DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 6 of the specification recites first electrical connector for 19, and second electrical connector for 20 on page 7 item 20 is referred to as first electrical connector.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR-20030007258), in view of, Hummer (US-2020111342).
Son teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Son teaches a kitchen utensil for analyzing food, comprising: (abstract, ‘senses poisonous substance in food’)
a blade comprising a first surface and a second surface; (see 1 fig(s) 1-2, ‘knife’)
a handle; (see 1 fig(s) 1-2, ‘knife’)
a biosensor attached to the first surface of the blade and configured to detect molecules associated with spoiled or poisoned food produces and to output a detection signal corresponding to the detection of the molecules, (2 fig(s) 1-2, ‘contaminant measurement sensor/poisonous substance sensor’)
an electronic circuitry configured to receive the detection signal from the biosensor and to analyze the detection signal from the biosensor; (para [0008], ‘IC circuits with artificial intelligence computer chips and processors embedded.’; 5 fig(s) 1-2, ‘IC’)
an indication system configured to receive driving signals from the electronic circuitry, wherein the driving signals depend on an analysis of the detection signal; and (3 fig(s) 1-2, ‘display panel/LCD, color digit display plate’; para [0011])
a power supply that is connected to at least the biosensor, the electronic circuitry, and the indication system, (abstract; 4 fig(s) 1-2, ‘battery compartment/battery cell box’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a sensor for detection, and measurement of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs.
Son teaches the invention, however, does not go into detail of the type of sensor, computational system or any voltage levels, currents or reference signals.
Son does not teach:
wherein detecting the molecules associated with spoiled or poisoned food produces affects a sensing resistance of the biosensor according to a first concentration level of the molecules associated with the spoiled or poisoned food produces;
wherein the biosensor comprises a resistor, wherein the biosensor is configured to further output a reference signal according to a resistance value of the resistor and corresponding to a second concentration level of the molecules associated with the spoiled or poisoned food produces when electrical power from the power supply is provided to the resistor, and wherein the electronic circuitry comprising a computational system configured to compare a current levels or voltage levels of the detection signal and the reference signal, wherein the driving signals are based on a result of the comparison.
Hummer teaches:
wherein detecting the molecules associated with spoiled or poisoned food produces affects a sensing resistance of the biosensor according to a first concentration level of the molecules associated with the spoiled or poisoned food produces; (para [0018], ‘sets forth various type of sensors deployed.’; para(s) [0005, 0008], ‘applications in food/beverage/drug’; S, 49 fig. 3B(i), ‘sensor’; S, SF, 74 fig. 7A, ‘sensor’, ‘sensor unit’, ‘slicer or knife’; fig(s) 18-20, ‘various embodiments’; para(s) [0112-0117]; para(s) [0141-0147]; claim 22, ‘comparing the sensed concentration to a threshold concentration and generating an alert if the sensed concentration exceeds the threshold concentration.’; para(s) [0036])
wherein the biosensor comprises a resistor, wherein the biosensor is configured to further output a reference signal according to a resistance value of the resistor and corresponding to a second concentration level of the molecules associated with the spoiled or poisoned food produces when electrical power from the power supply is provided to the resistor, and wherein the electronic circuitry comprising a computational system configured to compare a current levels or voltage levels of the detection signal and the reference signal, wherein the driving signals are based on a result of the comparison. (para [0120], ‘reference electrode’ 40-41 fig 3A(i), ‘working electrode’, ‘reference electrode’; 47 fig. 7A, ‘working electrode’; para [0123], ‘working electrode and reference electrode embodiment of fig(s) 3B(i)(ii) can be utilized in a knife of fig. 7A’; para [0018], ‘sets forth various type of sensors deployed.’; para(s) [0005, 0008], ‘applications in food/beverage/drug’; S, 49 fig. 3B(i), ‘sensor’; S, SF, 74 fig. 7A, ‘sensor’, ‘sensor unit’, ‘slicer or knife’; fig(s) 18-20, ‘various embodiments’; para(s) [0112-0117]; para(s) [0141-0147]; claim 22, ‘comparing the sensed concentration to a threshold concentration and generating an alert if the sensed concentration exceeds the threshold concentration.’; para(s) [0036]; para(s) [0017, 0082, 0200] ‘use of algorithms’; 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 fig. 2, ‘processor’, ‘memory’, ‘communication circuitry’, ‘power source’, ‘location circuitry’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hummer to provide a biosensor for detection, and measurement of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs wherein the electronic circuitry comprises a computational system configured to compare a current levels or voltage levels of the detection signal and the reference signal, wherein the driving signals are based on a result of the comparison.
In regards to claim 2, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the resistor is an SMD resistor, a through-hole resistor, or is formed as a conductive material deposited inside the biosensor. (Hummer: para [0147])
In regards to claim 4, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the electronic circuitry is embedded in the handle of the kitchen utensil. (Hummer: para [0147], ‘conduction pads (50) are provided for coupling the electrodes to associated circuitry’; claim 7, ‘biosensor is removable/replaceable’; para [0113] )
In regards to claim 13, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the biosensor is removable. (Hummer: para [0147], ‘conduction pads (50) are provided for coupling the electrodes to associated circuitry’; claim 7, ‘biosensor is removable/replaceable’; para [0113] )
In regards to claim 14, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to further receive the reference signal and to output the driving signals allowing the indication system to indicate the spoiled or poisoned food when the first concentration level associated with the spoiled or poisoned food produces is higher than the second concentration level. (Hummer: 3 fig(s) 1-2, ‘display panel/LCD, color digit display plate’; para [0011]; para(s) [0141-0147]; claim 22, ‘comparing the sensed concentration to a threshold concentration and generating an alert if the sensed concentration exceeds the threshold concentration.’; para(s) [0036]; para(s) [0017, 0082, 0200] ‘use of algorithms’; 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 fig. 2, ‘processor’, ‘memory’, ‘communication circuitry’, ‘power source’, ‘location circuitry’)
In regards to claim 15, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, wherein the power supply is embedded in the handle of the kitchen utensil. (Hummer: S, AR, 36 fig. 2, ‘sensor’, associated array’, ‘power source’; S, SF, 74 fig. 7A, ‘sensor’, ‘sensor unit’, ‘slicer or knife’)
In regards to claim 16, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the power supply comprises a piezoelectric nanogenerator configured to convert mechanical force exerted by a user while holding the kitchen utensil into electricity. (Hummer: para [0018], ‘ The sensors comprise of various materials……piezoresistive sensors.’)
In regards to claim 17, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 16, (see claim rejection 16) wherein the power supply comprises an energy storage configured to store energy generated by the piezoelectric nanogenerator. (Hummer: para [0147], ‘discloses sensor units (SU) where the gel doubles as a fluid sampling platform and as storage reservoir for electrochemical sensing’).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR-20030007258), in view of, Hummer (US-2020111342), in further view of, Landwehr (US-11045963).
Son & Hummer teach:
In regards to claim 3, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Son & Hummer to provide a sensor for detection, and measurement of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs.
Son & Hummer do not teach:
wherein the indication system is embedded in the handle of the kitchen utensil.
Landwehr teaches:
wherein the indication system is embedded in the handle of the kitchen utensil. (Landwehr: 1, 41a fig. 2(b-c), ‘housing handle’, ‘display’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Landwehr to provide an indication system on a knife handle for a sensor detector, and measurement device of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR-20030007258), in view of, Hummer (US-2020111342), in further view of, Landwehr (US-11045963).
Son & Hummer teach:
In regards to claim 18, Son & Hummer teach a kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Son & Hummer to provide a sensor for detection, and measurement of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs.
Son & Hummer do not teach:
wherein the indication system is attached to or embedded in the first surface or the second surface of the blade.
Landwehr teaches:
wherein the indication system is attached to or embedded in the first surface or the second surface of the blade. (Landwehr: 1, 41a fig. 2(b-c), ‘housing handle’, ‘display’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Landwehr to provide a indication system on a knife handle for a sensor detector, and measurement device of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs.
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR-20030007258), in view of, Hummer (US-2020111342).
In regards to claim 19 Son teaches a computer-implemented method for using a kitchen utensil for analyzing food, comprising: (para [0008], ‘IC circuits with artificial intelligence computer chips and processors embedded.’; 5 fig(s) 1-2, ‘IC’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a sensor for detection, and measurement of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs.
Son teaches the invention, however, does not go into detail of the type of sensor, computational system or any voltage levels, currents or reference signals.
Son does not teach:
receiving a detection signal corresponding to a first concentration level of molecules associated with spoiled or poisoned food produces from a biosensor of the kitchen utensil;
comparing the first concentration level with a second predetermined concentration level; and
outputting driving signals allowing an indication system of the kitchen utensil to indicate the spoiled or poisoned food when the first concentration level is higher than the second predetermined concentration level.
Hummer teaches:
receiving a detection signal corresponding to a first concentration level of molecules associated with spoiled or poisoned food produces from a biosensor of the kitchen utensil; comparing the first concentration level with a second predetermined concentration level; and outputting driving signals allowing an indication system of the kitchen utensil to indicate the spoiled or poisoned food when the first concentration level is higher than the second predetermined concentration level. (para [0120], ‘reference electrode’ 40-41 fig 3A(i), ‘working electrode’, ‘reference electrode’; 47 fig. 7A, ‘working electrode’; para [0123], ‘working electrode and reference electrode embodiment of fig(s) 3B(i)(ii) can be utilized in a knife of fig. 7A’; para [0018], ‘sets forth various type of sensors deployed.’; para(s) [0005, 0008], ‘applications in food/beverage/drug’; S, 49 fig. 3B(i), ‘sensor’; S, SF, 74 fig. 7A, ‘sensor’, ‘sensor unit’, ‘slicer or knife’; fig(s) 18-20, ‘various embodiments’; para(s) [0112-0117]; para(s) [0141-0147]; claim 22, ‘comparing the sensed concentration to a threshold concentration and generating an alert if the sensed concentration exceeds the threshold concentration.’; para(s) [0036]; para(s) [0017, 0082, 0200] ‘use of algorithms’; 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 fig. 2, ‘processor’, ‘memory’, ‘communication circuitry’, ‘power source’, ‘location circuitry’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Hummer to provide a biosensor for detection, and measurement of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs indicating spoilage or the existence of contaminous poisons in food stuffs wherein the electronic circuitry comprises a computational system configured to compare a current levels or voltage levels of the detection signal and the reference signal, wherein the driving signals are based on a result of the comparison.
In regards to claim 20, Son & Hummer teach the computer-implemented method for analyzing food according to claim 19, (see claim rejection 19) further comprising: receiving a reference signal from the biosensor, wherein the reference signal corresponds to the second predetermined concentration level, and comparing the first concentration level with the second predetermined concentration level comprises comparing the detection signal with the reference signal. (Hummer: para [0120], ‘reference electrode’ 40-41 fig 3A(i), ‘working electrode’, ‘reference electrode’; 47 fig. 7A, ‘working electrode’; para [0123], ‘working electrode and reference electrode embodiment of fig(s) 3B(i)(ii) can be utilized in a knife of fig. 7A’; para [0018], ‘sets forth various type of sensors deployed.’; para(s) [0005, 0008], ‘applications in food/beverage/drug’; S, 49 fig. 3B(i), ‘sensor’; S, SF, 74 fig. 7A, ‘sensor’, ‘sensor unit’, ‘slicer or knife’; fig(s) 18-20, ‘various embodiments’; para(s) [0112-0117]; para(s) [0141-0147]; claim 22, ‘comparing the sensed concentration to a threshold concentration and generating an alert if the sensed concentration exceeds the threshold concentration.’; para(s) [0036]; para(s) [0017, 0082, 0200] ‘use of algorithms’; 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 fig. 2, ‘processor’, ‘memory’, ‘communication circuitry’, ‘power source’, ‘location circuitry’)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Examiner completed a PE2E-Search and the subject matter of the listed claims above was not taught, shown, or suggested with the prior-art of record. Specifically claim 5 where it recites:
‘The kitchen utensil for analyzing food according to claim 1, wherein the biosensor comprises a plurality of first electrical connectors facing the first surface of the blade, and the blade comprising a plurality of second electrical connectors at the first surface of the blade connected to the electronic circuitry, wherein the plurality of first electrical connectors and the plurality of second electrical connectors are configured to electrically connect the biosensor to the electronic circuitry, when the plurality of first electrical connectors is connected to the plurality of second electrical connectors.’
The remaining claims 6 through 12 are dependent upon claim 5. See figure 2 of the specification items (19) and (20) where (19} the connectors are in the biosensor (13) portion of the blade and the second electrical connectors are in the blade portion of the knife as shown in figure 2. Son shows inserting the biosensor in figure 2 but does not show a 1st and 2nd plurality of electrical connectors with the required surface, and the other references in the prior art don’t show this requirement. See prior-art search notes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Shi (US-20180285649), Pringle (US-9053914), and Shachar (US-20110162979) references further describe a sensor for detection, and measurement of bacteria or toxins and the like in industries such as food & kitchen, medical, beveraging, and drugs as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852