DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-22 and 30-37 in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 17, 19, 30, 32 and 35-37 are 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 claims 17, 19, 30, 32 and 35-37, It is unclear what “relates to” is requiring. It is unclear what it means for the first process to be related to something. It is unclear if this requires the process to actually carry out the various claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, “with container” should be changed to “with a container”.
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.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urano USPA 2004/0127535 A1.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Urano discloses employing calcium hydroxide within a first process to effect a change within an environment wherein the first process relates to reduction of at least one of coronavirus cells, a bacterial infection and a fungal infection upon a surface of the environment; the calcium hydroxide is applied as part of a powder or a solution (paragraphs 25 and 56; claim 2).
Claims 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randall USPA 2019/0134930 A1.
Regarding claims 34 and 36, Randall discloses employing calcium hydroxide within a first process to effect a change within an environment, wherein the first process relates to reduction of at least one of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide; the calcium hydroxide is added as either a solution or a powder to a petroleum product; and the petroleum product is one of a sealant and a caulking agent (paragraphs 37 and 38). It is noted that “relates to reduction of at least one of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide” does not actually require such a reduction. Regardless, the calcium hydroxide of Randall would remove at least some trace amount of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
Claims 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schroeder USPN 4,431,675.
Regarding claims 34 and 37, Schroeder discloses employing calcium hydroxide within a first process to effect a change within an environment, wherein the first process relates to the manufacture of an animal feed where the calcium hydroxide is an additive added to one or more animal feed components is in a first configuration; in the first configuration the calcium hydroxide is added to one or more animal feed components discretely to react with carbon dioxide generated by an animal digesting the animal feed such that the carbon dioxide reacts with the calcium hydroxide and expelled as a precipitate within excrement produced by the animal such that the change in the environment is a reduction in carbon dioxide released into atmosphere (claim 1; at least some of the calcium hydroxide would react to carbon dioxide, as claimed).
Claims 30, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verschuere USPA 2016/0289414 A1.
Regarding claims 30, 31 and 34, Verschuere discloses a method comprising: employing calcium hydroxide within a first process to effect a change within an environment, wherein the first process relates to reducing emissions from a diesel engine comprising: injecting a solution at specific flow rate into an exhaust of the diesel engine when the diesel engine is running; wherein the solution comprises urea, water and calcium hydroxide (paragraphs 13, 52 and Table 1), wherein the solution reduces emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the exhaust of the diesel engine via a reaction with the NOx; and the calcium hydroxide reduces emissions of at least one of: carbon dioxide (C02) via a first reaction with the CO2 from the exhaust of the diesel engine; and sulphur dioxide (S02) via second reaction from the exhaust of the diesel engine (paragraphs 12 and 23).
Claims 19-22 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirsbrunner USPN 4,293,581.
Regarding claims 19-21 and 34, Hirsbrunner discloses a method comprising: employing calcium hydroxide within a first process to effect a change within an environment, wherein: the first process relates to an additive for an organic byproduct; the additive comprises a calcium hydroxide solution and coffee grounds in a first predetermined ratio; the additive is added to the organic byproduct at a second predetermined ratio; and the organic byproduct with additive is intended for application to soil, wherein the additive further comprises an acid for adjusting a pH of either the additive or the additive combined with water (Example 1).
Regarding claim 22, it is first noted that claim 19 recites that the process “relates to an additive for an organic byproduct” and therefore does not actually require the claimed “organic byproduct”. Therefore, the claimed limitation of claim 22 is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the steps of the method are concerned. In process claims, a claimed intended use must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02.
Claims 17, 18 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redenbaugh USPN 4,715,143.
Regarding claims 17, 18 and 34, Redenbaugh discloses a method comprising: employing calcium hydroxide within a first process to effect a change within an environment, wherein: the first process relates to at least one of storing and shipping at least one of a plurality of seeds and a plurality of seedlings with container; the container comprises: a casing; a permeable membrane forming a predetermined portion of the casing; and calcium hydroxide powder disposed within the container; and the calcium hydroxide absorbs at least one of moisture and carbon dioxide within the vicinity of the plurality of seeds and the plurality of seedlings, and wherein the reduction in at least one of moisture and carbon dioxide within the vicinity of the plurality of seeds and the plurality of seedlings reduces at least one of a rate of germination of the plurality of seeds and a rate of root spoilage of the plurality of seedling (Example B: calcium hydroxide is coated onto seeds; this can be considered “related to” the method steps of claims 17 and 18).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 16, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen USPN 5,939,117.
Regarding claims 32 and 34, Chen discloses a method comprising: employing calcium hydroxide within a first process to effect a change within an environment, wherein: the first process relates to at least one of extending freshness and delaying ripening of produce with calcium hydroxide; and the calcium hydroxide is applied by at least one of spraying a calcium hydroxide solution onto the produce; misting the calcium hydroxide solution onto the produce, dipping the produce into the calcium hydroxide solution; storing the produce with calcium hydroxide powder, and coating the produce with calcium hydroxide powder (column 2, lines 45-65; column 4, lines 28-60).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses executing the first process with respect to a quantity of produce; wherein the first process delays at least one of a spoiling and a ripening of the produce (column 2, lines 45-65; column 4, lines 28-60).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Chen discloses that the produce comprises one of a fruit, a vegetable and an herb; and the first process comprises applying at least one of a solution and a powder to the produce comprising calcium hydroxide; the at least one of the solution and the powder absorbs at least one of carbon dioxide in the vicinity of the produce via a first chemical reaction and sulphur dioxide in the vicinity of the produce via a second chemical reaction (column 2, lines 45-65; column 4, lines 28-60: at least some carbon dioxide or sulphur dioxide would necessarily be absorbed).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses that the produce comprises one of a fruit, a vegetable and an herb; and the first process comprises applying at least one of a solution and a powder to the produce comprising calcium hydroxide and a gelling agent; the solution absorbs at least one of carbon dioxide in the vicinity of the produce via a first chemical reaction and sulphur dioxide in the vicinity of the produce via a second chemical reaction; the solution once applied forms a thin film upon the produce; and the thin film prevents at least one of a pollutant and a bacteria within the environment contacting the outer surface of the produce over that portion of the produce covered by the solution (column 2, lines 45-65; column 4, lines 28-60: at least some carbon dioxide or sulphur dioxide would necessarily be absorbed).
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.
Claims 3 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen USPN 5,939,117 in view of Adam USPA 2017/0107048 A1.
Chen is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 3 and 33, Chen does not disclose that the calcium hydroxide is applied in conjunction with at least one activated carbon and pectin. Adam discloses the use of activated carbon and pectin to preserve fruits (see Adam paragraphs 71 and 79). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen so that activated carbon or pectin is also applied to the fruit, as generally taught by Adam, for the purpose of helping in the fruit preservation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen USPN 5,939,117.
Chen is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 5, Chen does not disclose a gelling agent. Nevertheless, the use of gelling agents to increase viscosity is generally well-known in the art and the use of it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make a solution with the correct viscosity. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claims 6-8, 11-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen USPN 5,939,117 in view of Clevenger USPN 4,528,228.
Chen is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 14, Chen does not disclose that the first process comprises storing the produce in association with a container; the container comprises: a casing; a permeable membrane forming a predetermined portion of the casing; and calcium hydroxide powder disposed within the container; and carbon dioxide released by the produce enters the container through the permeable membrane and is absorbed by the calcium hydroxide powder via a chemical reaction. Clevenger discloses a first process comprises storing the produce in association with a container; the container comprises: a casing; a permeable membrane forming a predetermined portion of the casing; and calcium hydroxide powder disposed within the container; and carbon dioxide released by the produce enters the container through the permeable membrane and is absorbed by the calcium hydroxide powder via a chemical reaction (see Clevenger Abstract; figures; claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen so that the first process comprises storing the produce in association with a container; the container comprises: a casing; a permeable membrane forming a predetermined portion of the casing; and calcium hydroxide powder disposed within the container; and carbon dioxide released by the produce enters the container through the permeable membrane and is absorbed by the calcium hydroxide powder via a chemical reaction, as disclosed by Clevenger, for the purpose of preserving the fruit in a case.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Clevenger discloses that the permeable membrane allows a further gas within the environment surrounding the produce to pass through from the environment into the casing; and the further gas reacts with the calcium hydroxide powder within the container (figures; claim 1).
Regarding claims 8, 13 and 15, Clevenger discloses storing the produce in association with the container comprises one of: laying the produce upon the container such that the permeable membrane of the container is disposed towards the produce; placing the produce within the container such that the permeable membrane of the container is disposed towards the produce; and wrapping the produce within the container such that the permeable membrane of the container is disposed towards the produce (figures; claim 1).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the container of Clevenger on seeds, rather than fruits, for the purpose of preserving the seeds, since it is well-known that seeds also need to be preserved. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen USPN 5,939,117. in view of Clevenger USPN 4,528,228, in further view of Adam USPA 2017/0107048 A1.
Chen is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Chen in view of Clevenger does not disclose activated carbon. Adam discloses the use of activated carbon and pectin to preserve fruits (see Adam paragraphs 71 and 79). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen in view of Clevenger so that activated carbon or pectin is also disposed in the container, as generally taught by Adam, for the purpose of helping in the fruit preservation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776