Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/809,260

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING RIPENING CONDITIONS OF CLIMACTERIC FRUITS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 04, 2020
Examiner
AXTELL, ASHLEY
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tata Consultancy Services Limited
OA Round
6 (Final)
13%
Grant Probability
At Risk
7-8
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
38%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 13% of cases
13%
Career Allow Rate
36 granted / 280 resolved
-52.1% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
335
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 280 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, each instance of “Ethylene” should be changed to “ethylene” as ethylene does not need to be capitalized. Regarding claim 1, each instance of “CO2” should be changed to “CO2” and each instance of O2 should be changed to “O2”. Regarding claim 1, line 60 recites “the zero rate of change of the respiration rate” and should be “a zero rate of change of the respiration rate”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 in lines 15-18 recites “preprocessing raw signals from the heterogenous sensors for filtering of unwanted frequencies and preventing overlapping of the raw signals, reducing high frequency noise and converting raw signals to digital signals”. However, the specification specifically discloses “preprocessing” data and doesn’t specifically recite “preprocessing raw signals” see paragraphs [0041]-[0043] of the PGPUB specification. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “generating, via the one or more hardware processors, alerts based on the preprocessing of the raw signals” however this is not specifically recited in the specification. See PGPUB paragraphs [0046] and [0043] 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites in lines 3-8 “obtaining levels of environment condition parameters associated with ripening of the climacteric fruit at periodic intervals by using an enclosure enclosing the climacteric fruit, via heterogenous sensors and one or more hardware processors, the environment condition parameters comprising CO2 emitted, O2 consumed, Ethylene emitted, temperature and relative humidity measured within the enclosure” and then recites in lines 8-14 “wherein… the heterogeneous sensors automatically capture periodic and synchronized sensory data and images pertaining to the climacteric fruit…wherein the sensory data comprising of values or levels of the environment condition parameters comprising the temperature, the relative humidity, the CO2 emitted, the O2 consumed, the ethylene emitted”. It is unclear if the step of obtaining levels of environment condition parameters associated with ripening of the climacteric fruit at periodic intervals in lines 3-8 is the same as or different from the step of “wherein… the heterogeneous sensors automatically capture periodic and synchronized sensory data and images pertaining to the climacteric fruit…wherein the sensory data comprising of values or levels of the environment condition parameters comprising the temperature, the relative humidity, the CO2 emitted, the O2 consumed, the ethylene emitted” recited in lines 8-14. If the steps are the same, the claim should be reworded to avoid redundancy. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 in lines 15-18 recites “preprocessing raw signals from the heterogenous sensors for filtering of unwanted frequencies and preventing overlapping of the raw signals, reducing high frequency noise and converting raw signals to digital signals”. Since the claim uses “for”, it is unclear if this means that the raw signals from the heterogenous sensor are preprocessed by filtering of unwanted frequencies and preventing overlapping of the raw signals, reducing high frequency noise and converting raw signals to digital signals. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the environment conditions” in line 74. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the rejection can be overcome by changing “the environment conditions” to “environment conditions”. Allowable Subject Matter Taken with the 112bs the closest prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably teach that the heterogeneous sensors capture synchronized sensory data and images where the sensory data is the levels of environment condition parameters of CO2 emitted, O2 consumed, Ethylene emitted, temperature and relative humidity in the enclosure while preventing overlapping of raw sensor signals. Response to Arguments Applicant’s remarks filed 10/14/2025 have been considered however the current amendments have raised new 112 issues as discussed above. 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 ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30. 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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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. /A.A/ Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792 /ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 04, 2020
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jun 28, 2022
Response Filed
Oct 08, 2022
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 17, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 20, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 18, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 21, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 12, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 20, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 25, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 27, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 14, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564204
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR STEAM FLAKING OF GRAINS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12466630
FIBER-BASED SEPARATOR FOR COMPARTMENTALIZED COMPOSITE CAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12324537
BEVERAGE APPLIANCE WITH POD RECOGNITION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 10, 2025
Patent 12251054
Butter Products and Methods of Forming and Packaging Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 18, 2025
Patent 12245608
COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 11, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
13%
Grant Probability
38%
With Interview (+24.6%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 280 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month