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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 18 states “a promotion mechanism configured to perform a promotion process”
Prong 1: the limitation utilizes the generic placeholder of “mechanism”
Prong 2: the limitation modifies the placeholder of “mechanism” with “configured to”
Prong 3: the limitation “mechanism configured for” is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function
Interpretation: The specification in the PG Pub (US 2024/0155077) outlines a plurality of promotion mechanisms in ¶ 131-139 and the limitation will be treated as such.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019-190681 (Hiruma hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Hiruma teaches a food storage environment and method of controlling that discloses monitoring a monitoring target with the stored item and the monitoring target stored in the storehouse (Monitoring target being either of the produce “fv” or the sensed atmospheric conditions within the storage unit 10); and controlling the environment in the storehouse based on a result of monitoring the monitoring target (Control 14 per Figure 3)), the monitoring target being disordered due to the environment earlier than the stored item or being located in a place including an environment where the monitoring target is more likely to be disordered as compared to a place where the stored item is located (Monitoring done by sensor 22 which tracks the conditions of the environment and produce fv).
Regarding claim 2, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Hiruma further discloses that the monitoring target is of a different type from the stored item (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ability to monitor the atmospheric conditions as the monitoring target is a different type than the stored item, further Hiruma uses fv to mean fruits and vegetables which implies both are present and sensed therefore allowing for the monitoring target to be a different type than the stored item).
Regarding claim 4, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Hiruma further discloses that the monitoring target is one that was disordered in the past and then has been recovered from the disorder (Figure 3 with healing step s10).
Regarding claim 5, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Hiruma further discloses that the monitoring target is of a same type as the stored item (fv being fruits and vegetables where the monitored target can be the same as the stored item).
Regarding claim 6, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Hiruma further discloses that the monitoring includes capturing an image of the monitoring target and outputting a result of monitoring the monitoring target based on the image of the monitoring target (Sensor 22 with photoreceiver 26 per “ the rot sensor 22 receives a light emitter 24 for irradiating the fruits and vegetables fv with the light L and reflected light R reflected by the surface of the fruits and vegetables fv. And a spectroscope 28 for obtaining a spectral spectrum of the reflected light R received by the photoreceiver 26. And the corruption sensor 22 is comprised so that the component derived from microorganisms in the secondary differential value of the obtained spectrum may be detected.”).
Regarding claim 7, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 6 where Hiruma further discloses that the image of the monitoring target is a fluorescence image of fluorescence emitted from a surface of the monitoring target by irradiating the monitoring target with light (“the rot sensor 22 receives a light emitter 24 for irradiating the fruits and vegetables fv with the light L and reflected light R reflected by the surface of the fruits and vegetables fv. And a spectroscope 28 for obtaining a spectral spectrum of the reflected light R received by the photoreceiver 26. And the corruption sensor 22 is comprised so that the component derived from microorganisms in the secondary differential value of the obtained spectrum may be detected.”).
Regarding claim 15, Hiruma teaches a food storage environment and apparatus for monitoring the stored items that discloses an imager (Rot sensor 22 with the photoreceiver 26 in Figure 4); and a controller having a plurality of operation modes (Controlling 14 with control method shown in Figure 3), the plurality of operation modes including a first mode of determining the monitoring target, which is one of the plurality of stored items that has been disordered first, based on an image of the plurality of stored items captured by the imager (Any operation mode before the rot is detected by the sensor 22 taught by the following “According to this embodiment, when the rotting sensor 22 detects rotting that has occurred in the fruits and vegetables fv, the control unit 16 switches the air conditioner 14 to the low humidity operation mode. Can be done automatically. In the method for storing fruits and vegetables according to one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, first, when the harvested fruits and vegetables fv has a wound at the time of harvest, a healing step S10 is performed as necessary. If the wound is left untreated, there is a risk that it will begin to rot early. In the healing step S10, the fruit and vegetable fv having a wound at the time of harvest is higher than the temperature of the storage space S in the high-humidity storage step S12 and the low-humidity storage step S18, which will be described later at the time of warehousing. Hold and heal wounds.”).
Regarding claim 16, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 15 where Hiruma further discloses that the plurality of operation modes include a second mode of controlling an environment in the storehouse in order to recover the monitoring target from the disorder caused in the first mode (During the healing step s10 the operation mode controls the air conditioner to set the required humidity level in the storage facility).
Regarding claim 17, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 16 where Hiruma further discloses that the plurality of operation modes include a third mode of monitoring the monitoring target based on the image of the monitoring target captured by the imager, and controlling the environment in the storehouse based on a result of monitoring the monitoring target (Latter steps s14-s18 that controls the air conditioning within the storage unit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-190681 (Hiruma) in view of US 2003/0203082 (Daniher hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the monitoring target is disordered due to the Maillard reaction.
However, Daniher teaches preserving foodstuffs that discloses what constitutes the Maillard reaction and how the reaction occurs(¶ 2 and 3). The resultant combination would allow for the photoreceiver/sensor/controller of Hiruma to be able to detect the browning being formed by the Maillard reaction and attempt to perform the required healing steps as taught by Hiruma.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Hiruma with the ability to detect the Maillard reaction of fruits and vegetables to further prevent spoilage from occurring.
Claims 8-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-190681 (Hiruma) in view of US 2023/0059420 (Bowden hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to performing a promotion process for promoting occurrence of a disorder of the monitoring target.
However, Bowden teaches a system to control a foodstuffs storage container that discloses a promotion process for promoting occurrence of a disorder of the monitoring target (¶ 187)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the storage unit of Hiruma with the treatment process/compounds of Bowden to impart desired characteristics to the foodstuffs.
Regarding claim 9, Hiruma’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Hiruma and Bowden would further disclose that the monitoring includes monitoring the monitoring target having undergone the promotion process (Resultant combination for 22 of Hiruma to monitor the treated item).
Regarding claim 10, Hiruma’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Hiruma and Bowden would further disclose that the promotion process includes adding a pH-adjuster to the monitoring target (¶ 187 of Bowden)
Regarding claim 11, Hiruma’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Hiruma and Bowden would further disclose that the promotion process includes adding a fat, a sugar, or an amino acid to the monitoring target (¶ 187 of Bowden).
Regarding claim 18, Hiruma’s teachings are described above in claim 15 but are silent with respect to a promotion mechanism configured to perform a promotion process for promoting occurrence of a disorder of the monitoring target.
However, Bowden teaches a system to control a foodstuffs storage container that discloses a promotion mechanism configured to perform a promotion process for promoting occurrence of a disorder of the monitoring target (¶ 187)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the storage unit of Hiruma with the treatment process/compounds of Bowden to impart desired characteristics to the foodstuffs.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-190681 (Hiruma) in view of US 2023/0059420 (Bowden) and further in view of US 5945146 (Twinam hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Hiruma’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect that the promotion process includes a dehydration process for reducing moisture in the monitoring target.
However, Twinam teaches food preservation system and method that discloses a dehydration process for reducing moisture in the monitoring target (Column 2 Lines 19-22 details that it is well known to dehydrate produce to preserve/extend shelf life).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment of the produce of Hiruma/Bowden with the dehydration of Twinam to make the produce shelf stable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-190681 (Hiruma) in view of US 2023/0059420 (Bowden) and further in view of US 2473747 (Gieseker hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Hiruma’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where Hiruma further discloses that the monitoring target is a vegetable or a fruit (fv or Hiruma).
Hiruma is silent with respect that the promotion process includes adding a pH-adjuster having a higher pH than that of the monitoring target to the monitoring target. Bowden does teach using a pH adjusting solutions (¶ 187).
However, Gieseker teaches a food treatment method that discloses using higher pH to increase the longevity of produce (Column 1 Line 1 through Column 2 Line 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pH treatment taught by Hiruma/Bowden with the elevated levels taught by Gieseker to increase the produce’s color and longevity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-190681 (Hiruma) in view of US 2023/0059420 (Bowden) and further in view of JP 2018-059775 (Nishiyama hereinafter)
Regarding claim 14, Hiruma’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect that the promotion process includes irradiating the monitoring target with light.
However, Nishiyama teaches a fruit and vegetable inspection and treatment system that discloses irradiating the monitoring target with light (Use of the UV Light to irradiate the target foodstuffs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the treatment system of Hiruma with the UV light of Nishiyama to assist in destroying bacterial.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights