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 Application
At the outset, it is noted that there is an error in the claim identifier for claim 12. For purposes of examination, the claim identifier is understood to be “Currently Amended”.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 2011/0268672 (Monzyk) (see IDS of 1/22/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Monzyk discloses a method of treating produce comprising contacting the produce with a ferrate solution [0165].
As to Claim 2, given that Monzyk discloses a method of treating produce comprising contacting the produce with a ferrate solution to disinfect produce [0165], the method would naturally prolong shelf life [0165]
Regarding Claim 3, Monzyk disinfects the produce [0165].
As to Claim 4, Monzyk teaches the method decontaminates food products (i.e., treat contaminated foods) [0148].
Regarding Claim 5 the produce is a food [0165].
As to Claim 6, Monzyk teaches the produce is a meat [0165].
Regarding Claim 10, teaches the produce is a fruit [0165].
As to Claim 12, Monzyk teaches the produce is a vegetable [0165].
Regarding Claim 13, Monzyk teaches the vegetable is spinach [0165].
As to Claim 14, Monzyk teaches the vegetable is lettuce [0165].
As to Claim 16, Monzyk teaches the fruit and vegetables can be treated with ferrates and no indication that the fruit and vegetables are cooked (i.e., the fruit and vegetables are raw raw) [0165].
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 2011/0268672 (Monzyk) in view of F. Rivalta, Fish farm water treatment: new multi-approach for application of sodium ferrate, Il Pesce, No. 3 Anno 2017 (RIVALTA).
Monzyk discloses a method of treating produce comprising contacting the produce with a ferrate solution [0165] but silent as to seafood being treated, or the treatment being performed in a fishery.
Rivalta teaches on page 2 in the first paragraph that sodium ferrate can be used as a disinfectant in fishing farm and aquaculture systems. It would have been obvious to treat seafood with the ferrates of Monzyk in a fishery as Rivalta teaches that sodium ferrate can be used as a disinfectant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Monzyk so that it can be used use in fisheries, as Takahashi teaches it is desirable to decrease bacterial contamination in fisheries used for the production of seafood.
Claim(s) 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 2011/0268672 (Monzyk).
Monzyk discloses a method of treating produce comprising contacting the produce with a ferrate solution [0165].
As to Claim 11, Monzyk is silent as to berries. However, Monzyk teaches that fruit can be treated [0165]. It would have been obvious to treated berries as berries are a fruit.
As to Claim 15, Monzyk is silent as to sprouts. However, Monzyk teaches that vegetables can be treated [0165]. It would have been obvious to treated sprouts as sprouts are a vegetable.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 2011/0268672 (Monzyk) in view of United States Published Patent Application No. 2011/0319489 (MAN) (see IDS of 1/22/2024).
Monzyk discloses a method of treating produce comprising contacting the produce with a ferrate solution [0165] but silent as to the treatment being performed in a field. Monzyk is also silent as to practicing the method in a facility.
Man teaches a method of using ferrates [0064] to decontaminate food such as vegetable. This includes in greenhouses [0031]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to treat vegetables where the grow whether it is a greenhouse or field. Thus, it would have been obvious to treat vegetables in the field.
Man also teaches treating products and in processing facilities [0143]-[0145]. Thus, it would have been obvious to practice treat foods with ferrates in processing facilities to decontaminate the food.
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 2011/0268672 (Monzyk) in view of WO 2012/033850 (Pendred) (see IDS of 1/22/2024).
Monzyk is silent as to performing the method in in a grocery store or supermarket.
Pendred teaches using disinfectants/biocides in grocery stores or to prevent the contamination of foods and/or beverages. (pg. 3, first paragraph and pg. 4, first partial paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Monzyk in grocery stores and supermarkets, Pendred teaches it is desirable to prevent the contamination of food by applying disinfectants/biocides.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights