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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/04/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 10-15, in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amendments to Groups I and III are such that there is now no serious burden for searching all three groups. This is not found persuasive because Groups I and III are still directed to different inventions and would require different searches to determine their patentability.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12 Applicant discloses “an electronic nose apparatus” on line 2 and also “an electronic nose apparatus” again on line 2. Are these different components?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14, and 15 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oleynik (USPGPUB 2015/0290795).
Regarding claim 10, Oleynik discloses a food quality control system, comprising:
a computer and an application executing thereon that:
receives results of a test of quality of a first food product (see paragraph [0196]),
accesses a database describing quality standards and requirements for the food product (see paragraph [0328]),
determines, based on analysis of the results with respect to the standards and requirements, that replacement of the food product is indicated (see paragraph [0331]), and
transmits directions to a quality control device to replace the food product (see paragraph [0383]); wherein the food product is olive oil (see “44” in TABLE B and “775” in TABLE C).
Regarding claim 11, Oleynik discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the food product is stored at a retail location (see paragraphs [0140] and [0169]).
Regarding claim 12 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Oleynik discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the test is performed by at least one of a near-infrared spectroscope, an electronic nose apparatus (see paragraph [0196]), and an electronic nose apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, Oleynik discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the food product is stored in and dispensed to consumers from a flexi-bag (see paragraph [0389]).
Regarding claim 15, Oleynik discloses the system of claim 10, wherein information describing storage, describing quality control, and describing origins of the food product are available for viewing by users of touch-screen devices located one of remotely from and proximate the retail location (see paragraphs [0197], [0316], [0354]-[0355], [0393], and [0498]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
11/26/2025
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights