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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 8, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuepper et al. [European Patent EP1319928] in view of Johannessen et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0382131]
With regard to claim 1, Kuepper et al. meets the limitations of:
a smart label device applicable to a packaging for providing an information representative of a residual period of life of a perishable product inside the packaging [an electronic device for accompanying perishable or degradable goods to monitor at least one environmental parameter to which the goods are exposed where the electronic device displays the remaining life time of the good and/or the expected quality of the good after it has been subjected to the influence of the environmental parameter (paragraphs 0001 and 0052)]
a flexible support substrate composed of at least one of polymers, plastics, organic materials, flexible materials [the electronic device being a plastic mold in the shape of a credit card (paragraph 0052) where plastic can be a flexible material]
an electronic controller associated with the support substrate [a processing device connected to a sensor device that detects for instance with a temperature sensor the temperature of a good and where the processing device uses a microprocessor for calculating an expected remaining life time of the good (paragraph 0045)]
a sensor associated with the support substrate, the sensor unit being operatively connected to the electronic controller, the sensor being configured to detect data related to a perishability of the perishable product inside the packaging with which the smart label device is associated [the device having a processing device which is connected to a sensor device that detects for instance with a temperature sensor the temperature of a good where the sensor device is closely located at the good to be monitored (paragraph 0045) and the electronic device having a display for displaying a good-specific characteristic and/or to other information relating to the exposure history where the display may also include other indicators for alarm or alert-type displays such as temperature being below a threshold (paragraph 0055)]
an information signaling indicator associated with the flexible support substrate, the information signaling unit being operatively connected to the electronic controller [the electronic device having a display that may also be used to display information concerning the exposure history, such as the exposure history itself or portions thereof, thresholds, or any other desired information (paragraph 0048)]
a power supply associated with the support substrate, the power supply being operatively connected to the electronic controller [the electronic device having an electric power supply for providing electric power to the processing device (paragraph 0051)]
the electronic controller being configured to: determine the information representative of the residual period of life of the perishable product inside the packaging with which the smart label device is associated, based on the data related to the perishability of the perishable product provided by the sensor [expiry data relating directly to an expiry of the good, such as an expected expiration date, remaining life-time, or expired life-time that is related to the detection of environmental conditions (paragraph 0015) that is detected by a sensor that detects for instance with a temperature sensor the temperature of a good where the sensor device is closely located at the good to be monitored (paragraph 0045)]
provide the information signaling unit with the determined information representative of the residual period of life of the perishable product inside the packaging [the display of the electronic device displaying a result of the calculation of the characteristic of the good performed by the processing device where the display may also be used to display information concerning the exposure history, such as the exposure history itself or portions thereof, thresholds or any other desired information (paragraph 0048) where the device has a processing device which is connected to a sensor device that detects for instance with a temperature sensor the temperature of a good where the sensor device is closely located at the good to be monitored (paragraph 0045)]
However, Kuepper et al. fails to disclose of a flexible substrate and the flexible support substrate being configured to flexibly conform with a non-flat outer surface of the packaging. In the field of electronic devices, Johannessen et al. teaches:
a flexible substrate and the flexible support substrate being configured to flexibly conform with a non-flat outer surface of the packaging [a flexible substrate, which may conform to the exterior surface, and a panel-level lighting/display controller connecting the monument panel to onboard power supplies, networks, or data interfaces (paragraphs 0003 and 0004) where the flexibility of the substrate allows the substrate to conform to surfaces that are not flat]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Kuepper et al. and Johannessen et al. to create an electronic device for monitoring the contents inside of a container where an electronic controller device is located and conformed to the external surface of a storage container and where the device is connected to a sensor located inside of the storage container is used for collecting data where said data is processed to determine the remaining amount of life for a perishable good wherein the motivation to combine is to create an electronic device for accompanying perishable or degradable goods to monitor at least one environmental parameter to which the goods are exposed (Kuepper et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 2, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the electronic controller is configured to: associate the data detected by the sensor with set combinations of parameters and time patterns and determine, according to aggregated data, an information representative of a state of deterioration of the perishable product and update the information representative of the residual period of life of the perishable product, using set algorithms based on specific models of deterioration for the perishable product to be monitored according to the data related to the perishability of the perishable product provided by the sensor unit [the calculation of a product’s degradation based upon environmental parameters (paragraph 0069) where degradation is a function of time as it is a value of deterioration of a product as time progresses/passes]
With regard to claim 3, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the information representative of the residual period of life of the perishable product is an information representative of a time date at which the perishable product will have deteriorated, the electronic controller being configured to assign a value of the determined information representative of the residual period of life to such information [the calculation of a product’s degradation based upon environmental parameters (paragraph 0069)]
With regard to claim 4, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the information representative of the residual period of life of the perishable product is an indication of a state of deterioration of the perishable product, the electronic controller being configured to determine such information by comparing the determined information representative of the residual period of life with an alarm threshold value corresponding to a minimum residual period of life [the integral of the actual degradation based on the latest measured environmental parameter is greater than the sum of the degradation value at the last stored measurement value and degradation step, then the previous measured parameter value/time, just before the latest measurement, is to be stored (paragraph 0069) where this value is representative of degradation occurring]
With regard to claim 5, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the electronic controller is further configured to determine an information representative of an interaction of a user on the packaging, based on respective data provided by the sensor representative of the interaction of the user with the packaging to which the smart label device is applied [off-on switches located on the edge of the electronic monitoring device that allow a user to activate or deactivate the device (paragraph 0053)]
With regard to claim 6, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the information signaling unit is configured to provide a user with the information representative of the residual period of life of the perishable product inside the packaging [the display displays the remaining life time of the good and/or the expected quality of the good after it has been subjected to the influence of the environmental parameter (paragraph 0052)]
With regard to claim 7, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the information signaling unit comprises a display [an electronic device having a display unit in the form of a LCD (liquid crystal display) (paragraph 0023)]
With regard to claim 8, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the information signaling unit comprises at least one device for triggering a mechanical movement or at least one sound emitter device [the display may use audio ways to output information in the form of a beeper or loudspeaker (paragraph 0023)]
With regard to claim 9, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
signaling of the information representative of the residual period of life of the perishable product inside the packaging is carried out continuously or repeatedly at constant intervals or is carried out upon completion of set events or a request by the user [the measurement of temperature being performed by the electronic device at regular fixed time intervals (paragraph 0064)]
With regard to claim 10, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
an activation command for electrically activating the smart label device, actuation of the smart label device, by a user, allowing the electronic controller to be electrically connected to the power supply [an electric power supply, in the form of a battery or an accumulator, used for providing electric power to the processing device, the memory device and the display (paragraph 0051)]
With regard to claim 11, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
an enabling command for enabling the information signaling unit, actuation of the information signaling unit, by a user, allowing the information signaling unit to be electrically connected to the power supply [an electric power supply, in the form of a battery or an accumulator, used for providing electric power to the processing device, the memory device and the display (paragraph 0051)]
With regard to claim 12, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the electronic controller, the sensor unit, the information signaling unit, the power supply unit, and electric interconnections thereof [the electronic device has the form of a plastic mold in the shape of a credit card (paragraph 0052) where plastic can be a flexible material]
However, Kuepper et al. fails to disclose of the components being as flexible as the flexible support substrate and configured to flexibly conform commensurately with a conformation of the flexible support substrate with the non-flat outer surface of the packaging. In the field of electronic devices, Johannessen et al. teaches:
a flexible substrate and configured to flexibly conform commensurately with a conformation of the flexible support substrate with the non-flat outer surface of the packaging [a flexible substrate, which may conform to the exterior surface, and a panel-level lighting/display controller connecting the monument panel to onboard power supplies, networks, or data interfaces (paragraphs 0003 and 0004) where the flexibility of the substrate allows the substrate to conform to surfaces that are not flat]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Kuepper et al. and Johannessen et al. to create an electronic device for monitoring the contents inside of a container where an electronic controller device is located and conformed to the external surface of a storage container and where the device is connected to a sensor located inside of the storage container is used for collecting data where said data is processed to determine the remaining amount of life for a perishable good wherein the motivation to combine is to create an electronic device for accompanying perishable or degradable goods to monitor at least one environmental parameter to which the goods are exposed (Kuepper et al., paragraph 0001).
With regard to claim 13, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the activation command is flexible [off-on switches located on the edge of the electronic monitoring device that allow a user to activate or deactivate the device when they are pressed by a user (paragraph 0053)]
With regard to claim 15, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
a rear surface of the flexible support substrate, as a whole or in part, is coated with an adhesive layer to allow adhesion to target surface(s) of the packaging [the electronic device being attached using an adhesive (paragraph 0056)]
With regard to claim 16, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the smart label device is of a stand-alone type [an electronic device used for monitoring a perishable good accompanying said perishable good where it is closely located at the good to be monitored (paragraph 0045)]
With regard to claim 18, Kuepper et al. meets the limitation of:
the enabling command is flexible [off-on switches located on the edge of the electronic monitoring device that allow a user to activate or deactivate the device when they are pressed by a user (paragraph 0053)]
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [European Patent EP1319928] in view of Johannessen et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0382131], and in further view of Menon et al. [U.S. Patent 9,983,621]
With regard to claim 14, Kuepper et al. fails to disclose of the smart label device is completed with an encapsulating layer adapted to limit or prevent a permeation of specific vapors or gases. In the field of electronic devices, Menon et al. teaches:
the smart label device is completed with an encapsulating layer adapted to limit or prevent a permeation of specific vapors or gases [first and second protective layers encapsulating electronic components to prevent them from being damaged by liquids and gases (column 2, lines 29-38 and column 17, lines 12-35)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Kuepper et al. and Menon et al. to create an electronic device for monitoring the contents inside of a container where the electronic device is encapsulated by protective coating layers to prevent it from being damaged by gases and liquids it may encounter in the environment that may affect its measurement of the conditions of a monitored product wherein the motivation to combine is to create an electronic device for accompanying perishable or degradable goods to monitor at least one environmental parameter to which the goods are exposed (Kuepper et al., paragraph 0001).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [European Patent EP1319928] in view of Johannessen et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0382131], and in further view of Pope et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0248455]
With regard to claim 17, Kuepper et al. fails to disclose of the electronic control unit is flexible, the electronic controller being associated with the flexible support substrate by assembling said electronic controller to the flexible support substrate. In the field of electronic devices, Johannessen et al. teaches:
a flexible substrate [a flexible substrate, which may conform to the exterior surface, and a panel-level lighting/display controller connecting the monument panel to onboard power supplies, networks, or data interfaces (paragraphs 0003 and 0004)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Kuepper et al. and Johannessen et al. to create an electronic device for monitoring the contents inside of a container where an electronic controller device is located and conformed to the external surface of a storage container and where the device is connected to a sensor located inside of the storage container is used for collecting data where said data is processed to determine the remaining amount of life for a perishable good. However, the combination of Kuepper et al. and Johannessen et al. fails to disclose of the electronic controller is flexible and the electronic controller being associated with the flexible support substrate by assembling said electronic controller to the flexible support substrate
In the field of monitoring devices, Pope et al. teaches:
the electronic controller is flexible, the electronic controller being associated with the flexible support substrate by assembling said electronic controller to the flexible support substrate [electronic tag components being assembled onto a substrate where the components (the display and battery) are flexible meaning the device has a certain degree of flexibility (paragraphs 0067, 0068, and 0069)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Kuepper et al., Johannessen et al., and Pope et al. to create an electronic device for monitoring the contents inside of a container where the electronic device contains flexible components in order to allow the device to be attached to non-straight surfaces wherein the motivation to combine is to create an electronic device for accompanying perishable or degradable goods to monitor at least one environmental parameter to which the goods are exposed (Kuepper et al., paragraph 0001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, the Applicant contends “Johannessen is directed toward the completely unrelated field of aircraft lighting and display panels and paragraphs [0003] and [0004] of Johannessen disclose a monument installable in an aircraft cabin that includes a monument panel attached to or partially embedded in an exterior surface of the monument. While the monument panel of Johannessen includes ‘a flexible substrate (e.g., which may conform to the exterior surface),’ it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to ‘combine the elements of Kuepper and Johannessen to create an electronic device for monitoring the contents inside of a container where an electronic controller device is located and conformed to the external surface of a storage container...’ as the Examiner asserts… Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have had any rational basis to look to the teachings of Johannessen in dealing with packaging for perishable products or in seeking to modify or improve the package label of Kuepper.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Johannessen et al is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Johannessen et al discloses an electrical component used in the assistance of illumination where the substrate of the illuminating device is a flexible enough to conform to surfaces. One with ordinary skill in the art would then recognize the combination of Kuepper and Johannessen et al. being permissible as both arts disclose the use of electrical components and devices.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689