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 terms "Bluetooth" and “Wi-Fi”, “ which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms "temperature difference," "temperature differential," and "differential temperature" appear to be used interchangeably throughout the disclosure. Selecting one of these terms to be used consistently throughout the disclosure would increase the clarity of the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for referring to “the temperature differential” without proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, “the temperature differential” is interpreted as a temperature difference between a food item and the ambient air. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the word "overtime" in the context of "configured to track and record temperature information overtime" should instead read "over time". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is 9 objected to because of the following informalities: there is no antecedent basis for "the ambient" as referred to in Claim 9. For the purpose of examination “the ambient” is interpreted as referring to “the ambient air,” as previously referenced in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to for referring to “the temperature difference” without proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “the temperature difference” appears to be used synonymously with “the temperature differential” of Claim 9, and for the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as such. If they are intended to have separate meanings then further clarification is requested. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 18: Claims 1, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for utilization of the phrase “energy created” in the context of charging the battery using energy created by the temperature differential. This creates confusion as energy cannot be created, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, and no further clarification on the intended meaning of this phrase is provided in the specification. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “energy created” is interpreted as “electricity created.” It is recommended that the phrase “energy created” be replaced by the phrase “electricity created” or the like.
Regarding Claim 9: The term “low” in Claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what specific temperature differential or range of temperature differentials would be considered "low". In this context the intended meaning of the temperature differential becoming “low” could refer to a temperature differential that is too low to generate adequate electricity to power the temperature probe or low enough to indicate that the food has finished cooking. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that temperature differential between the food item and the ambient [air] becomes “low” when adequate electricity to perform the desired tasks is not able to be generated.
Regarding Claims 11 and 15: Claims 11 and 15 contain 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 wireless technology and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 2-10: Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 12-17: Claims 12-17 are rejected for depending on Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20: Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for depending on Claim 18.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 14-19 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al (US 20220322871 A1) in view of Pulvermacher et al (US 20190339133 A1) and Zhao et al (US 20220344560 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Simon et al teaches a wireless food probe (Wireless Thermometers used for cooking (Paragraph 2)), comprising: an elongated main body (Intermediary Probe Body 466 (Figure 7)), said main body including a pointed proximal end configured to be inserted into a food item (Insertion Point 462 (Figure 7)); a handle connected to the distal end of said main body (Probe Head 464 (Figure 7)); a plurality of temperature sensors (Paragraph 40); and a battery (Probe Battery 470 (Figure 7)(Paragraph 39)). Simon et al does not explicitly teach an antenna adapted to broadcast temperature information; an electronic device configured to . However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pulvermacher et al teaches an antenna adapted to broadcast temperature information (Printed Circuit Board Assembly 18 (Paragraph 53)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Simon et al with the antenna of Pulvermacher et al because microprocessors are a programmable and highly-configurable way to manage the other electronic components of the system (Paragraph 53).
Simon in view of Pulvermacher does not specifically teach an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zhao et al teaches an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air (Thermoelectric Power Generation Structure (Paragraph 7)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Simon in view of Pulvermacher with the electronic device of Zhao for the purpose of easily generating electric power to the sensor in a way to overcome the challenges associated with an external power supply in this use case (Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 2: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon et al additionally teaches inclusion of a receiving coil connected to the battery, said receiving coil configured to charge the battery via induction from an external power source (Induction Coil (Paragraph 20)).
Regarding Claim 5: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon et al additionally teaches that the temperature sensors are Resistance Temperature Detectors (Resistance Temperature Detectors (Paragraph 35)).
Regarding Claim 6: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon et al additionally teaches that the handle includes a stopper (Probe Head 464 (Paragraph 38)(Figure 7)).
Regarding Claim 7: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon et al additionally teaches that there are one or more temperature sensors (Paragraph 40). The one or more temperature sensors of Simon teach the four temperature sensors of Claim 7 since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)) One would be motivated to incorporate four temperature sensors in order to balance an increase in accuracy with the cost of adding sensors.
Regarding Claim 8: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon et al does not teach that the controller is configured to track and record temperature information over time. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pulvermacher et al additionally teaches a controller that is configured to track and record temperature information over time (Radio/Microprocessor Combination Circuit 26 (Paragraph 53)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe of Simon et al with the controller configured to track and record temperature information over time of Pulvermacher et al for the purpose of collecting temperature data over fixed intervals based on set operating parameters of the controller (Paragraph 56).
Regarding Claim 11: Simon et al teaches a Simon et al does not specifically teach an antenna adapted to broadcast temperature information, an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air, a printed circuit board including a controller, a charging station connected to a power source, said charging station comprising at least one receptacle adapted for receiving a wireless food probe, each receptacle including a transmitting coil or that the battery is configured to be charged (i) by the electronic device. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pulvermacher et al teaches an antenna adapted to broadcast temperature information (Charging Coil 40 (Paragraph 66)). The rationales to provide the wireless food probe system of Simon et al with the antenna and printed circuit board including a controller are the same as for Claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe system of Simon et al with the charging station of Pulvermacher et al for the purpose of sending operational parameters to at least one of the probes while charging, in addition to charging multiple probes simultaneously (Paragraphs 16 and 17).
Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al does not teach an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air. In a similar field of endeavor, Zhao et al teaches an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Simon in view of Pulvermacher with the electronic device of Zhao for the purpose of easily generating electric power to the sensor in a way to overcome the challenges associated with an external power supply in this use case (Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 14: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe system of Claim 11. Simon et al additionally teaches that the temperature sensors are Resistance Temperature Detectors (Paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 15: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe system of Claim 11. Simon et al additionally teaches that the Bluetooth enabled device includes a user interface configured to display temperature information (Wireless Monitor Device 440 (Paragraph 42)).
Regarding Claim 16: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe system of Claim 11. Simon does not teach that the charging station has four receptacles and is capable of charging four wireless probes simultaneously. However, Pulvermacher et al teaches a charging station that has four receptacles and is capable of charging four wireless probes simultaneously (Probe-Charging Station (Paragraph 14)(Figure 7)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe system of Claim 11 with the charging station with four receptacles that can charge four wireless probes simultaneously of Pulvermacher et al for the purpose of sending operational parameters to at least one of the probes while charging, in addition to charging multiple probes simultaneously (Paragraphs 16 and 17).
Regarding Claim 17: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe system of Claim 11. Simon et al does not teach that the charging station is mountable to a wall. However, Pulvermacher et al teaches a charging station that is mountable to a wall (Mounting Apparatus – Pulvermacher Annotated Figure 7). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the wireless food probe system of Claim 11 with the mountable charging station of Pulvermacher for the purpose of charging the temperature probes without taking up horizontal space on a counter or surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pulvermacher – Annotated Figure 7
Regarding Claim 18: Simon et al teaches a wireless food probe (Wireless Thermometers used for cooking (Paragraph 2)), comprising: a plurality of temperature sensors (Paragraph 40), and a battery (Probe Battery 470 (Figure 7)(Paragraph 39)). Simon et al does not specifically teach an antenna adapted to broadcast temperature information, an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air; or a printed circuit board including a controller. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Pulvermacher et al teaches an antenna adapted to broadcast temperature information (Printed Circuit Board Assembly 18 (Paragraph 53)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Simon et al with the antenna of Pulvermacher et al for the purpose of transmitting temperature data so that data from multiple probes can be compared (Paragraph 58) and printed circuit board including a controller of Pulvermacher et al because microprocessors are a programmable and highly-configurable way to manage the other electronic components of the system (Paragraph 53).
Simon in view of Pulvermacher does not specifically teach an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zhao et al teaches an electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air (Thermoelectric Power Generation Structure (Paragraph 7)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Simon and Pulvermacher with the electronic device of Zhao for the purpose of easily generating electric power to the sensor in a way to overcome the challenges associated with an external power supply in this use case (Paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 19: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe system of Claim 18. Simon additionally teaches a receiving coil connected to the battery, said receiving coil configured to charge the battery via induction form an external power source (Induction Coil (Paragraph 20)).
Claims 3, 9, 10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al (US 20220322871 A1) in view of Pulvermacher et al (US 20190339133 A1), Zhao et al (US 20220344560 A1), and Derzon (WO2020107004 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon does not specifically teach that the electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential is a thermopile. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Derzon teaches a thermopile that is configured to charge a battery using energy created by a temperature differential (Thermopile (Paragraph 59)). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe of Simon with the thermopile of Derzon for the purpose of using it as a passive voltage generator (Paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 9: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon does not specifically teach that the wireless food probe is configured to shut down when the temperature differential between the food item and the ambient becomes low and the battery discharges below the required voltage to keep the wireless food probe powered. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Derzon teaches a device that is configured to shut down when the temperature differential becomes low and the battery discharges below the required voltage to keep the device powered (Paragraph 59). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe of Simon with the shutdown behavior of Derzon for the purpose of saving energy by powering down the device when the temperature differential is not significant (Paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 10: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon does not specifically teach that the wireless food probe is configured to power back on upon reaching the temperature difference again. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Derzon teaches a device that is configured to power back on upon reaching the temperature difference again (Paragraph 59). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe of Simon with the power up behavior of Derzon for the purpose of saving energy by only powering up the device to begin sending data again when the temperature differential reaches a significant level (Paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 12: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe system of Claim 11. Simon does not teach that the electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air is a thermopile. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Derzon teaches a thermopile used to charge a battery using energy created by a temperature differential (Thermopile (Paragraph 59)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe system of Claim 11 with the thermopile of Derzon to be used as a passive voltage generator that is responsive to temperature differentials (Paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 20: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 18. Simon does not teach that the electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air is a thermopile. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Derzon teaches a thermopile used to charge a battery using energy created by a temperature differential (Thermopile (Paragraph 59)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe of Claim 18 with the thermopile of Derzon to be used as a passive voltage generator that is responsive to temperature differentials (Paragraph 59).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al (US 20220322871 A1) in view of Pulvermacher et al (US 20190339133 A1), Zhao et al (US 20220344560 A1), and Nivala (WO 2021/038528 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe of Claim 1. Simon does not teach that the electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air is a Peltier device. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nivala teaches a temperature sensing device that includes a Peltier device that converts a temperature differential to a voltage (Generating Component 2052 can include a thermoelectric device, such as a Peltier device, by which a temperature difference is converted into a voltage (Paragraph 168)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe of Claim 1 with the Peltier device of Nivala for the purpose of increasing the amount of voltage that can be generated for charging the battery (Paragraph 171).
Regarding Claim 13: Simon et al in view of Pulvermacher et al and Zhao et al teaches the wireless food probe system of Claim 11. Simon does not teach that the electronic device configured to charge the battery using energy created by the temperature differential between a food item and the ambient air is a Peltier device. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nivala teaches a temperature sensing device that includes a Peltier device that converts a temperature differential to a voltage (Generating Component 2052 can include a thermoelectric device, such as a Peltier device, by which a temperature difference is converted into a voltage (Paragraph 168)). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless food probe system of Claim 11 with the Peltier device of Nivala for the purpose of increasing the amount of voltage that can be generated for charging the battery (Paragraph 171).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA C. BAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-0781. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8/8:30 - 5/5:30, Friday 8:30 - 5:00 or Flex.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/Emma C Bair/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
