DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 13-17 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-12 were cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (JP 2020117635 A) in view of Caulfield (US 20050052948 A1) and Boury (US 20090087491 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Araki teaches an item (Figure 1ab) or items that is detectable from a sensor,
one or more items, said items provided to be formed of a plastics or other polymeric material (paragraph 0017 of the translation);
said item or items further including a plurality of metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material embedded within the plastics material (paragraph 0018 of the translation).
Araki fails to teach a system for detecting the removal of an item or items from a secure area, said system including: said system including: a secure area in which said item or items are located; one or more entrances to and/or exits from said secure area; wherein the detectable particles are ferrous metals or metal compounds; detection or sensor apparatus located at the one or more entrances to and/or exits of said secure area, arranged to detect or sense the passage of metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material therethrough, in use.
Caulfield teach a system for detecting the removal of an item or items from a secure area (see Figure 2), said system including: said system including: a secure area in which said item or items are located; one or more entrances to and/or exits from said secure area (paragraph 0086, see Figure 2); detection or sensor apparatus (13d) located at the one or more entrances to and/or exits of said secure area (see Figure 2), arranged to detect or sense the passage of metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material therethrough, in use (paragraph 0086-0087, see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Araki to use the metal detectable device of Araki to be used in the secure area, as taught by Caulfield, in order to provide a safe zone (abstract of Caulfield).
Boury teaches using iron oxide as x-ray detectable material (paragraph 0125 and 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Araki to use the iron oxide as the detectable material, as taught by Boury, in order to provide a suitable x-ray detectable material (paragraph 0125 and 0061 of Boury).
Regarding claim 2, modified Araki further teaches when an attempt is made to remove the item or items from the secure area, the said detection or sensor apparatus located at the entrances and/or exits from the secure area will detect their presence, in use (as modified, paragraph 0005 of Caulfield).
Regarding claim 3, modified Araki further teaches said item or items are formed as utensils to be used during the preparation, serving and/or consumption of food and/or drink within the secure area (see Figure 1 of Araki).
Regarding claim 4, modified Araki further teaches said secure arca is provided to be a canteen, dining area, workshop or specific room or rooms in which said item or items may be required to be utilised or the like within a prison, jail, penitentiary, or other such restricted location (as modified, paragraph 0075 of Caulfield).
Regarding claim 5, modified Araki further teaches said secure area is provided to be within an airport location after the point where standard security checks are carried out (as modified, abstract of Caulfield).
Regarding claim 6, modified Araki further teaches said metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material is embedded throughout the item or items such that after any attempt to shave, snap, cut, sharpen, reshape or otherwise alter the shape, size or appearance of the item or items, the said metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material will remain present within the altered item or items, and thus be detectable by the detection or sensor apparatus, in use (paragraph 0018 of the translation of Araki).
Regarding claim 7, modified Araki further teaches notification means are provided associated with said detection or sensor apparatus (as modified, paragraph 0005 of Caulfield).
Regarding claim 8, modified Araki further teaches in use, as an item or items comprising the metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material is attempted to be taken from the secure area, said item or items will be detected and the apparatus will notify security personnel of the detection, enabling them to prevent or deter the removal of the item from the secure area (as modified, paragraph 0005 of Caulfield).
Regarding claim 9, modified Araki further teaches the detection or sensor apparatus used to attempt to detect said utensils or portions thereof, will be known and have known detection parameters such that only utensils which are known to be detectable by said apparatus will be made available in the secure area and thereby ensure that the utensils or portions thereof are detected by the detection apparatus which is in use at that time, in use (as modified, paragraph 0005 of Caulfield).
Claims 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki (JP 2020117635 A) in view of Boury (US 20090087491 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 13-16, Araki teaches a utensil (see Figure 1) provided for use in an intended purpose in a secure area (can be used with in a detected gate area),
said utensil formed of a plastics or other polymeric material and in a manner to allow the same to be useable for its intended purpose (paragraph 0017 of the translation), and
said utensil further including embedded within the plastics material, a plurality of metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material (paragraph 0018 of the translation), such that when an attempt is made to remove the same from the secure area, detection apparatus located at exits from the secure area will detect the presence of said utensil, in use (examiner notes that the limitation after “such that” is treated as intended function of the device, therefore “detection apparatus” is not required by the utensil, only that the utensil can be detected by a detection apparatus, paragraph 0022 of the translation of Araki).
Araki fails to teach the metal particles which are used are ferrous metals or metal-compounds (as required by 10), said ferrous metals or metal compounds may include iron oxide derivatives (as required by claim 13)., said metal-detectable particles are provided as particles of magnetite (Fe₂O₃) (as required by claim 14), said X-ray detectable material is provided from iodine or barium derivatives (as required by claim 15), said X-ray detectable material is barium sulphate (BaSO₄) (as required by claim 16).
Boury teaches using iron oxide, magnetite (Fe₂O₃), iodine or barium derivatives, barium, or barium sulphate (BaSO₄) as x-ray detectable material (paragraph 0125 and 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Araki to use iron oxide, magnetite (Fe₂O₃), iodine or barium derivatives, barium, or barium sulphate (BaSO₄) as x-ray detectable material as the detectable material, as taught by Boury, in order to provide a suitable x-ray detectable material (paragraph 0125 and 0061 of Boury).
Regarding claim 17, Araki teaches a set of culinary utensils:
said utensils provided for the preparation (see Figures 1, 2 and 12), serving and/or consumption of food and/or drink in a secure area (as the secure area is not required by the device, only that the device can be used in the secure area, see Figure 1);
said utensils formed of a plastics or other polymeric material and in a manner to allow the same to be useable for their intended purpose (paragraph 0017 of the translation;
said utensils further including embedded within the plastics material, a plurality of metal detectable particles and/or X-ray detectable material (paragraph 0018 of the translation,
arranged such that when an attempt is made to remove the same from the secure area, detection apparatus located at entrances and/or exits from the secure area will detect the presence of said utensils (examiner notes that the limitation after “such that” is treated as intended function of the device, therefore “detection apparatus” is not required by the utensil, only that the utensil can be detected by a detection apparatus, paragraph 0022 of the translation of Araki).
Araki fails to teach wherein the detectable particles are ferrous metals or metal compounds.
Boury teaches using iron oxide as x-ray detectable material (paragraph 0125 and 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Araki to use the iron oxide as the detectable material, as taught by Boury, in order to provide a suitable x-ray detectable material (paragraph 0125 and 0061 of Boury).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Araki teach the use of “Tungsten-containing powder” and teaches away from use “ferromagnetic stainless steel powder”, however the teaching of “Tungsten-containing powder” is better for detection than “ferromagnetic stainless steel powder” is not teaching away of using all other ferromagnetic metals. Examiner notes that Boury teaches the used of all kinds of metal for x-ray detection, therefore it would have been obvious to modify Araki to use any other kinds of ferromagnetic metals, other than “ferromagnetic stainless steel powder” for x-ray detection.
In response to applicant's argument that Araki and Boury is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Araki and Boury teaches material detectable by x-ray, therefore Araki and Boury are considered as analogous art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights