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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 May 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
All rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12, 14-17, 25, 31, and 33-34, and 37-41 are currently pending in this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11, 14-17, 25, 31, 33-34, 37-38, 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaun et al. (US 2019/0104748) in view of Holm et al. (WO 2019/096844).
Regarding Claims 1 and 37, Kaun discloses a method for modulating the ripening of an underripe produce unit at a temperature (“controlling the rate of ripening for agricultural produce” see abstract), the method comprising:
determining a first respiration rate of an underripe produce unit at a temperature;
determining a second respiration rate of the underripe produce unit at the temperature. Wherein the determining the first respiration rate occurs before determining the second respiration rate (see Fig. 12 where multiple respiration rates are measured).
While Kaun discloses a step of forming a coating on the underripe produce unit (“provides coating compositions that can be applied to produce to control (e.g., lessen) the rate of ripening of the produce”, see abstract), Kaun is silent to wherein in response to determining that the second respiration rate is less than 10% greater than the first respiration rate, incubating the underripe produce unit at an incubation temperature; determining a third respiration rate of the underripe produce unit at the incubation temperature; and in response to determining that the third respiration rate is 10% to 30% greater than the first respiration rate, forming a coating on the underripe produce.
Holm is relied on to teach a process of controlling the ripening rate of underripe produce unit for the purpose of distributing a fully ripened produce at the marketplace/distribution center at a ripening stage desired by the customer (see Page 4, ln. 18-24). Holm provides this by holding the produce at a temperature that promotes ripening (see page 5, ln. 23-26), monitoring the respiration rate, and responding to a change in respiration rate (“exceed 50% in average taken over last 24 hours”, page 22, ln. 4-9). Depending on the remaining time to delivery, Holm employs known methods to slow down the rate of ripening in relation to the remaining time (Pg. 11, Ln. 4-5).
Therefore, since both Kaun and Holm are directed to controlling the rate of ripening for agricultural products, and Kaun is not specific to when the coating is applied to the underripe produce (either pre-harvest or post-harvest, paragraph 187), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the coating of Kaun once a particular increase in respiration rate is observed for the purpose of providing the produce to the marketplace/distribution center at a desired ripening stage.
Holm further teaches wherein, in response to determining that the second respiration rate is less than a targeted respiration rate, incubating the underripe produce unit at an incubation temperature (“changing temperature in the container, truck or trailer from a temperature wherein ripenable produce are kept in an unripening controlled atmosphere to a temperature where the ripenable products ripens in a controlled atmosphere”, Page 5, Ln. 23-26) until the third respiration rate is greater than first respiration rate (“when a predetermined ripening stage is achieved”, page 6, ln. 3-4) at a certain degree (50%, pg. 22, ln. 4-9). Holm does not specifically recite a second respiration of being less than 10% than the first respiration rate, and a third respiration rate of being 10% to 30% greater than the first respiration rate. However, since Kaun is directed to the timing of the food product to have the desired ripeness upon delivery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the particular respiration rate to apply the necessary controlled atmosphere according to the type of produce being transported as well as the time required for transporting. Furthermore, since the claim do not recite any particular time interval, Holm’s reporting of a ripening process that is started when the measured respiration rate exceed 50% in average taken over 24 hours (Page 22, ln. 11-13) would necessarily be equivalent to a respiration rate that is 10%-30% higher at a smaller time interval. Therefore, the difference is a matter of determining what data is used for calculation. In any case, since Applicant’s disclosure further notes that the third respiration rate can also be at least 300% than the first respiration rate (Applicant’s specification paragraph 135), the claimed respiration rate values are not seen to be patentably significant over the prior art’s respiration rate.
Regarding Claims 5 and 38, Kaun further teaches wherein the coating comprises a monoglyceride (paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Kaun further teaches wherein the coating further comprises an enzyme (paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Kaun further teaches wherein the underripe produce unit is a climacteric produce unit, and the climacteric produce unit comprises an avocado (Paragraph 158).
Regarding Claim 14, Holm further teaches wherein the incubation temperature is within about 10% of the temperature (compare the transport temperature and the ripening temperature, which can be as low as 0%, Page 24, ln. 24-26).
Regarding Claim 15, Holm further teaches wherein the incubation temperature is 14.5°C-18°C which is within the claimed range (ripening temperature, Page 24, ln. 24-26).
Regarding Claim 16, Kaun further teaches wherein the coating is applied within days of harvest (paragraph 187). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the first respiration rate within days after harvest, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 17, Holm further teaches wherein the second respiration rate is determined 48 hours after the first respiration rate was determined (Page 21, ln. 23-27). That is, since Holm suggest a 24 hour interval, and Kaun discloses the coating process to occur “within days” after harvest, the combination therefore suggest a second respiration rate determined after 48 hours.
Regarding Claims 25 and 40, the claim is rejected for reasons similar to Claim 1. Claim 25 differs in that a response to determining that the respiration rate is 10%-30% greater than the first respiration rate further includes chemically treating the underripe produce unit. Holm is relied on to teach a dosing mechanism for a ripening agent receptor blocking agent, i.e. 1-MCP, which is used to delay the ripening of an agricultural produce (Page 15, Ln. 8-11), which is construed as a chemical treatment. Therefore, since the coating of Kaun and the receptor blocking agent of Holm are both used to delay the ripening of underripe produce unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding Claims 31 and 41, Holm further teaches wherein the chemical treatment comprises contacting the underripe produce with an inhibitor of an ethylene receptor, wherein the inhibitor of the ethylene receptor comprises 1- methylcyclopropene (Page 15, third paragraph).
Regarding Claims 33-34, Kaun further teaches wherein the temperature is an ambient temperature, wherein the ambient temperature is 20°C (paragraph 194).
Claim(s) 6 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 5 and 38, respectively, further in view of Holland et al. (US 10,092,014).
Regarding Claims 6 and 39, the combination is silent to wherein the coating further comprises a fatty acid salt. Holland is relied on to teach a method for preserving produce and other agricultural products (see abstract) by forming a protective coating over the products. The protective coating of Holland similarly comprises monoglycerides (“monoacylglycerides”, see Col. 4, Ln. 16-19), and further comprises fatty acid salts (see Claim 2) which also helps reduce a mass loss rate of the produce or edible produce (see Col. 2, Ln. 65-Col. 3, Ln. 1). Therefore, since the coating of Kaun and Holland are both used to reduce the mass loss rate of produce, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Dhingra et al. (US 2020/0128817).
Regarding Claim 12, Kaun further teaches wherein the underripe produce unit is finger lime (paragraph 173), which is construed to be similar to limes. In any case, Dhingra is relied on to teach a methods of modulating the ripening process of fruits and vegetables (see abstract). Dhingra applies the treatment to both climacteric and non-climacteric produce such as avocados, bananas (paragraph 11) cherry, grape, strawberry, oranges, and pineapple (see paragraph 43). Therefore, since both climacteric and non-climacteric produce are known to undergo ripening delay treatments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the ripening process of the prior art onto cherry, grape, strawberry, oranges and pineapples for the purpose of delaying the ripening process of said produces during transportation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks filed 12 May 2025 has been considered, but is found not persuasive over the prior art.
Applicant argues on the basis that the Holm reference do not teach any of (a) determining that a second respiration rate is less than 10% greater than a first respiration rate, (b) incubating the underripe produce unit in response thereto, (c) determining that a third respiration rate is 10-30% greater than the first respiration rate, and (d) forming a coating on the underripe produce unit in response thereto, as required by amended claim 1. However, while not specifically disclosing the claimed percentage values, Holm discloses the concept of monitoring the respiration rate of a produce and once a produce has achieved a particular respiration rate (in this case exceeds 50% after 24 hours), Holm performs both physical and chemical means to reduce the ripening of the produce in order to time the delivery of the produce at its final location having the desired ripeness. Since the process is similar in that there is a response to reduce the ripening of the produce upon determining particular respiration rate value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the particular rate of increase through routine experimentation to achieve the desired level of ripeness upon delivery. Furthermore, Furthermore, since the claim do not recite any particular time interval, Holm’s reporting of a ripening process that is started when the measured respiration rate exceed 50% in average taken over 24 hours (Page 22, ln. 11-13) would necessarily be equivalent to a respiration rate that is 10%-30% higher at a smaller time interval. Therefore, the difference is a matter of determining what data is used for calculation. In any case, since Applicant’s disclosure further notes that the third respiration rate can also be at least 300% than the first respiration rate (Applicant’s specification paragraph 135), the claimed respiration rate values are not significant over the prior art’s respiration rate. For these reason, the prior art has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0346. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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 on 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.
/T.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792