IDENTIFICATION METHOD OF MATURITY OF ACACIA HONEY

§101 §112

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 . Response to Amendment Claim Objections The objections to claims 4 and 14-16 are withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The rejections of claims 5, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 2-4 are directed to a process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). MPEP 2106.03. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 2 recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: “A method for identifying the maturity of acacia honey, comprising using turanose as a characteristic marker of mature acacia honey; wherein if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of no less than 0.5%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is mature acacia honey; if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of no less than 0.3% but less than 0.5%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is semi-immature acacia honey; and if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of less than 0.3%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is immature acacia honey.” Claim 3 recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: “A method for identifying mature acacia honey and immature acacia honey, comprising using turanose as a characteristic marker of mature acacia honey; wherein if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of no less than 0.5%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is mature acacia honey; if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of no less than 0.3% but less than 0.5%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is semi-immature acacia honey; and if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of less than 0.3%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is immature acacia honey Claim 4 recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: ”An identification method of maturity of acacia honey, comprising the following steps: detecting an acacia honey sample using turanose as a characteristic marker; wherein if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of no less than 0.5%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is mature acacia honey; if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of no less than 0.3% but less than0.5%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is semi-immature acacia honey; and if the acacia honey sample to be identified has a turanose content of less than 0.3%, it is determined that the acacia honey sample to be identified is immature acacia honey; the mature acacia honey is brewed in a hive for at least 7 days, and shows honeycomb sealing of no less than 75%; the semi-immature acacia honey is brewed in the hive for more than 3 days but no more than 5 days, and shows honeycomb sealing of 30% to 70%; and the immature acacia honey is brewed in the hive for 0 days to 3 days, and shows honeycomb sealing of no more than 10%.” The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited identification and determination is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. The claim recites the method of determining the maturity of acacia honey based on the amount of turanose identified, hive brewing time and/or percentage of honeycomb sealing. This is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed mentally and is an idea of itself. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information; or comparing new and stored information using rules to identify options. Accordingly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 2-4 recite an abstract idea (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). MPEP 2106.04(a). Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2-4 do not recite additional elements. As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 2-4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO) MPEP 2106.04(d). Since claims 2-4 recite an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 2-4 are “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). MPEP 2106.04(d). Step 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements are not recited. Thus, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims 2-4 are ineligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm. 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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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. /DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852