in the method and device taught by Yamasaki as an indication of deterioration in the oil sample because Julian et al teach that cooking oil subjected to high temperatures during frying causes Maillard reaction products to form, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the tested edible oil used for frying foods taught by Yamasaki to contain Maillard reaction products such as 2-pentylpyridine therein as an indication of the use and deterioration of the edible oil. Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US 2017/0219547) . For a teaching of Yamasaki, see previous paragraphs in this Office action. With regards to claim 14 , Yamasaki fails to teach that the program for making a computer (i.e. the controller 32) execute the edible oil deterioration determination and learning method comprises a computer-readable media. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a computer-readable media as the program taught by Yamasaki for making the controller 32 execute the edible oil deterioration determination and learning method because computer-readable media provide the advantages of space savings, global accessibility, and superior searchable and editable data organization. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please make note of: Inaba et al (US 2019/0086382) who teach of a method for detecting deterioration in a lubricant using a gas sensor; Yamasaki et al (US 2019/0041375) who teach of an identification system and method for identifying a degree of degradation of an oil sample; and Kakimoto et al (US 2025/0166148 and US 2023/0140684) who teach of a learning device and method for predicting a rate of deterioration of an edible oil. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1266 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Lyle Alexander , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/ InterviewPractice . /MAUREEN WALLENHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 March 3, 2026