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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on July 30, 2024 is acknowledged. The application will be examined accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 30, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear what it intends to convey. Specifically, it is unclear what the verb “configures” intends to convey (the system has a configurative effect on a single device?).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wojnowski et al. (“Wojnowski”) “Portable Electronic Nose Based on Electrochemical Sensors for Food Quality Assessment”.
With respect to claim 1, Wojnowski discloses a food product spoilage determination method comprising:
trapping a volatile component released from a food product (see Fig. 1 illustrating a sample chamber connected to a series of sensor chambers; see also section 2.2);
acquiring, by using a detector (e-nose array), detection data on a plurality of components included in the volatile component (see sections 2.2 and 2.3); and
when the food product is spoiled, determining, based on the detection data, a degree of spoilage of the food product (see section 2.3 and abstract).
With respect to claim 2, the detection data includes information according to an amount of the plurality of components included in the volatile component (see section 2.3 disclosing calculation of concentration values of volatile compounds).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, the detector comprises a gas sensor array including a plurality of sensor elements having sensitivity characteristics different from each other (see Table 1 and section 2.1 disclosing use of sensor arrays).
With respect to claim 11, Wojnowski discloses another method, comprising (see section 4.1 directed to using gas chromatography to determine spoilage of meat):
trapping a volatile component released from a food product (a gas chromatograph comprises a chamber);
acquiring, by using a gas chromatograph, detection data on a plurality of components included in the volatile component; and
when the food product is spoiled, determining, based on the detection data, a degree of spoilage of the food product.
With respect to claim 12, the determining is performed using a learned model (see abstract disclosing use of SVM; see p. 8 disclosing that SVM was trained).
With respect to claim 13, the method is carried out using a system comprising:
a detector configured to detect a volatile component released from a food product to output an output signal (see Fig. 1); and
a processor, the processor including (see section 2):
an acquirer (main board) configured to acquire the output signal and generate, from the output signal, detection data on a plurality of components included in the volatile component; and
a determining unit (personal computer with analysis software) configured to use the detection data to determine a degree of spoilage of the food product.
With respect to claim 14, the determining unit is configured to make the determination using a learned model (see abstract disclosing use of SVM; see p. 8 disclosing that SVM was trained).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, the detector comprises a gas sensor array including a plurality of sensor elements having sensitivity characteristics different from each other (see Table 1).
With respect to claim 18, the system comprises a display unit configured to display a result of the determination (see section 2).
With respect to claim 19, the spoilage determination system configures a single device (i.e. the e-nose illustrated in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 20, the system further comprises a blower configured to produce a current of air which transports the volatile component to the detector (see section 2.2), wherein the rate of the current is 1 dm3/min (i.e. 1000 mL/min) (see section 3), which falls within the claimed range.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnowski in view of Koren et al. (“Koren”) (CA 3074183 A1).
With respect to claims 3, 4 and 7, while Wojnowski discloses that the food product includes pork and chicken (see section 3), Wojnowski does not disclose detection of any of the claimed volatile components. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the detector to detect any volatile component associated with spoilage of pork and/or chicken, for example 2-heptanone (see p. 23 of Koren disclosing 2-heptanone is associated with bacterial spoilage of food). By utilizing more data points, the modification would improve the accuracy of the method.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnowski in view of Cachelin et al. (“Cachelin”) (US 2022/0026389 A1).
With respect to claims 5-7, while Wojnowski discloses that the food product includes pork and chicken (see section 3), Wojnowski does not disclose detection of any of the claimed volatile components. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the detector to detect any volatile component associated with spoilage of pork and/or chicken, for example styrene (see [0005] of Cachelin disclosing styrene is associated with rotting food). By utilizing more data points, the modification would improve the accuracy of the method.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnowski in view of Koren and Cachelin.
With respect to claim 8, while Wojnowski discloses that the food product includes pork and chicken (see section 3), Wojnowski does not disclose detection of any of the claimed volatile components. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the detector to detect any and all volatile components associated with spoilage of pork and/or chicken, for example 2-heptanone and styrene (see p. 23 of Korean and [0005] of Cachelin disclosing 2-heptanone and styrene are associated with rotting food). By utilizing more data points, the modification would improve the accuracy of the method.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnowski in view of Potyrailo et al. (“Potyrailo”) (US 2012/0235690 A1).
With respect to claim 15, while Wojnowski discloses that its system utilizes SVM (see rejection of claim 14 above), which is a type of a learned model, Wojnowski does not disclose the use of discriminant analysis. However, instead of using SVM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system to utilize another algorithm suitable for training artificial intelligence to identify analytes based on chemical signatures, for example discriminant analysis (see [0083] of Potyrailo disclosing that SVM and discriminant analysis are analogous algorithms for training artificial intelligence for the purpose of identifying analytes based on chemical signatures). The modification constitutes substitution of one element for an equivalent for the same purpose, which is considered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL S HYUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/PAUL S HYUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
