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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/4/2025 and 3/16/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “measure multiple times intensities of wavelengths of the light to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths”. The examiner suggests rephrasing the limitation to read “measure multiple times to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths” in order to improve the readability of the phrase.
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: “food processing apparatus” and “communication module” in claim 1.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “food processing apparatus” which uses the generic placeholder “apparatus” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “food processing apparatus” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to any device or machine that processes food for human or animal consumption. For example, a device that washes food. ([0053]).
Further, the claim recites “communication module” which uses the generic placeholder “module” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “communication module” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a module on a controller (see Fig. 4A) or any other device that can communicate data.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No.12276600. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Present Application 19/080,483
U.S. Patent No. US12276600
1. A system comprising:
a light intensity measuring apparatus couplable to a food processing apparatus, the light intensity measuring apparatus including:
a chamber configured to receive a water sample from the food processing apparatus;
a light source configured to generate light;
a detector configured to detect the light that has passed through at least a portion of the water sample in the chamber and measure multiple times intensities of wavelengths of the light to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths; and
a communication module configured to provide the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths; and
a computing system including:
at least one processor; and
memory containing instructions, the instructions being executable by the at least one processor to:
receive the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths;
process the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths to obtain a set of values;
apply a first set of decision trees to the set of values to obtain a first result, the first result indicating either a first positive foodborne pathogen detection or a first negative foodborne pathogen detection for a first foodborne pathogen;
generate a first foodborne pathogen detection notification indicating either the first positive foodborne pathogen detection or the first negative foodborne pathogen detection for the first foodborne pathogen; and
provide the first foodborne pathogen detection notification.
1. A system comprising:
a light intensity measuring apparatus couplable to a food processing apparatus, the light intensity measuring apparatus including:
a chamber configured to receive a water sample from the food processing apparatus;
a light source configured to generate light;
a detector configured to detect the light that has passed through at least a portion of the water sample in the chamber and measure multiple times intensities of wavelengths of the light to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths; and
a communication module configured to provide the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths; and
a computing system including:
at least one processor; and
memory containing instructions, the instructions being executable by the at least one processor to:
receive the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths;
process the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths to obtain a set of values;
apply a first set of decision trees to the set of values to obtain a first result, the first result indicating either a first positive foodborne pathogen detection or a first negative foodborne pathogen detection for a first foodborne pathogen;
generate a first foodborne pathogen detection notification indicating either the first positive foodborne pathogen detection or the first negative foodborne pathogen detection for the first foodborne pathogen; and
provide the first foodborne pathogen detection notification.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210199588A1 by Falzarano et al. (cited in the IDS as WO2019232450A1; hereinafter "Falzarano") in view of US20220220547A1 by Pinsky et al. (cited in the IDS; hereinafter "Pinsky").
Regarding claim 1, Falzarano teaches a system comprising (at least Fig. 13):
a light intensity measuring apparatus ([0100]-[0102] system for detecting a target in a water source; [0248]) couplable to a food processing apparatus ([0226] tested sources may include water used to process food), the light intensity measuring apparatus including:
a pipe configured to receive a water sample from the food processing apparatus (Fig. 13; [0248] the detector in Fig. 13 measures water from a pipe, such as water from a sink, a sink may be used to process or wash food; [0126] water with pathogens);
a light source configured to generate light ([0103] light-emitting diode);
a detector (Fig. 13 on-line detector; [0103] semiconductor photodetector; [0112] one or more detectors comprising a semiconductor photodetector) configured to detect the light that has passed through at least a portion of the water sample in the chamber and measure multiple times intensities of wavelengths of the light to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths ([0127] “directing one or more wavelengths of light into a medium comprising a pathogen and a non-pathogen biological substance to thereby excite the pathogen and the non-pathogen biological substance in the medium; and detecting emission using one or more detectors comprising a semiconductor photodetector that detects different wavelengths of emission such that a spectral signature unique to the pathogen is detected”; each detector in the semiconductor photodetector measures an intensity, thus the intensities of wavelengths of the light are measured multiple times to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths; [0155] “present invention may involve the use of a single detector that receives a light beam after it has passed through the sample, the spectral data may include total absorption or fluorescence data”); and
a communication module configured to provide the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths ([0185] systems communicate via a bus; [0191]); and
a computing system including ([0192] Any of the operations described herein may be implemented in a system that includes one or more storage mediums and processors):
at least one processor ([0192]); and
memory containing instructions ([0192]), the instructions being executable by the at least one processor to:
receive the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths ([0154]);
process the multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths to obtain a set of values ([0154] analyzing the sample to provide spectral data on the one or more target analytes; spectral data is the first set of values);
apply a first set of decision trees to the set of values to obtain a first result ([0167] decision trees are used to classify elements using spectral data for a selected set of wavelengths), the first result indicating either a first positive foodborne pathogen detection or a first negative foodborne pathogen detection for a first foodborne pathogen ([0195] the present invention is directed to methods of providing information regarding a medium; [0196] the medium is water and the target analyte is one or more pathogens; [0197] identifying presence of one or more target analytes in the medium; wherein the presence of a target analyte corresponds of a positive or negative detection);
generate a first foodborne pathogen detection notification indicating either the first positive foodborne pathogen detection or the first negative foodborne pathogen detection for the first foodborne pathogen ([0154] the presence of a target analyte and its concentration may be reported); and
provide the first foodborne pathogen detection notification ([0154] report may be sent to an output device).
Even arguendo, Falzarano does not explicitly teach to measure multiple times intensities of wavelengths of the light to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths, Pinsky does address this limitation. Pinsky and Falzarano are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of fluid detection.
Pinsky teaches to measure multiple times intensities of wavelengths of the light to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths ([0074] During each illumination cycle, measurements, such as the intensity and the frequency of both the light flux that is reflected from the fluids and the light flux that has been passed through the fluids are measured. In such a manner, 32 measurements are provided to the control unit 301, as described below.).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform multiple measurements when collecting data. Further, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the device from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 Sec. II “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990”). See MPEP 2114 Sec. II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Falzarano to measure multiple times intensities of wavelengths of the light to obtain multiple sets of measured intensities of wavelengths in order to make a more robust measurement that reduces error.
Further, although Falzarano does not explicitly teach a chamber configured to receive a water sample, the detector is mounted to a pipe attachment that could be considered an open-ended chamber. Additionally, Falzarano teaches an embodiment in Fig. 15 that includes an off-line detector such as a tap attachment ([0250]). It could easily be conceived that such an attachment could be used to divert water to a separate chamber for testing.
However, Pinsky does address this limitation.
Pinsky teaches a chamber, assembled in a pipe, configured to receive a sample liquid (Fig. 1; sampling chamber 3; [0053] a sampling chamber 3, which is assembled into the milk flow conduit 2; [0054] The sampling chamber 3 includes a sampling cavity 4 that is designed to contain a sample of the flowing milk.)
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sample chamber within a pipe to perform sample analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Falzarano to include a chamber configured to receive a water sample as suggested by Pinsky in order to contain the sample within a standard, controlled environment, thus improving measurement accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20050118704A1 by Malobabic teaches system and method for real-time detection and remote monitoring of pathogens which includes methods for cleaning a sample sensor ([0122]).
US 20190202715 A1 by Liao et al. teaches UV-LED liquid treatment and monitoring system which can analyze water for pathogens ([0008]).
US 20220268751 A1 by Farkas teaches a multimode biological sample inspection apparatus which includes an AI model that uses a decision type classifier ([0111]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights