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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 1/7/26. Claims 13 and 18-20 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Nos. 46 and 57. 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. 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.
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The current amendment does not take into account the amendments to the claims found in the Applicant’s amendment filed 9/11/25. In that amendment claims 12 and 13 were amended to remove the online storage. That amendment should be reconciled with the current amendment in the Applicant’s next response.
Claim 16 was canceled by the Applicant in their amendment filed 9/11/25. The Examiner therefore understands that the statement in their Remarks of the current amendment that “Applicant respectfully notes that claim 16 has not been canceled in any prior amendment and remains pending” to be inadvertent error. For clarity, the Examiner confirms that claims 12-15 and 17-20 remain pending, and that only claims 12-15 and 17-20 will be rejected under 103. The Examiner requests that the record be corrected accordingly and that the status of claim 16 be treated as canceled and not pending.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burley et al [U.S. 3,513,290] in view of Mucha [EP 2843965].
For claim 12, the device (Col. 1, Ln. 57: device) taught by Burley includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed handle is met by the handle (No. 13), 2) the claimed color indicator light is met by the lamp (No. 24), 3) the claimed scoop attached to the handle is met by the scoop section (No. 10), and 4) the claimed docking station is met by the electric outlet section (No. 32) having a socket (No. 30. However, there is no mention of the docking station configured to transmit data.
Transmitting data to another device from utensils is not new in the prior art. The wireless apparatus monitoring system taught by Mucha teaches a universal monitoring device (No. 100) that is compatible with a cooking apparatus (No. 200) and houses a sensor (No. 300) within an apparatus. As seen in Figures 2 and 3, a variety of apparatus comprising sensor units can electronically transmit sensor data to the electronic monitoring device that is inserted into the apparatus (Paragraph 52). Among these are an ice cream scoop (Fig. 3C). More importantly, the monitoring device may transmit sensor data from the device to a user’s electronic communications device such as a smartphone or laptop in order to store sensor data and user information (Paragraph 47). The user’s device also comprises a graphical user interface for displaying apparatus information, such as temperatures, weights, and instructions.
The Mucha reference takes the scoop of Burley and adds a useful improvement that enables a user to see and interact with the information gathered by the scoop. Furthermore, the scoop of Burley includes an automatic heater that would benefit from thermometers to measure the temperature of the scoop. It would be catastrophic if the temperature were too high, thereby damaging the scoop or its electronics. Transmitting this data to a user via wireless transmission would serve as a quick alert or warning as to this data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit data from the utensil or docking station of Burley to data storage held by a user for the purpose of expediently notifying a user of a potentially hazardous condition.
For claim 13, the combination of Burley and Mucha produces a handle with a docking station that can transmit data. Furthermore, Figures 8A-8E of Mucha depicts a docking station for the monitoring device that also transmits data to the user’s device.
For claim 14, the intended use of the apparatus of Mucha determines the type of sensor (Paragraph 54), such as temperature or weight.
For claim 18, the wireless transmission methods taught by Mucha include Bluetooth (Paragraph 51; Fig. 4, No. 7).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burley in view of Mucha as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Contant et al [US 2014/0018636].
For claim 15, the Mucha reference does sense temperature; however, there is no mention of an infrared thermometer.
Thermometers have been used in spoons and utensils for some time. The dynamic scale and food measuring performed by Contant teaches an electronic utensil (No. 22) that senses human activity using a variety of different methods and sensors (No. 35). Among these are a weight detection sensor (No. 37) capable of measuring weight of an object eaten by a user even in the object is in motion (Paragraph 22). Furthermore, in some embodiments (Paragraph 20), the device may include a temperature sensor or infrared filter for measuring the temperature of an object on the food carrier. This information may be used during analysis of likely digestion and caloric processing of the food by the user’s body.
The Contant reference shows that infrared thermometers can and have been used in utensils to gather temperature information. And the Mucha reference is directed towards gathering temperature information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an infrared thermometer to gather temperature in Mucha for the purpose of using a device that has been proven to gather temperature data in the past.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burley et al in view of Mucha as applied to claims 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Chien [US 2023/0119026].
For claim 17, neither the Burley nor the Mucha references mention transmitting data via Wi-Fi.
The Mucha reference does; however, mention a number of different wireless transmission methods (Paragraph 51) including IrDA, Wireless USB, Z-Wave, ZigBee, or other radio links that comprise a wireless local area network. And the cooking container taught by Chien includes a container unit and a temperature information processor (No. 20) that is connected to a temperature-sensing element channel (No. 30). Furthermore, the information processor (No. 20) can further include a wireless signal communication module (No. 24) to transmit information with a corresponding external monitoring device (No. 40). The communication module can use several different protocols (Paragraph 22), such a Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and radio frequency. The external monitoring device (No. 40) of Chien can be used to turn off or switch the display module of the system, thereby further improving the practicality and the convenience in operation of the cooking container.
The Chien reference presents plain evidence that information transfer has been performed by cooking utensils using many different protocols. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the handle of Mucha to transmit data using Wi-Fi for the purpose of using a well-known and common communication protocol.
For claims 19 and 20, the communication protocols mentioned in Chien include Wi-Fi and radio frequency. Furthermore, the Mucha reference (Paragraph 51) also mentions radio links as its wireless transmission.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1:
“Burley contains no disclosure whatsoever of any communication circuitry, sensor data, or data transmission performed by the stand or ‘docking station,’ let alone transmission of data from the docking station to an online storage.
“In contrast, the present application expressly discloses a docking station 50/55 that (i) detachably receives multiple handles 20 with scoop heads 10, (ii) charges those handles, and (iii) is ‘configured to transmit data to an online storage which can be any known online storage,’ further ‘transmits data to the online storage where data can be stored and manipulated,’ and supports remote access to the program to review live data and perform trend analysis.
“The Examiner turns to Mucha to supply alleged teachings of ‘transmitting data,’ but Mucha's universal monitoring device (iKTTM) is structurally and functionally distinct.
In Mucha, the removable monitoring device 100 is inserted directly into various utensils or appliances and itself wirelessly transmits sensor data to a user's electronic communications device such as a smartphone or laptop for local storage and analysis.
“The ‘docking’ arrangements in Mucha (e.g., the base of a mixing bowl) merely complete an electrical circuit to the monitoring device; they are not taught as a separate docking station for a detachable handle and are not taught as nodes that transmit data to any kind of online storage or cloud back end. Thus, neither Burley nor Mucha discloses or suggests a docking station that is detachably attached to a scoop handle and itself configured to transmit data to an online storage, as positively recited in claim 12.”
Argument 2:
“The Examiner's rationale that ‘it would have been obvious ... to transmit data from the utensil or docking station of Burley to data storage held by a user is based on impermissible hindsight.
“Burley does not recognize any problem relating to data collection, logging, or remote analysis, and Mucha's architecture is premised on a removable universal monitoring device transmitting directly to a user device, not on a separate docking station acting as a cloud- connected hub. The claimed configuration, in which the docking station acts as a centralized node that both charges multiple scoop handles and uploads operational data to an online storage for further analysis and reporting in a restaurant or food service environment, is not taught or suggested by the cited references.”
Argument 3:
“In Burley, the stand receives no data from the scoop and has no uplink function. In Mucha, the removable universal monitoring device, not a docking station, is the single wireless node that receives data from sensor units in apparatuses and transmits that data directly to the user's communications device. There is no intermediate ‘docking station’ node that both receives data from a handle and forwards it to an online storage as claimed.
“The Examiner's assertion that ‘Figures 8A-8E of Mucha depict a docking station for the monitoring device that also transmits data to the user's device’ mischaracterizes Mucha. Those figures merely show a compatible appliance (e.g., a mixing bowl) into which the monitoring device is inserted; the appliance does not transmit to the user's device. The only wireless transmission occurs from the monitoring device itself to the user's communications device. Accordingly, the combination of Burley and Mucha does not disclose, and does not render obvious, the specific two-stage data path ‘handle --docking station --online storage’ recited in claim 13.”
Argument 4:
“Likewise, Contant discloses a complex health-management utensil that senses user activity and food intake but is directed to personal diet management and digestive analysis, not restaurant portion control and food safety monitoring, and does not teach the specific combination of a load cell and an infrared thermometer housed together in a rechargeable handle of an interchangeable scoop portion, further integrated into a docking station/online storage system.
“The Examiner's reasoning that it would have been obvious ‘to use an infrared thermometer to gather temperature in Mucha for the purpose of using a device to gather temperature data’ simply states the problem to be solved and the solution in conclusory form.
“It does not identify any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Burley, Mucha, or Contant to modify Burley's heated scoop to include both a load cell and an infrared thermometer within the handle, in combination with the particular docking station and online storage architecture recited in independent claims 12 and 13, to achieve Applicant's specific objective of simultaneous real-time food portion control and food safety temperature monitoring with automated cloud logging and trend analysis in a commercial food service environment. Such an arrangement reflects a particular integrated system design, not a mere aggregation of known components.”
Argument 5:
“In Chien, the wireless module 24 on a cooking container transmits temperature information to a corresponding external monitoring device 40 using Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or radiofrequency, and that external device can in some cases control the container.
“Chien is concerned with accurately monitoring and controlling the temperature of a cooking container; it neither addresses food portion control nor contemplates a detachable scoop handle that alternately (a) transmits data to a multi-handle docking station, which in turn uploads to online storage, or (b) bypasses the docking station and transmits directly to an online storage or cloud back-end software. The mere fact that multiple wireless standards are known in the art does not, without more, render obvious the specific multi-node network architecture claimed here, including: a handheld food scoop handle with integrated load cell and infrared thermometer; a docking station that charges multiple such handles, programs their operation, and itself acts as a cloud-connected hub; and alternative communication paths using specific wireless protocols between the handle and the docking station or between the handle and an online storage.”
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Argument 1:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Response to Argument 2:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Response to Argument 3:
The Applicant continues to argue the deficiencies of the individual references where the rejection is directed to a combination of references.
Of course, the Burley reference does not receive data from the scoop and have an uplink function. This is why the Examiner introduced the Mucha reference which is in the same field of endeavor; that is, cooking and serving utensils with sockets and docking stations that can perform various functions to improve the functions of each. And the Examiner has provided a rationale above as to why the Mucha reference would provide certain advantages if the technology of Mucha were combined with the Burley reference. As the Burley reference provides a handle and docking station and the Mucha reference provides online storage that is provided through a handle of the utensil, this provides the handle – docking station – online storage combination recited in claim 13.
Response to Argument 4:
Claim 15 simply states that the handle contains an infrared thermometer. And the Mucha reference already senses temperature. The Contant reference was merely introduced to reveal that infrared thermometers have been used in the prior art to measure temperature.
Response to Argument 5:
Similarly to the response regarding the Contant reference, the Chien reference was merely introduced to show that many different communication protocols are available to an inventor or user of the prior art to accomplish wireless data communication. As the Chien reference also pertains to similar subject matter as the Mucha reference, in this case data transfer to a remote location from a cooking or eating utensil, this is considered positive teaching or suggestion to combine the Chien reference with Burley and Mucha.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAT
1/23/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689