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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westcott et al. (US 2014/0180953 A1) in view of Chopko et al. (US 2019/0303852 A1) and Kingston et al. (US 2018/0075406 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Westcott et al. teaches a method for controlling conditions in a transport unit in order to obtain a target level of ripeness of the contained vegetable produce (abstract; paragraphs 3-4 and 20-22), comprising measuring conditions inside the transport unit via a local control unit (paragraphs 37-38) and sending information about the conditions to a central remote control and monitoring station, where the station can send data and commands back to the local control unit in response to a message from the unit (paragraphs 39-40). The data sent from the station includes values for the local control parameters, the station can monitor and control many local control units simultaneously, and the station sends data and commands to one or more local control units automatically in response to information sent by one of the local control units (paragraphs 41-42). The transmitted data includes the identity of particular transport units (paragraphs 28 and 52). The information provided to the station is used to adjust conditions within the transport unit to achieve a target ripeness, the information including scheduling factors and conditions of the produce throughout the harvesting and transport process (paragraph 23). Therefore, the reference teaches controlling the ripening process in the transport units based on data for achieving a desired ripening stage in the produce at a schedule delivery date.
Westcott et al. does not teach obtaining, at a second transport unit, ripening data from a first transport unit, the ripening data transmitted from the first unit to the second unit before opening the first unit at a delivery, which first transport unit carries produce from a same geographical area as the second transport unit, correlating, at the second transport unit, the obtained ripening data with a scheduled delivery date for the second transport unit, and controlling, at the second transport unit, the ripening process during transport based on the correlated data.
Chopko et al. teaches a method of operating an information coordination system used to monitor a perishable product for a specified condition (abstract), the product including vegetables (paragraph 46), comprising a cargo transport system 26 including container 34 holding the product, where environmental control assembly 36 facilitates control of environmental parameters in order to control ripening of the product (paragraphs 42 and 47-49). The method comprises information coordination system 75 which includes information related to destination and scheduling such as estimated time on-route, as well as information related to an end purchaser such as historical information related to prior complaints/compliments and ripeness preference (paragraph 80). The information coordination system facilitates the evaluation of ripening during transport, treatments to the product while on-route to control ripening, and planning of ripening, and provides feedback into the system for future shipments. Controlling the process can also be performed based on real-time updates (paragraph 83).
Therefore, the reference teaches that ripening data from a first transport unit can be sent to the information coordination system, which in turn sends the data to, and is obtained by, a second transport unit (future shipments) for feedback control of the ripening process in said second transport unit. The first transport unit is not required to be opened at delivery for the information to be sent across the network. The information coordination system 75 is included in product condition system 74 of the transport system 26, where analysis module 80 correlates the data with a scheduled delivery date to control ripening (paragraphs 46 and 54). Since the data includes feedback information from a first unit (previous shipment) to a second unit (future shipment) as stated above, correlating said data is construed to be performed at the second unit.
Regarding the transport units carrying produce from the same geographical area, Chopko et al. further teaches the method includes a produce grower wanting to assure efficient delivery of the product at optimal quality (paragraph 81), where feedback control is performed across multiple shipments as stated above. Therefore, the shipments are construed to carry produce from a same geographical area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to obtain and correlate ripening data from the first transport unit at the second transport unit from the same geographical area, and control the ripening process as claimed since the reference already teaches two-way communication between transport units, as well as monitoring and controlling conditions based on a grower-purchaser relationship (paragraphs 46-47), in order to provide control of environmental conditions in the transport units such that a producer can optimize the ripening process and product quality for future shipments based on feedback from the end purchaser, and to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results controlling produce ripening during transport.
Westcott et al. does not teach determining, at the second transport unit, that the first transport unit is carrying produce from the same geographical area as the second transport unit, the determining comprising identifying, at the second transport unit, the first transport unit by obtaining an identifier that is indicative of the first transport unit carrying produce from the same geographical area as the second transport unit, and the correlating in response to the determining.
Kingston et al. teaches a commodity-to-consumer tracking system provided to track a batch of the commodity from point of harvest and sale through to the end consumer (abstract), where the system comprises tagging the batch (paragraphs 156-157) with data including Farm ID for geographical area (paragraphs 12 and 139-145). The system allows for traceability and transparency from producer to consumer (paragraph 58).
The prior art suggests to one of ordinary skill that data communication can be performed between transport units in a supply network, where said data includes location identifiers such as Farm ID. The steps of “obtaining”, “determining”, and “correlating” are known and commonly practiced in the process of data transfer. Modification of a particular transport unit control system to obtain data and process the data for feedback control would have been obvious as stated for the combination of Westcott et al. and Chopko et al. above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to determine at the second transport unit the identifier for the product of the same geographical area carried by the first transport unit and correlating the obtained data in response to the determining as claimed since the reference is already suggests transmitting location data, since the prior art recognizes identification systems such as Farm ID are used to provide geographical origin data for transported commodities, and therefore to similarly provide transparency and traceability from producer to consumer
Regarding claims 2-3, the limitation “at least one of ripening intensity data and ripening stage data” is construed to recite alternatives. For the sake of examination, the alternative “ripening stage data” is chosen, and the limitation “ripening intensity data” is construed to be optional.
Westcott et al. teaches conditions for ripening stage are monitored and controlled in order to achieve a target ripeness at delivery, the conditions including parameters such as ethylene levels and changes in CO2 or O2 concentration, where the information is provided to the remote central control station (paragraphs 20-23 and 46-47).
Chopko et al. teaches monitoring ripeness of the produce (paragraphs 47-49, 53 and 55) and feedback data from prior shipments include end purchaser feedback and ripeness preference upon delivery (paragraphs 80-81), where monitored parameters include oxygen, carbon dioxide, ethylene, ozone, etc. (paragraph 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. such that the ripening data includes ripening stage data since the reference is already concerned with optimal ripening stage at delivery, since the prior art recognizes using ripening stage data feedback from end purchasers as a means to control ripening in future shipments, and therefore to provide the same advantage of direct feedback from observed ripeness to control ripeness of future shipments.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the parameters comprising “one or more of” the limitations “accumulated…time of delivery” and “assessed…recipient”. Thus, the claim is construed to recite alternatives. For the sake of examination, the alternative “assessed…recipient” is chosen, and the limitation “accumulated…delivery” is construed to be optional.
The combination applied to claims 1-3 teaches assessed ripening stage data (e.g., customer feedback) when the first transport unit is delivered and opened by recipient as taught by Chopko et al. (paragraphs 80-83). The same combination is applied to claim 4 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 5-7, the claims are directed to the ripening intensity data as recited in claim 2. However, claim 2 only requires one of the recited alternatives, the “ripening stage data” being chosen as stated for said claim. Since claims 5-7 do not positively recite that the “ripening intensity data” must be included with the “ripening stage data” in the overall “ripening data”, the features of claims 5-7 are similarly construed to not be required.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Westcott et al. and Kingston et al. applied to claim 1 teaches Farm ID.
Regarding claims 10-11, the limitations “first equipment for controlling a temperature” and “second equipment for controlling an atmosphere within…” are given their broadest reasonable interpretations to include, respectively, any device known in the art to adjust temperature and any device known to adjust any feature of the prevailing atmosphere (e.g., humidity, temperature, composition and concentration of components).
Westcott et al. teaches monitoring and controlling conditions within the transport units, the conditions including temperature, humidity, concentration of carbon dioxide, ethylene, oxygen, etc. (paragraph 21) using “equipment” such as a sensor for temperature, atmosphere composition, humidity, etc., a controller to actively control temperature and other environmental conditions, and devices for injecting components such as ozone, carbon dioxide, and other gasses into the transport units (paragraphs 9-10, 36, 38 and 44). The transport units necessarily comprise a temperature-controlled compartment (figure 1).
Chopko et al. as applied to claim 1 teaches similar “equipment” to monitor and control temperature and atmospheric conditions within the transport unit (figures 1-2; paragraphs 43-44).
Regarding claim 12, Westcott et al. teaches controlling, by the equipment within the transport units, features known to affect ripening such as temperature, ripening agent (ethylene) dosing start-time, and oxygen concentration within the transport unit (paragraphs 9-10, 20-21, 38 and 44).
Regarding claim 13, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches using feedback data from previous shipments to control ripening in subsequent shipments as taught by Chopko et al., where data including production and/or consumption of carbon dioxide or oxygen are similarly used to control ripening based on scheduled delivery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to correlate the data as claimed for the same reasons stated for claim 1, particularly to ensure the produce is delivered at optimal conditions based on feedback and preferences of the purchaser.
Regarding claim 14, Westcott et al. teaches control parameters such as temperature, oxygen, carbon dioxide, ethylene, and ozone levels to reach a target ripeness when the transport unit reaches the destination (paragraphs 20-23), but does not specify lowering or increase the parameters based on whether the produce is too ripe or unripe.
Chopko et al. teaches controlling the environment parameters to slow or accelerate ripening (paragraph 55), where parameters include reducing temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels if excessive ripening is detected (paragraphs 47-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to reduce parameters such as temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels if the produce is detected to be “too ripe” (and the opposite for “too unripe”) since the prior art recognizes the process for slowing or accelerating the ripening process, and in order to similarly delay ripening such that the produce is in optimal condition at the time of delivery, thereby mitigating losses from unexpected schedule or route changes as suggested by Westcott et al. (paragraphs 17 and 23).
Regarding claim 15, Westcott et al. does not teach the place of harvest is identifiable by an identifier associated with the transport unit.
The combination applied to claim 9 teaches using Farm ID to ensure traceability and transparency as stated for said claims. The same combination is applied to claim 15 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, the term “ongoing” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification to mean “during transport”.
Westcott et al. teaches unpredictability of weather and other external conditions encountered during transport, and changes in the delivery times spent aboard ship or other transports (paragraph 5).
Chopko et al. as applied to claim 1 teaches the controlling process can be performed based on feedback from previous shipments, and data transmission can be performed for real-time updates (paragraphs 80 and 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to obtain the ripening data while the first transport unit is ongoing for the same reasons stated for claim 1, and to facilitate coordination between shipments based on unexpected changes in the above art recognized factors.
Regarding claim 22, Westcott et al. teaches the transport unit comprises a local controller which uses sensor data to control operations (paragraphs 36-38), where the controller is equipped with wireless communication modems for sending and receiving data (paragraphs 38-40 and 42).
Chopko et al. teaches the control module includes a processor (paragraph 44), the processor comprising an analysis module for correlating data as stated for claim 1. The system is capable of wireless data transmission (paragraphs 78-79).
While the cited art does not explicitly teach the obtaining, correlating, and controlling are performed by the controller of the second transport unit, there is no evidence that the claimed process yields unexpected results. The prior art recognizes that each transport unit can include a controller system capable of performing routine operations for data transfer and processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. such that the claimed steps are performed at the second unit since the unit comprises all the components for performing the claimed operations, as a matter of preference or need e.g., when signals from a main source cannot be sent or do not reach the second transport unit, and to facilitate coordination in response to unexpected conditions as stated for claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Westcott et al. teaches the local controller includes sensors for measuring temperature, oxygen, and carbon dioxide within the unit, the controller using the sensor data to control environmental conditions within the container (paragraphs 37-38). The method includes controlling ripening of the produce by adjusting conditions within the unit such that the produce reaches a target level of ripeness when the destination is reached (paragraphs 20-21). The controller is able to control the release of known gases into the transport unit (paragraph 44), where valves are well-recognized means for performing controlled release.
Chopko et al. teaches correlating received data and controlling the conditions within the unit to obtain desired ripening as stated for claims 1 and 21-22 above. The process includes comparing measured conditions to pre-specified thresholds (paragraph 59), and planning of a ripening model for a given time period, such as duration of transport (paragraphs 80-82).
Westcott et al. does not teach opening the ripening agent valve at the calculated date and time.
However, the cited prior art teaches controlling ripening of produce based on measured ripening data and adjusting the content of ripening gases in order to obtain a desired level of ripening when the transport unit reaches its destination.
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. such that the second unit controller performs the claimed operations for the same reasons stated for claims 1 and 21-22, as a matter of preference for equipment since valves are known means for facilitating controlled gas release, and in order to obtain desired ripeness at delivery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kingston does not teach or suggest determining, at a transport unit, the identity and common place of origin of another transport unit from which ripening data was received, nor controlling ripening based on the determination.
This is not persuasive since the reference is relied on to teach transport units can be tagged with identifiers including harvest information, farm ID and farm location (paragraphs 142 and 145) for the advantage of traceability and transparency from producer to consumer (paragraph 58). The combination of Westcott and Chopko renders obvious a transport unit comprising a controller and necessary equipment for obtaining ripening data from another transport unit, processing the data at the transport unit, and controlling the environment within the unit in order to obtain a desired level of ripeness at delivery as stated for claim 1. Further, one of ordinary skill would have readily understood the advantage of including origin location in the identifier information e.g., to prevent ripening data from a different produce to be unintentionally applied to the produce in the second transport unit.
Applicant argues Chopko does not teach or suggest determining, at a transport unit, the identity and common place of origin of another transport unit from which ripening data was received, and instead operates as a closed loop control for an individual shipment as opposed to a system that uses real time ripening of one truck to directly control another truck.
This is not persuasive the reference teaches a transport unit includes a control system for obtaining data, processing the data, and performing control of the conditions within the transport unit to obtain a desired level of ripeness by delivery. Kingston teaches transferred data can include known identifying information such as farm ID and location. Westcott teaches that unpredictably of weather and other external conditions encountered during transport causes changes in the delivery times spent aboard ship or other transports (paragraph 5). Therefore, the prior art suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be desirable to allow each transport unit to be capable of receiving and processing origin location data from other transport units and control ripening conditions based on feedback in order to facilitate transparency and traceability from producer to consumer as stated for claim 1, as well as facilitate coordination based on unexpected changes as stated above.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldberg (US 2020/0167722 A1) teaches a method of delivery of food items comprising multiple food-containing delivery vehicles (abstract), where a first vehicle can communicate with a second vehicle in order to transmit information regarding the food being transported and coordinate a meeting location based on delivery time (paragraph 152). The respective vehicles would have necessarily required determining the identifier of the type of food being transported in order to ensure orders are properly fulfilled. Different delivery robots can communicate with each other for peer-to-peer relative positioning and/or triangulation with signals from other vehicles (paragraph 167), and the overall system can be autonomous by adjusting operational parameters and timing of the food processing such that the food is in a desired preparation state at delivery (paragraph 141). The reference suggests to one of ordinary skill that information regarding transported food can be shared between different transport units within a supply network, where the shared data can be used to adjust processing of the food to achieve an optimal state at delivery.
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights