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. Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 5 in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT lines 5-6 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the duration of the timespan between the first point in time and the second point in time ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim. There would be sufficient support for “ a duration of a timespan between the first point in time and the second point in time”. Note : the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Otherwise, the claim would likely raise 35 U.S.C § 112(b) antecedent basis issues. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: FILLIN "Identify each claim limitation." \d "[ 1 ]" "[adjective] engine" in claim s FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears." \d "[ 2 ]" 1-20 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it /they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Three Prong test for: [Adjective] “engine” , where [adjective] is one of “power”, “sensor”, “connectivity” , “I/O” , “weather”, or “diagnostic”. Prong (A) (As above) Yes; Within this context “engine” is a nonce with no specific structural relationship Prong (B) (As above) Yes; The [adjective] is functional language modifying the “engine”. Prong (C) (As above) Yes; The nonce “engine” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function Conclusion The limitations of: “[Adjective] engine”, where [adjective] is one of “power”, “sensor”, “connectivity”, “I/O”, “weather”, or “diagnostic” , are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Note : the initially filed specification (filed 12/07/2023) was searched for an interpretation of: “power engine”, “sensor engine”, “connectivity engine” , “I/O engine” , “weather engine”, or “diagnostic engine”, . There is not sufficient description to distinguish between the possibility of at least 1) “engine” being no more than conventional field of use of computing elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) ). 2) “engine” being no more than code/programming to perform the claimed functionality (see MPEP 2106.03(I) ) . For the purposes of examination: Therefore, these ‘engines’ are interpreted as code/programming for performing functionality of the [adjective] . 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. Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1-20 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. Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”: Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 & 9 in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT lines 1-2 & lines 1-3 (respectively) recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the cooler having a wall, an inside and an outside, and designed to maintain the temperature of a content inside the cooler, ". It is unclear whether only “A device for monitoring a cooler” or also a “cooler” is being claimed. There are limitations directed towards the structure of a ‘cooler’ , but the preamble begins with “A device for monitoring a cooler” and continu es with “the device comprisin g” . The Examiner suggests a preamble of the form “A device for monitoring a cooler wherein : ” followed by limitations such as “the device for monitoring a cooler is installed in a cooler ”. Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”: Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 2-8 in line 1 (each claim) recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT The device of claim 1 ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are multiple devices within claim 1 which could be the “device of claim 1”. There is at least 1) “A device for monitoring a cooler”, 2) “the cooler”, 3) multiple types of “engine”, 4) “the sensor”. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for ‘ The device for monitoring a cooler of claim 1 ’ . Claims FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 10-20 in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 1 (each claim) recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT The device of claim 9[15][17][19] ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are multiple devices within claim 9 which could be the “device of claim 9”. There is at least 1) “A device for monitoring a cooler”, 2) “the cooler”, 3) multiple types of “engine”, 4) “the sensor”. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for ‘The device for monitoring a cooler of claim 9’. Regarding “Claim Limitation Interpreted under 112(f) or pre-AIA 112, 6 th Para., but Disclosure of Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing Function Recited in a Claim Lacking, Insufficient, or Not Clearly Linked” : Claim limitation s “ FILLIN "Recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph." \d "[ 1 ]" [Adjective] “engine”, where [adjective] is one of “power”, “sensor”, “connectivity”, “I/O” ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FILLIN "Explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function." \d "[ 2 ]" the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim . It is unclear whether the elements “[adjective] engine” are code/programming which control physical elements to achieve the functionality or are physical elements (with insufficient disclosure of structure) for performing the functionality. For example in Para 0028: “ a power engine 108 may include, without limitation, elements such as a battery , a line-power connection, … ” which at least include physical elements but para 0028 also states “power engine 108 may enable the switching of power supplies to regulate voltage rails in the device due to temperature variations” which at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation includes code/programming for the functionality. Another example in para 0029: “a connectivity engine 110 may support any form of suitable connection for data and information transfer, and may include the Internet, world-wide-web, LoRA, 802.15.4, radio frequency (“RF”), cellular, WiFi, and Bluetooth®, among others” which at least include code/programming for sending and receiving data. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected ’: Claims 2-8, & 10-20 inherit the rejected limitations of parent claims 1 & 9 (respectively) without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claims were rejected. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Fig. 1 & Fig. 2: there are multiple diagrams showing " [adjective] Engine" , these diagrams do not suggest any structure to the various types of engine . Para 0024 of states “ In an exemplary embodiment, the elements of a Cooler Pro device 102 may have capabilities inherent in their design and their interrelational configuration that permit them to accomplish a function for which they were designed, which may be referred to as the element being “capable of” or “configured to” accomplish their intended purpose, to include functionally interacting with the other related elements. ”. The specifications don’t fully disclose the structure and means of accomplishing the claimed functionality. 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. Claim s FILLIN "Pluralize the word 'Claim' if necessary and then identify the claim(s) being rejected." 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because : Claim 1: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: “ the connectivity engine capable of functionally connecting [ the device ] with a network, a network connectable to a [remote device]” “ the memory having stored data, and the capacity to receive and store data ” “ the [microprocessor] capable of gathering data from the sensor and storing data in the memory ” “the [microprocessor] capable of controllably directing data from the memory to a remote device with the connectivity engine.” Explanation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(C): “ In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. ” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Analysis: At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation except for the elements of “the device”, “remote device”, & “microprocessor” these limitations can be done in the mind (directed towards memory and communicating information) . The elements are no more than indicating that the judicial exceptions are carried out in a computer environment. Conclusion: the claim recite s limitations from the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim recites additional elements of: “cooler”, “microprocessor, memory, a power engine, a sensor having an IR temperature sensor , a connectivity engine, and an I/O engine ””, Explanation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.05(h) : “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” See MPEP 2106.05(f) : “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea” See MPEP 2106.05(g) : “ Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, ” Analysis: At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the additional elements are not significantly more than indicating that the claims are directed towards a particular technological environment or field of use of at least one of CPC symbol B65D 81/3813 : { Containers, packaging elements, or packages, for contents presenting particular transport or storage problems, } { with thermal insulation } {rigid container being in the form of a box, tray or like container} , CPC symbol H04N 5/33 : { Transforming infrared radiation cameras or camera modules for generating image signals from infrared radiation H04N23/20 }, or computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process . Conclusion: The claim does not recite additional elements or limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The additional elements and limitations (as addressed in step 2A Prong Two) are not significantly more than field of use or computing environment limitations. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim 2 : Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; C laim 2 additionally recites: “ further comprising: the sensor engine having a temperature sensor for sensing temperature outside the cooler. ” Explanation: This limitation is further directed to CPC symbol H04N 5/33: {Transforming infrared radiation cameras or camera modules for generating image signals from infrared radiation H04N23/20} ( as infrared cameras provide temperature information ) or computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The additional elements and limitations (as addressed in step 2A Prong Two) are not significantly more than field of use or computing environment limitations. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim 3 : Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; C laim 3 additionally recites: “ further comprising: the sensor engine having a temperature sensor for sensing temperature inside and sensing temperature outside the cooler. ” Explanation: This limitation is further directed to CPC symbol CPC symbol B65D 81/3813: {Containers, packaging elements, or packages, for contents presenting particular transport or storage problems,} {with thermal insulation} {rigid container being in the form of a box, tray or like container} or H04N 5/33: {Transforming infrared radiation cameras or camera modules for generating image signals from infrared radiation H04N23/20} as infrared cameras provide temperature information or computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The additional elements and limitations (as addressed in step 2A Prong Two) are not significantly more than field of use or computing environment limitations. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim 4 : Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; C laim 4 additionally recites: “ further comprising: the I/O engine configured to receive a coefficient of insulation for the cooler from a user. ” Explanation: This limitation is further directed to CPC symbol CPC symbol B65D 81/3813: {Containers, packaging elements, or packages, for contents presenting particular transport or storage problems,} {with thermal insulation} {rigid container being in the form of a box, tray or like container} or computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The additional elements and limitations (as addressed in step 2A Prong Two) are not significantly more than field of use or computing environment limitations. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim 5 : Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. C laim 5 additionally recites: “ the microprocessor configured to calculate the average temperature outside the cooler during the timespan using the periodic temperatures outside the cooler during the timespan between the first point in time and the second point in time, and the duration of the timespan between the first point in time and the second point in time; ” “ the microprocessor configured to calculate the cooler coefficient of insulation using the change in temperature of a content inside the cooler during the timespan with respect to the average temperature outside the cooler during the timespan. ” Ex planation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (I) : “ The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. ” Analysis: Calculating coefficients and averages is within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea . Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; C laim 5 additionally recites: “ further comprising: the sensor engine capable of sensing a temperature of a content inside the cooler at a first point in time, a temperature of a content inside the cooler at a second point in time, and periodic temperatures outside the cooler during the timespan between the first point in time and the second point in time, and the duration of the timespan between the first point in time and the second point in time; ” Explanation: Rule : See MPEP 2106.05(g) : “ The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. ” & “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” Analysis: The juridical exceptions of calculations with regard to temperature data necessarily requires the extra solution activity of data gathering (the data gathering is already implied by the judicial exception) . Conclusion: Therefore, the pre solution activity of gathering temperature data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The elements and limitations have been addressed in step 2A Prong One and step 2A Prong Two. All elements and limitations have been rejected before consideration of whether they are generic or conventional. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim 6 : Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. C laim 6 additionally recites: “ the cooler having a coefficient of insulation; ” “ the microprocessor configured to use the current temperature of a content inside the cooler, the current temperature outside the cooler, and the cooler coefficient of insulation to create a prediction of a temperature of the content at a future point in time. ” Ex planation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (I) : “ The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. ” Analysis: Calculating coefficients and averages is within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea . Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; C laim 6 additionally recites: “ further comprising: the sensor engine capable of sensing a current temperature of a content inside the cooler and a current temperature outside the cooler; ” Explanation: Rule : See MPEP 2106.05(g) : “ The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. ” & “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” Analysis: The juridical exceptions of calculations with regard to temperature data necessarily requires the extra solution activity of data gathering (the data gathering is already implied by the judicial exception) . A coefficient of insulation is a characteristic of any material and is no more than a necessary piece of data for calculations having to do with heating and cooling of materials. Conclusion: Therefore, the pre solution activity of gathering temperature data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The elements and limitations have been addressed in step 2A Prong One and step 2A Prong Two. All elements and limitations have been rejected before consideration of whether they are generic or conventional. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim 7 : Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. C laim 7 additio nally recites: “ the cooler having a coefficient of insulation; ” “ the microprocessor configured to use the current temperature of a content inside the cooler, the approximate current temperature outside the cooler, and a coefficient of insulation for the cooler to create a prediction of a temperature of the content at a future point in time.” Ex planation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (I) : “ The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. ” Analysis: Calculating coefficients and averages is within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea . Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; C laim 7 additio nally recites: “further comprising: the sensor engine capable of sensing a current temperature of a content inside the cooler; ” “ the connectivity engine capable of providing a functional connection to a weather engine through a network, the weather engine capable of providing an approximate current temperature for outside the cooler; ” Explanation: Rule : See MPEP 2106.05(g) : “ The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. ” & “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” Analysis: The juridical exceptions of calculations with regard to temperature data necessarily requires the extra solution activity of data gathering (the data gathering is already implied by the judicial exception) . A coefficient of insulation is a characteristic of any material and is no more than a necessary piece of data for calculations having to do with heating and cooling of materials. Conclusion: Therefore, the pre solution activity of gathering temperature data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The elements and limitations have been addressed in step 2A Prong One and step 2A Prong Two. All elements and limitations have been rejected before consideration of whether they are generic or conventional. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim 8 : Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards a device, which is machine and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. C laim 8 additio nally recites: “ the cooler having a coefficient of insulation; ” “ the microprocessor configured to use the current temperature of a content inside the cooler, the mobile current temperature outside the cooler, and a coefficient of insulation for the cooler to create a prediction of a temperature of the content at a future point in time. ” Ex planation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (I) : “ The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. ” Analysis: Calculating coefficients and predictions based on such coefficients is within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim recite an abstract idea . Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; C laim 8 additio nally recites: “ further comprising: the sensor engine capable of sensing a current temperature of a content inside the cooler; ” “ the connectivity engine capable of providing a functional connection to a mobile device, the mobile device capable of providing a mobile current temperature for outside the cooler; ” Explanation: Rule : See MPEP 2106.05(g) : “ The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. ” & “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).” Analysis: The juridical exceptions of calculations with regard to temperature data necessarily requires the extra solution activity of data gathering (the data gathering is already implied by the judicial exception) . A coefficient of insulation is a characteristic of any material and is no more than a necessary piece of data for calculations having to do with heating and cooling of materials. Conclusion: Therefore, the pre solution activity of gathering temperature data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The elements and limitations have been addressed in step 2A Prong One and step 2A Prong Two. All elements and limitations have been rejected before consideration of whether they are generic or conventional. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claims 9-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-9. 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. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 12092377 B2 (Edwards) in view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 11181515 B2(Johnston) . Regarding claim 1 , Edwards teaches a device for monitoring a cooler (Fig. 4 -200: “active cooler” ) , the cooler having a wall, an inside and an outside, and designed to maintain the temperature of a content inside the cooler, the device comprising: a microprocessor, memory, a power engine, … , a connectivity engine, and an I/O engine (column 7 lines 52-57: “the active cooler 200 (e.g., the control board 414) generates error messages and communicates the error messages (e.g., communicates the error messages to the dock 402 or to some central system via the dock 402, communicates the error messages using an desired wired or wireless network interface ”, active cooler has built in computing elements and so necessarily has microporocessor & memory & power engine & connectivity engine & I/O engine) ; the connectivity engine capable of functionally connecting the device with a network, a network connectable to a remote device (column 7 lines 56-57: “communicates the error messages using an desired wired or wireless network interface ”) ; the memory having stored data, and the capacity to receive and store data (column 7 lines 39-40: “In some embodiments, temperature data for cold chain compliance is tracked and stored locally and/or wirelessly.”) ; the microprocessor capable of gathering data from the sensor and storing data in the memory ( Fig. 4-414: “control board”, column 5 lines 59-62: “The control board 414 includes electronics (e.g., a processor(s) such as an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), Central Processing Unit (CPU) , Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), and/or the like” ) ; and the microprocessor capable of controllably directing data from the memory to a remote device with the connectivity engine (a system with a network connection directs data to and from memory and to a remote device) . Edwards does not teach a sensor engine having an IR temperature sensor. Johnston teaches a sensor engine having an IR temperature sensor (Fig. 1-103: “camera”, column 2 lines 30-32: “the camera 103 can correspond to a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensor capable of capturing both infrared and visible spectrum images.”, IR temperature sensor/(“sensor capable of … infrared … spectrum images”)) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Edwards with the teachings of Johnston. One would have added to the “Thermoelectric Refrigerated/frozen Product Storage And Transportation Cooler” of Edwards the “Spoilage Sensing Refrigerator” with infrared spectrum cameras of Johnston. The motivation would have been that the infrared spectrum cameras would improve determination of whether food within the cooler of Edwards had spoiled (see Johnston column 2 lines 13-17: “Images of food captured by a camera can be compared to a model of a spoiled food item in order to identify individual items of food that may be oxidizing; growing mold, mildew, or fungus; rotting; or otherwise spoiling.”). Regarding claim 9 , Edwards teaches a device for monitoring a cooler (Fig. 4-200: “active cooler”), the cooler having a wall, an inside and an outside, a coefficient of insulation (A cooler inherently has a coefficient of insulation), and designed to maintain the temperature of a content inside the cooler, the device comprising: a microprocessor, memory, a power engine, … , a connectivity engine, and an I/O engine (column 7 lines 52-57: “the active cooler 200 (e.g., the control board 414) generates error messages and communicates the error messages (e.g., communicates the error messages to the dock 402 or to some central system via the dock 402, communicates the error messages using an desired wired or wireless network interface”, active cooler has built in computing elements and so necessarily has microporocessor & memory & power engine & connectivity engine & I/O engine); the connectivity engine capable of functionally connecting the device with a network, a network connectable to a remote device ( column 7 lines 56-57: “communicates the error messages using an desired wired or wireless network interface ”); the memory having stored data, and the capacity to receive and store data (column 7 lines 39-40: “In some embodiments, temperature data for cold chain compliance is tracked and stored locally and/or wirelessly.”); the microprocessor capable of gathering data from the sensor and storing data in the memory(Fig. 4-414: “control board”, column 5 lines 59-62: “The control board 414 includes electronics (e.g., a processor(s) such as an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), Central Processing Unit (CPU) , Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), and/or the like”); and the microprocessor capable of controllably directing data from the memory to a remote device with the connectivity engine (a system with a network connection directs data to and from memory and to a remote device). Edwards does not teach a sensor engine having an IR temperature sensor. Johnston teaches a sensor engine having an IR temperature sensor(Fig. 1-103: “camera”, column 2 lines 30-32: “the camera 103 can correspond to a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensor capable of capturing both infrared and visible spectrum images.”, IR temperature sensor/(“sensor capable of … infrared … spectrum images”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Edwards with the teachings of Johnston. One would have added to the “Thermoelectric Refrigerated/frozen Product Storage And Transportation Cooler” of Edwards the “Spoilage Sensing Refrigerator” with infrared spectrum cameras of Johnston. The motivation would have been that the infrared spectrum cameras would improve determination of whether food within the cooler of Edwards had spoiled (see Johnston column 2 lines 13-17: “Images of food captured by a camera can be compared to a model of a spoiled food item in order to identify individual items of food that may be oxidizing; growing mold, mildew, or fungus; rotting; or otherwise spoiling.”). Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 2-8, & 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 12092377 B2 (Edwards) in view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 11181515 B2(Johnston) in further view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 11226125 B2 (Hogan) . Regarding claim 2 , Edwards in view of Johnston teaches t he device of claim 1 Neither Edwards nor Johnston as explicitly teach further comprising: the sensor engine having a temperature sensor for sensing temperature outside the cooler. Hogan teaches further comprising: the sensor engine having a temperature sensor for sensing temperature outside the cooler (column 2 lines 50-59: “temperature controlled storage air temperature forecasts at various set-points by analyzing the periodic and past air temperature data in combination with one or more sets of meta data, …, the temperature of the ambient air surrounding the temperature controlled storage structure”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Edwards in view of Johnston with the teachings of Hogan. One would have added to the “Thermoelectric Refrigerated/frozen Product Storage And Transportation Cooler” with ‘Spoilage Sensing with infrared spectrum cameras’ of Edwards in view of Johnston the ”Cold Storage Energy Optimization Systems” of Hogan. The motivation would have been that the ambient temperatures and insulation of the cooler would affect how quickly the cold storage temperature raises to outdoor temperatures and would thereby effect how quickly the food would spoil (see Hogan column 3 lines 17-20: “The forecasting may be repeated, with a new set point being selected until the simulation shows that the temperature of the goods will not remain within the specification.”). Regarding claim 3 , Edwards in view of Johnston teaches the device of claim 1 Edwards further teaches further comprising: the sensor engine having a temperature sensor for sensing temperature inside (Fig. 4-420: “temperature control sensor”, column 6 lines 32-34: “Temperature Control Sensor 420: The temperature control sensor 420 is a sensor that senses the temperature within the active cooler 200”) Neither Edwards nor Johnston teach and sensing temperature outside the cooler. Hogan teaches and sensing temperature outside the cooler (column 2 lines 50-59: “temperature controlled storage