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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 10/29/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 36-59 have NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 58 is amended.
Claim(s) 59 is added.
Claim(s) 36-59 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the operation numbers 1010-1095 as described in the specification pages 31-49. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 59 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 59 depends on claim 36. Claim 36 recites “capture plural frames within a few seconds or less”. The specification discloses a smartphone application captures one or more images (e.g. a sequence of frames) over a period of time such as from a few tenths of a second to a few seconds, see pages 32-34. The specification also discloses the output images (e.g. a sequence of frames) are passed to the image registration, see pages 32-34. In view of the specification, It is unclear if the frames recited on claim 36 is the same as the image recited on claim 59. Applicant did not point out the paragraphs used in the specification to add the new claim 59. Further, it appears the frames and the image are the same in view of the specification, also it appears applicant should have said “the captured frames” instead “capturing an image” on claim 59 in view of the specification. Examiner suggests to applicant representative to choose and use the same term in the claimed language, frames or images.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 36-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 36, 47, 52 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
Claims 36, 47, and 52:
Claim 36: A method for management of perishable goods handling, ;
Claim 47:
Claim 52: A system for management of a perishable goods supply chain which comprises plural nodes,
Claim 36: assessing freshness of at least one item of perishable goods by use of at least one of color change, appearance / disappearance of at least a segment, variation in at least one of pattern, shape and/or size of at least a portion of an indication window of at least one
Claim 47: reading at least one
Claim 52: reading at least one
thereby to obtain a
capture plural frames within a few seconds or less,
derive plural measurements from the plural frames respectively; and
merge at least some of the plural measurements into a single prediction, while at least once omitting to merge any measurement from at least one frame from among the plural frames which is deemed invalid.
Claim(s) 36, 47, and 52 disclose(s) an abstract idea of management of perishable good freshness in supply chain industry, which falls into the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. More specifically, the claims limitations above have concepts related to: receiving data (B-E), determining data (A, F), collecting and predicting data (G), and thus are considered commercial practice known in supply chain industry.
Thus, claims 36-59 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
The identified additional elements are:
Claims 36, 47, 52: “hardware processor”;
Claims 36, 47: “at least one TTI”;
Claim 47 “A computer program product, comprising a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code adapted to be executed”;
Claim 52: “sensor”;
Claim 50: “camera”;
Claim 59: “a smartphone or a computerized system”;
The claimed additional elements that perform limitations B-E are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered merely data gathering such receiving reading form TTI, and frames, and thus are considered nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity; additional elements that perform limitations A and F claimed at a high level of generality and are considered data determination such as access data and determine freshness using data, and thus are considered mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; the additional elements that perform limitation G is claimed at a high level of generality and is considered nothing more than data generation for prediction without the recitation of technological improvement, and thus are considered generality linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and/or field of use;
When view in combination, the additional elements merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generality links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and claim(s) 36, 47, and 52 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 36-59 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
Claims 36, 47, 52 are not including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a generic or general-purpose computer, and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In addition, the courts have found computer functions claimed at high level of generality as not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claims 36-59 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 36-37, 39, 43, 47, 49, 52-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer et al. (US 20070076779 A1, hereinafter Haarer) in view of Uno et al. (US 20160178440 A1, hereinafter Uno).
Regarding claim 36, 47, 52, Haarer discloses:
Claim 36 “A method for management of perishable goods handling, including”, Claim 47: “A computer program product, comprising a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a method for management of perishable goods handling, including”; Claim 52 “A system for management of a perishable goods supply chain which comprises plural nodes, the system including using a hardware processor for reading at least one sensor affixed to at least one item of perishable goods, wherein said system is operative to provide assessment of remaining shelf life” Claim 36 “using a hardware processor for assessing freshness of at least one item of perishable goods by use of at least one of color change, appearance / disappearance of at least a segment, variation in at least one of pattern, shape and/or size of at least a portion of an indication window of at least one TTI affixed to at least one item of perishable goods, thereby to obtain a TTI reading, and for processing said reading including generating and outputting at least one perishable goods handling command, responsive to at least said TTI reading”, Claim 47“including using a hardware processor for reading at least one TTI affixed to at least one item of perishable goods, thereby to obtain a TTI reading, and for outputting at least one perishable goods handling command, responsive to at least said TTI reading”; (Abstract and [0009][0017][0018] a perishable good; a device may be a sensing device / reading device / a barcode reader for reading a pattern having at least one patterned feature in the form of a TTI; [0026] [0043]-[0047] analyze the color status of the TTI that is attached to the perishable good to assess the condition, e.g. the freshness status, of the perishable good;);
wherein, when assessing freshness of each perishable product, the method is configured to: [0026] [0043]-[0047]
capture frame [0042] “Collecting a light response of the pattern 22 (e.g., by scanning the pattern) allows for reading the object-related information and detecting the condition of the TTI”; see [0026] [0043]-[0047];
Haarer discloses scanning the pattern; however, does not disclose: the capture is a “plural frames within a few seconds or less, derive plural measurements from the plural frames respectively; and merge at least some of the plural measurements into a single prediction, while at least once omitting to merge any measurement from at least one frame from among the plural frames which is deemed invalid.
Uno discloses: [0250] “when the resolution of the farthest label 30A is insufficient with the focal length of 2.8 mm alone, the image data may be obtained by integrating the images which are obtained with the focal lengths of 2.8 mm and 3.6 mm, so that the temperature or humidity can be detected based on the obtained integrated image data.”; [0251] “As an example integration method, first, the number of indicators 31A which are excluded (cut off) due to zoom magnification is stored as an initial value. When the focal length is 3.6 mm, the indicators 31 in the front side are offset in accordance with the initial value. Then, the image with the focal length of 3.6 mm is compared with the image with the focal length of 2.8 mm, so that the temperature data obtained by those images are integrated. Further, the image with the focal length of 3.6 mm and the image with the focal length of 2.8 mm can be obtained substantially at the same time. Therefore, the temperature data obtained from the two images may be integrated by treating the indicators 31A at the farthest positions in the two images as the same indicator 31A.”; see see Figure 2A-2C, Please note: Because the 3.6 mm lens did not capture certain indicators (due to the narrow field of view caused by zoom magnification), those indicators are excluded from that specific 3.6 mm image's data set and are considered not valid within the context of that single high-resolution image; Therefore, the excluded indicator are incorporated later into the final data set, with their information coming from the data collected by the wider-view 2.8 mm lens during the final integration step;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Haarer to include the above limitations as taught by Uno, in order to data can be obtained at the farthest position, see Uno para. 251.
Regarding the limitations “thereby to obtain a TTI reading, and for processing said reading including generating and outputting at least one perishable goods handling command, responsive to at least said TTI reading.” do not have patentable weight because the limitations are considered intended use, see MPEP 2103(c).
Regarding claim 37, Haarer discloses:
wherein said handling comprises management of a perishable goods supply chain. [0043][0044] Abstract - “A device is presented for use in controlling the quality of a perishable object, while progressing on its supply line”; supply chain.
Regarding claim 39, Haarer discloses:
wherein said method comprises storing knowledge regarding expected progress of TTIs between supply chain nodes along said perishable goods supply chain, monitoring actual progress of TTIs between said supply chain nodes and wherein said at least one perishable goods handling command is issued when said actual progress is faster or slower than said expected progress. [0042][0025] “The preset handshake protocol may for example define, for each point where a product changes hands, a nominal (plus minimal and maximal) color condition. Hence, at each point of the supply line, the detected difference between the actual TTI condition and the predetermined condition gives indication of the remaining shelf life at a given temperature” [0024] “At each point (node of the supply chain), where there is a change in hands that hold the goods, and in any desired point, the TTIs are inspected, and the readout from the TTI provides the remaining shelf life according to the standard storage temperature. The receiving party thus may not accept the perishable good unless it has adequate remaining shelf life”; [0026] “analyze the color status of the TTI that is attached to the perishable good. The color status of the TTI is then used to assess the condition, e.g. the freshness status, of the perishable good relaying on the specific calibration curves of the TTI, thus providing a means to evaluate the remaining effective shelf life at a given temperature”;
Regarding claim 43, Haarer discloses:
wherein said reading comprises pre- processing and/or filtering of a segmented image of said at least one TTI. [0013][0042]-[0044] optical reading pre-process /process the light to generate measure data;
Regarding claim 49, Haarer discloses:
wherein a conversion model converts color measurement derived from said at least one TTI, to remaining shelf life or any other parameter or alert such as a binary indication of whether or not produce is good for use, at a given temperature. [0026] “analyze the color status of the TTI that is attached to the perishable good. The color status of the TTI is then used to assess the condition, e.g. the freshness status, of the perishable good relaying on the specific calibration curves of the TTI, thus providing a means to evaluate the remaining effective shelf life at a given temperature”; [0036] “This output signal is then appropriately formatted to be presented to the user via the data presentation utility (including one or more output ports)”, see figure 6;
Regarding claim 53, Haarer discloses:
wherein a reading of at least one sensor on at least one stand or node or item of perishable goods contributes to the 'system's knowledge of the supply chain's state and wherein at least one decision made by the method is based on said knowledge. [0042]-[0043] “The supply chain 300 includes several nodes, generally at 32, each utilizing the TTI/pattern reading device of the present invention (for example device 10 or 100 exemplified above) for detecting the TTI condition (and thus the object condition) when arriving at said node”; [0006] “facilitate determination of the freshness condition of a product by providing a novel device and method that allows for more quantitative assessment of freshness all along the supply chain”;
Regarding claim 54, Haarer discloses:
wherein said reading comprises machine-reading. [0013] optical reading;
Regarding claim 55, Haarer discloses:
wherein said at least one sensor includes at least one stationary sensor and at least one mobile sensor. [0040] a hand-held optical probe;
Regarding claim 56, Haarer discloses:
which is configured for capturing human behavior and wherein analysis of the human behavior as captured also contributes to the method's knowledge of the supply chain's state. [0049]-[0065] userN measures the TTI response (color) and confirming that the color of the TTI is lower than representing the minimal value in all nodes of supply chain.
Regarding claim 57, Haarer discloses:
wherein the TTI is imaged more than once thereby to generate plural TTI images and wherein knowledge derived by combining said images is used to make at least one decision. [0013][0042]-[0044] optical data are captured overtime during the supply chain. Thereby generating plural images that helps a decision of freshness overtime, see figures 5A-6
Regarding claim 58, Haarer discloses:
which is also operative to provide all or any subset of the following functionalities: a. product identification; b. generating recommendations. c. decision making on controlling the perishable goods supply chain; d. decision making on improvements in the perishable goods supply chain; e. assessment of client response; f. optimization or adjustment of product price; g. facilitating compliance with regulations, standards, and laws; h. management of inventory and/or the perishable goods supply chain supply chains for perishable goods, based at least on determining whether TTI progress between supply chain the plural nodes is faster or slower than expected or as expected; i. enabling decision making; j. raising flags. (Abstract, [0043] “The object 30 carries a TTI or a pattern 22 (machine readable code) including TTI-related pattern feature(s). The TTI or the pattern with TTI is printed on the object or on a label/tag attached to the object, or the object packaging material. The supply chain 300 includes several nodes, generally at 32, each utilizing the TTI/pattern reading device of the present invention (for example device 10 or 100 exemplified above) for detecting the TTI condition (and thus the object condition) when arriving at said node.”; [0044]-[0047] “The active matrix of the TTI changes its color from light to dark”; [0017]; Abstract and [0043] “A device is presented for use in controlling the quality of a perishable object, while progressing on its supply line”;
Claim(s) 38, 40-42, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer and Uno combination as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Beasley et al. (US 20190333015 A1, hereinafter Beasley).
Regarding claim 38, the combination does not disclose wherein said at least one command comprises scheduling an inspection of a suspect portion of the perishable goods supply chain and/or issuing a warning message.
Beasley discloses: [0058] “The user device 110 may also activate the alarm 120 when instructions 103 are received. The instructions 103 may pertain to inspection of the perishable goods 34”; [0046] “quality inspections 44, similar to the weather 42, may reveal data of the perishable goods 34 that affects quality and potential for spoilage during transport. For instance, a particular batch of strawberries may have been subjected to rainfall just prior to harvest 204, making them prone to spoilage while in the container 14. Quality inspections 44 may be done by a machine or a human being. Quality inspections 44 performed by a machine may be accomplished using a variety of techniques including but not limited to optical, odor, soundwave, infrared, or physical probe”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Beasley, in order to provide an improved systems for monitoring risk and adjusting for that risk, see Beasley para. 5.
Regarding claim 40, the combination, specifically Haarer discloses:
monitoring TTI readings; [0042]-[0044][0024]-[0026];
The combination does not disclose wherein said suspect portion is identified at least partly by monitoring [sensor] readings associated with said suspect portion.
Beasley discloses : [0052] “The risk assessment module 92 determines quality risk levels 101a in response to at least one of the transport parameters 82”; [0053] “The schedule module 94 determines schedule adjustments 102 in response to at least one of the quality risk level 101a”; [0058] “The user device 110 may also activate the alarm 120 when instructions 103 are received. The instructions 103 may pertain to inspection of the perishable goods 34”; [0048] “Transport parameters 82 collected throughout each stage of the cold chain distribution system 200 may include environment conditions experienced by the perishable goods 34 such as, for example, temperature, pressure, humidity, carbon dioxide, ethylene, ozone, vibrations, light exposure, weather, time and location”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Beasley, in order to provide an improved systems for monitoring risk and adjusting for that risk, see Beasley para. 5.
Regarding claim 41, the combination does not disclose wherein outputting of at least one perishable goods handling is also performed responsive to data other than said TTI reading and wherein said data comprises location data.
Beasley discloses: [0043] “Additionally, a global positioning system (GPS) location may also be detected by the sensors 22. The GPS location may help in providing time-based location information for the perishable goods 34 that will help in tracking the travel route and other transport parameters 82 along that route”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Beasley, in order to provide an improved systems for monitoring risk and adjusting for that risk, see Beasley para. 5.
Regarding claim 42, the combination does not disclose wherein said suspect portion is identified at least partly by monitoring human behavior associated with said supply chain portion (node/s and/or link/s).
Beasley discloses: [0042] “As seen, the sensors 22 may also be placed on the door 36 of the container 14 to monitor the position of the door 36. Whether the door 36 is open or closed affects both the temperature of the container 14 and the perishable goods 34. For instance, in hot weather, an open door 36 will allow cooled air to escape from the container 14, causing the temperature of the interior compartment 18 to rise, thus affecting the temperature of the perishable goods 34 and potentially decreasing the quality level of the perishable goods and increasing the risk of spoilage”; [0046][0048] “Transport parameters 82 may also be provided by other data sources 40, as illustrated in FIG. 1. These other data sources 40 may be collected at any point throughout the cold chain distribution system 200, which as illustrated in FIG. 2 may include harvest 204, packing 206, storage prior to transport 208, transport to distribution center 210, distribution center 212, transport to store 214, storage at store 216, store display 218 and consumer 220. The perishable goods 34 may be carried in the container 14 during the transport to distribution center 210 and the transport to store 214”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Beasley, in order to provide an improved systems for monitoring risk and adjusting for that risk, see Beasley para. 5.
Regarding claim 45, the combination does not disclose wherein said TTI readings typically have reduced safety margins which do not compensate for at least one ambient condition known to fluctuate and wherein said ambient condition is measured to yield at least one direct ambient condition measurement and wherein said at least one perishable goods handling command is issued responsive to said TTI readings and to said at least one direct measurement.
Beasley discloses: [0041] “the sensors 22 may include but are not limited to temperature, pressure, humidity, carbon dioxide, ethylene, ozone, light exposure, vibrations, and other conditions in the interior compartment 18. Accordingly, suitable sensors 22 are utilized to monitor the desired transport parameters 82”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Beasley, in order to provide an Improved systems for monitoring risk and adjusting for that risk, see Beasley para. 5.
Claim(s) 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer and Uno combination as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Uysal et al. (US 20190370817 A1, hereinafter Uysal).
Regarding claim 44, the combination, specifically Haarer discloses:
wherein said reading comprises extracting at least one feature from image data derived from at least one TTI and [0013] “there is provided an optical probe for determining the condition of a time-temperature indicator (TTI), the probe comprising an optical sensing assembly for detecting a light response of the TTI to predetermined incident light and generating measured data representative thereof; and a communication utility for translating said data into an output signal in the form of at least one of electrical, optical, RF and acoustic signal, to be processed to determine the condition of the TTI, thereby enabling controlling and/or monitoring and/or tracing remaining shelf life of the TTI”;
The combination does not discloses using a Machine -learning based model which receives said at least one feature as input.
Uysal discloses: [0030] [0045] “In a particular embodiment, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and a Machine (Deep) Learning Driven approach is used for the quality code (ANQC) generation in the supply chain”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Uysal, in order to provide a more ubiquitous approach with no reduction in efficiency, see Uysal para. 16.
Claim(s) 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer, Uno, and Uysal combination as applied to claim 44, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 46, the combination, specifically Haarer in view Uysal discloses Machine - learning based model, see par. 30, 45 of Uysal.
The combination does not disclose the machine learning is a knn regression model. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well-known in the machine learning industry to use KNN Regression Model for making prediction.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Official Notice, in order to save computational resources since KNN model does not require training.
Claim(s) 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer and Uno combination as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 48, the combination does not disclose also comprising using Measurement validity & accuracy estimators to reject poor quality images of said at least one TTI. Examiner takes Official Notices that it is old and well-known in the camera and scanner industry that poor quality image due to improper focus, shutter speed, wrong angle, distance issues, aperture too wide, can cause quality issues on images, requiring re-capturing with different configuration.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Official Notice, in order to make image processing possible.
Claim(s) 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer and Uno combination as applied to claim 36, and further in view of Epshteyn et al. (US 20090206159 A1, hereinafter Epshteyn).
Regarding claim 50, the combination does not disclose: wherein said method includes validating that at least one key connected component appears in an image of the at least one TTI and otherwise, providing a command, in at least near real-time, to re-align a camera thereby to allow imaging of the at least one TTI to be repeated timely, when necessary.
Epshteyn discloses: [0024] “packaging box may include barcodes on other sides than the side in which the image 200 is captured. If other images are to be analyzed, the method 300 returns to step 305 where the image is re-captured.”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Epshteyn, in order to have an image with the barcode, see Epshteyn para. 24.
Claim(s) 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer and Uno combination as applied to claim 36, and further in view of PRUSIK et al. (US 20170193260 A1, hereinafter PRUSIK).
Regarding claim 51, the combination does not disclose wherein said handling comprises control of perishable goods inventory and wherein said at least one perishable goods handling command typically includes at least one command to use certain perishable goods items in an order other than FIFO order.
PRUSIK discloses: [0088] “consumption or use of products that are near expiration may be prioritized, thereby advantageously reducing waste. By having a sensor dye that continuously changes color, product life can be determined throughout the products lifetime and throughout the supply chain”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Haarer, in order to advantageously reduce waste, see PRUSIK para. 88.
Claim(s) 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haarer and Uno combination as applied to claim 36, and further in view of BERGER et al. (US 20200110932 A1, hereinafter BERGER).
Regarding claim 59, the combination, specifically Haarer discloses the pattern is captured by an optical device 10; however, does not disclose further comprising: acquire an image by a smartphone or a computerized system; perform an image registration on the image to locate a position and orientation of the TTI in the image and to yield a registered image; and send the registered image for image alignment.
BERGER discloses: [0045] images obtained from smartphone [0052]-[073] image registration procedure, applies a method for seeking points of interest to the first and second images [location and orientation]… each point of interest of an image being identified by two-dimensional coordinates in the image and by a local descriptor of the content of the image [Figure 8 – points of interest that are identified]… applies a matching method for the points of interest in the first and second images [align]… checks whether the execution of the matching method makes it possible to consider that the two documents are at least similar… calculates a geometric transformation for registering the second image to the first image. i.e. making it possible to register the points of interest in the second image to the corresponding points of interest in the first image; [0010] See application specification page 32-34.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by BERGER, in order to makes it possible to obtain a list of points of interest and offer the highest measurement of correlation with the point of interest, see BERGER para. 53-54.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
USC 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is a technical implementation of sensing rather than any organizational human or business activity, see Remarks page 11.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention as it is writing is directed to data gathering instead sensing. Further, the use of the frames where measurements, not mention but probably measurements of TTIs, are derivate from, and combined / merged into a single prediction as it is written is considered human activity.
Further, applicant argues the claimed invention is directed to a practical application, see Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claimed invention is using frames data to combine / merge measurements, not mention but probably measurements of TTIs, without the recitation of how it is merge and what are those measurements, and therefore, the claimed language is claimed at a high level of generality without the recitation of a technological improvement.
Regarding the argument related to data gathering being performed in a nonconventional way, see Remarks page 12, First paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does not see any unconventional arrangement for the gathering data. Capturing frames seconds apart, and merging data derivate from the frames are still considered extra solution activities claimed at a high level of generality.
Applicant argues the claimed invention improves the technology for the same reasons already argued above “merging step would not increase accuracy were it not for the timing limitation imposed on the data gathering process ("within a few seconds").”, see Remarks page 13, Second paragraph. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Capturing frames seconds apart, and merging data derivate from the frames are still considered extra solution activities claimed at a high level of generality, and thus are not considered a technological improvement.
Regarding the arguments found on Remarks page 15, Examiner did provide a full 101 analysis.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
USC 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection set forth under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there are 3 reasons why UNO does not in fact read upon the above features, see Remarks page 18, First paragraph.
Applicant first reason state Uno does not show or suggest the perishable product freshness assessment use-case, see Remarks page 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Haarer already discloses the reading of TTi on a perishable product, see par. 17-18, 24, 42. In addition, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant second reason is related to the merge or integrated first and second image, see Remarks page 19-20. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The temperature data is obtained from the two different images, put together /merged /integrated. Regarding the excluded indicators, the excluded indicator is incorporated/merged/integrated later into the final data set, with their information coming from the data collected by the wider-view 2.8 mm lens during the final integration step. Further, the claimed language does not claim the specifics of merging beside claim merging some of measurement.
Applicant third reason is related to the omits to merger, see Remarks page 21-22. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the 3.6 mm lens did not capture certain indicators (due to the narrow field of view caused by zoom magnification), those indicators are excluded from that specific 3.6 mm image's data set and are considered not valid within the context of that single high-resolution image; Therefore, the excluded indicator are incorporated/merged/integrated later into the final data set, with their information coming from the data collected by the wider-view 2.8 mm lens during the final integration step.
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been maintained, see complete rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627