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 use of the term BLUETOOTH, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 contains the trademark/trade name BLUETOOTH. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a short-range wireless communication protocol and the module configured to transmit signals using that protocol and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being Young et al. (US 12,571,688 B2 – hereafter “Young”).
As per claim 1, Young teaches a wireless food temperature detector (wireless multi-point food thermometer 100) for an oven (see col. 5, lines 35 – 40), comprising:
a temperature probe (102), wherein the temperature probe comprises a needle (sensor tube/tip 110), a probe tube (probe body housing the PCBA), and a Bluetooth signal transmission module (control unit 150 with Bluetooth LE radio, communications interfaces 184) (see col. 5, lines 30 – 55);
the needle is configured for extending into food (see col. 5, lines 35 – 40) a first thermistor (temperature sensors 106) is arranged in the needle (see col. 14, lines 40 – 55) one end of the probe tube is connected to the needle (see col. 12, lines 20 – 30), and the Bluetooth signal transmission module is located in a cavity formed by the needle and the probe tube (see col. 13, lines 55 – 65);
the first thermistor is electrically connected to the Bluetooth signal transmission module (see col. 13, lines 55 – 65; Fig. 13), and the Bluetooth signal transmission module is configured to transmit a temperature signal detected by the first thermistor to the oven, a smart phone and a mobile control terminal (see col. 13, lines 5 – 35).
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.
Claims 2, 5 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Nivala et al. (US 2022/0049992 A1 – hereafter “Nivala”).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The wireless food temperature detector for an oven according to claim 1, wherein the Bluetooth signal transmission module comprises a PCBA (Printed Circuit Board Assembly) circuit board, a Bluetooth chip, and a probe on/off switch; and the first thermistor, the Bluetooth chip and the probe on/off switch each are electrically connected to the PCBA circuit board.”
Young fails to teach a probe on/off switch electrically connected to the PCBA circuit board.
Nivala teaches a probe on/off switch, wherein the thermometer automatically switches between on and off states, and external button or switch on the thermometer can activate or wake the thermometer from a low power or deactivated mode (see para [0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Young in view of Nivala to incorporate a probe on/off switch electrically connected to the PCBA in order to provide the user with manual control over the probe’s power state and conserve battery life.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The wireless food temperature detector for an oven according to claim 1, wherein the probe tube is provided with a warning mark, and the Bluetooth signal transmission module is located between the needle and the warning mark; and the wireless food temperature detector further comprises a second thermistor; and the second thermistor is located on and electrically connected to the Bluetooth signal transmission module.”
Young fails to teach a warning mark on the probe tube, or a second thermistor located on and electrically connected to the Bluetooth signal transmission module.
Nivala teaches a minimum food insertion depth indicator on the exterior of the thermometer, which may include a shallow groove, abraded marking, weld line, or other visual indicator (see para [0171]), and further teaches a second thermistor 136 located inside the probe and electrically connected to the printed circuit board (see para [0089]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Young in view of Nivala to incorporate a warning mark on the probe tube and a second thermistor electrically connected the Bluetooth signal transmission module in order to indicate proper insertion depth to the user and provide additional temperature measurement points for improved cooking accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The wireless food temperature detector for an oven according to claim 1, further comprising a charging case, wherein the charging case comprises an upper cover and a lower cover which are able to be detachably connected to each other; the upper cover and the lower cover form a placement groove for placing the temperature probe; a charging PCBA circuit board is placed in the charging case, and the charging PCBA circuit board is electrically connected to a first charging contact and a second charging contact at the placement groove, and a switch control structure is further arranged at the placement groove.”
Young fails to teach switch control structure arranged at the placement groove.
Nivala teaches a switch control structure at the charging apparatus includes control circuitry for communicating activation and deactivation signals to the thermometer via the charging contact (see para [0117]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Young in view of Nivala to incorporate a switch control structure at the placement groove in order to provide control over the probe’s power state during charging and simplify the user interface.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Zhu et al. (US 12,264,973 B1 – hereafter “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The wireless food temperature detector for an oven according to claim 2, further comprising an antenna, wherein the antenna is located in the cavity and in a shape of a spring, and one end of the antenna is connected to the PCBA circuit board.” Young fails to teach an antenna in a shape of a spring.
Preston teaches an antenna 15 configured as a spiral antenna arranged in the first inner cavity 101 of the temperature probe, wherein lead wire of the antenna is electrically connected top the PCB after passing through the central hole of the wireless charging coil (see col. 5, lines 10 – 17, Embodiment 3) Zhu further teaches that the coil body 51 of the wireless charging coil also acts as the antenna of the temperature probe, wherein the coil body is a copper wire coil arranged in the first inner cavity 101 (see col. 5, lines 10 -17, demonstrating that spring/coil-shaped antennas within the probe cavity and connected to the PCB were well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Young in view of Zhu to incorporate a spring-shaped coil antenna inside the probe cavity connected to the PCBA in order to improve wireless signal transmission performance within the confined space of the probe cavity and enhance Bluetooth communication range.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “The wireless food temperature detector for an oven according to claim 3, wherein a battery is arranged in the cavity, and is connected to the PCBA circuit board via both a positive electrode lead for battery and a negative electrode lead for battery; the needle is made of stainless steel, and is connected to the PCBA circuit board via a positive electrode lead; and the wireless food temperature detector further comprises a negative electrode structure, wherein the negative electrode structure is made of stainless steel, and is connected to the PCBA circuit board via a negative electrode lead.
Young teaches a battery (rechargeable power source 121) arranged in the cavity of the temperature probe and connected to the PCBA circuit board (114) (see para 71, 116), and a stainless steel sensor tube/needle (110) connected to the PCBA circuit board and serving as an electrical conductor (see para 100), but fails to teach explicitly that the stainless steel needle serves as the positive electrode lead and that a separate stainless steel negative electrode structure is connected to the PCBA circuit board via a negative electrode lead.
However, Young explicitly teaches that probe components serve dual function as both structural and electrical conducting elements, specifically teaching that the sensor tube 110 may act as the neutral or negative terminal and another metal contact 123 in the handle region may act as the positive terminal during charging, and further that the antenna trace 117 may alternatively serve as the positive trace during charging with current rerouted to flow to battery 121 (see col. 10, lines 40 – 55). Young therefore demonstrates that the assignment of probe components as electrode leads was known in the art at the time of the invention.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Young to assign the stainless steel needle as the positive electrode lead and incorporate a separate stainless negative electrode structure connected via a negative electrode lead, as Young itself discloses multiple configurations of terminal assignments within the same probe architecture, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the specific assignment of polarity to probe components is a routine design choice that yields predictable results with no change in the fundamental functionality of the wireless food temperature detector. Furthermore, a battery connected to a PCBA circuit board inherently requires both a positive electrode lead and a negative electrode lead to complete the electrical circuit, as a battery cannot function with only a single electrical connection, and the selection of which probe component serves as the positive versus negative lead represents nothing more than a routine engineering decision well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 9 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights