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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/7/2025 has been entered.
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, 10-14 and 16 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).
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 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 includes 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 at the time of the invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to obtain and correlate ripening data from a 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.
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 at the time of the 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 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, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the claim is interpreted to mean the correlating data comprises one or more of assessed ripening stage from the first transportation unit, accumulated carbon dioxide production, and accumulated oxygen consumption per mass unit, to calculate a target accumulated carbon dioxide production or accumulated oxygen consumption per mass unit to achieve a target ripening stage in the second transport unit.
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 at the time of the 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, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitations “riper than an expected ripeness” and “less ripe than an expected ripeness” are respectively interpreted to mean the produce, at the time of determination, is ahead of a desired ripening schedule/profile and behind a desired ripening schedule/profile, respectively, based on any known ripening parameter.
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 at the time of the 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 16, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches transmitting ripening data from the first transport unit to the second transport unit as stated for said claim. Westcott et al. does not teach the transmission occurring before opening the first transport unit at delivery
Chopko et al. teaches each transport unit monitors ripening and takes appropriate actions to slow or accelerate the ripening process based on measured parameters (paragraphs 47-49 and 55), where feedback is made through real-time updates which are used to improve future produce deliveries (paragraphs 80 and 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to transmit the ripening data before opening the first transport unit as claimed since the reference (and Chopko et al.) already acknowledge that conditions within the units can be monitored and adjusted remotely, where data from a previous shipment can be used as feedback for a subsequent shipment, and therefore in order to provide appropriate monitoring and environment control during transport such that the produce is delivered at optimal ripeness, regardless of changes in schedule or delivery route.
Claims 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westcott et al. in view of Chopko et al. as applied to claims 1-7, 10-14 and 16 above, and further in view of Kingston et al. (US 2018/0075406 A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Westcott et al. teaches the transmitted data includes the identity of particular transport units (paragraphs 28 and 52), but does not teach the identifier is indicative of a transport unit carrying produce from the same geographical area as the second transport unit, the identifier based on Farm ID.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Westcott et al. to include geographical information such as Farm ID in the data 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, thereby ensuring product quality, safety, and consistency.
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 claims 8-9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections of claims 7 and 13-15 under 35 USC 112(b) are maintained. Claim 7 should be amended to remove “such as…” in lines 6 and 9. Claim 13 requires clarification of antecedent basis for “at least one previous shipment”. Claim 14 remains indefinite since it is unclear exactly what feature(s) are encompassed by “expected ripeness”, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what is relatively “riper” or “less ripe” than said “expected ripeness”. Claim 15 requires clarification of antecedent basis for “the transport unit”.
Applicant argues Chopko as cited teaches a “destination information database 182”, but does not disclose obtaining data from a transport unit which carries produce from the same geographic area as the second transport unit.
This is not persuasive since Chopko teaches “treatments to the product while on-route to control the ripening process” (paragraph 80) using customer feedback “to improve future produce deliveries” (paragraph 83) as stated for claim 1. The information can be shared between the produce grower and a particular customer, where one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected multiple shipments of produce from the grower to be “from a same geographical area”. Westcott et al. also acknowledges a grower and customer relationship, where some of the produce containers are ready for “immediate distribution” to a retailer and others for “later distribution” (paragraph 46). Therefore, the prior art suggests to one of ordinary skill that ripening data can be shared between multiple produce transport units, the transport units originating from a produce grower in a “same geographical area”, and controlling ripening of the produce based on ripening data correlated to a scheduled delivery date.
Applicant’s arguments against the dependent claims are not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792