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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Regarding to claims 1-2 and 5:
The step of “generating an acoustic vibration profile of said fruit/vegetable” is cited without further linking to the other steps of the claim body.
The step of “resizing and cropping the audio to the area of interest” is cited without further linking to the other steps of the claim body.
Furthermore, the claim preamble is “a shelf life prediction system”, but the claim body is the method steps, in which the steps are cited without a clear linking to the components (speaker and microphone) of the system.
In addition, “the audio” (in line 6), “the data” (in line 6), “the acoustic vibration space and the acoustic vibration space” (lines 7-8) are cited without sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding to claims 3-4 and 6: The claims are rejected because they depend on claim 1, 2, or 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding to claims 1-2 and 5, the Specification, as filed, in the description section, only teaches/discusses the prediction system regarding to FIGs. 1-3, but not the actions of the steps in the claim body. The Specification, in fact, does not teach at all on how the acoustic vibration profile of fruit/vegetable is generated, how to form the shelf life matrix, the defect matrix, the maturity matrix. The Specification also does not describe on where the acoustic vibration spaces come from and how the match process actually takes place between the acoustic vibration spaces, and what comes to conclude/predict the remaining shelf life, the ready for harvest condition, or the disease in plants. In addition, for each application of the claimed method on predicting the remaining shelf life, the ready for harvest condition, or the disease in plants, the Specification must specifically teach how apply the match result to conclude on each application.
Furthermore, the Specification does not describe on how to integrate the claimed system/method into refrigeration/non-refrigeration drawers and/or cabinets, or a robotic arm with handgrip mechanism as cited in claims 3-4 and 6.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853