DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to the application filed on 04 March 2024.
Claims 1-41 have been canceled.
Claims 42-61 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 10/18/2024, 06/16/2025 and 11/17/2025 have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 54-56, 59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11954695 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases are directed to detecting a biomarker in a flesh of a fish, requesting access to information related to the biomarker and displaying information related to the biomarker or the production information. While instant claim 42 recites a fish, and patent claim 1 recites a batch of fish, the single recitation of a fish in instant claim 42 would have been an obvious variation.
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:
a scanning device for in claim 1
a biomarker detector for in claim 1
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 § 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 42-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Under Step 1 the claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. Claims 42-53 recite a device, claims 54-61 recite a method. Thus the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 42 and 54 recite the abstract idea, generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations, claims 42 and 54 fall within the mental process grouping because the limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The “generate” step encompasses a person assigning an identifier to a fish or the fish product. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claims 43, 44, 48 further narrow the abstract idea by embellishing on the type of biomarker, and type of production information.
Claims 46 and 56 recite the abstract idea, wherein to generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product includes to: process the picture to generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product. The claims can be considered to fall within the mental process grouping because the limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, and/or judgment to analyze the picture and create a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product.
Claims 47 and 57 recite verify, that the scanning device has been registered. The claims can be considered to fall within the mental process grouping because the limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, and/or judgment to confirm that a scanning device has been registered.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 42-61 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 42 recites the additional elements, scanning device comprising: a biomarker detector for detecting a biomarker in a flesh of a fish or within a fish product; a display device; and a computing device that includes computer readable storage media that stores data instructions; blockchain database server. Claim 54 recites the additional elements, a biomarker detector; blockchain database server; and a display device. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality (for scanning, receiving, sending, and displaying information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Claims 42 and 54 recite the additional elements, scan, by the biomarker detector, the flesh of the fish or the fish product; send a request including the biomarker identifier to a blockchain database server; receive, from the blockchain database server, production information related to the fish or the fish product; and display, on the display device, at least one of the biomarker identifier or the production information. However, these limitations amount to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 43, 44, 46-48 and 56-57 recite similar additional elements as identified in claims 42 and 54. The computer components as recited amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Claims 45 and 55 recite, the additional elements, wherein the biomarker detector includes a camera, and wherein to scan the flesh of the fish or the fish product includes to capture a picture of the flesh of the fish or the fish product. Claim 49 and 55 recites the additional elements, receive, from the blockchain database server, funding information related to the fish where the flesh of the fish or the fish product come from; and display, on the display device, the funding information. Claim 50 recites the additional elements, wherein the funding information includes at least one of the following: information regarding an amount of funding to cover an expense for the raising of a batch of fish in which the fish belongs, information regarding one or more sources of funding used to raise the batch of fish, and payment instructions for a funder. Claims 51 and 58 recite the additional elements, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: receive, via the display device, a confirmation of the production information related to the fish or the fish product received from the blockchain database server. Claim 52 and 59 recites the additional elements, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: receive, via the display device, an acceptance or rejection of the fish or the fish product based on the production information. Claim 53 and 60 recites the additional elements, after the acceptance of the fish or the fish product, transfer funds according to the information in the blockchain database server associated with a batch of fish to which the fish belongs. These additional elements amount to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 61 recites the additional elements, a display device and an interface for receiving information. The display device and interface are used to perform the generic computer function of displaying information and receiving information such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As a whole, claims 42-61 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Instead, the computing components are being used as tools to perform the abstract idea. For the same reasons, the recited elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept and fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For the scanning, receiving, sending, displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The Content Extraction and Transmission, Ultramercial, Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions indicate that mere scanning, storing, retrieving, receiving or transmission, presenting data over a network are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claim do not add anything further than when they are considered separately. Thus, under Step 2B, the claims are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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.
Claim(s) 42, 45-48, and 51-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javaheri (US 2020/0184416 A1) in view of Kasin et al (US 20170103257 A1).
Claims 42 and 54: Javaheri discloses a scanning device for detecting a fish or a fish product, the scanning device comprising: a display device; and a computing device that includes computer readable storage media that stores data instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to (see [0084]: servers, processers. [0123]: Accordingly, a detailed history of the location of the product 1, the sensed physical characteristics of the product 1, and the like related to fishing may be obtained by the tracking device 300 and provided to the data collection system 500. In one aspect, when the facility 200 is a fish farm, the product related information 302 captured by the tracking device 300 (either manually or automatically) may include fish type, water source, feed source, farm location, as well as the other product related information 302 consistent with the disclosure (i.e., temperature), and the like): send a request including identifier to a blockchain database server; receive, from the blockchain database server, production information related to the fish or the fish product; and display, on the display device, at least one of the biomarker identifier or the production information (see [0006]: The system also includes a processor configured to be responsive to and control at least the database and the network interface. The system also includes the processor and the database being further configured to implement blockchain technology with respect to the product related information to generate a blockchain ledger of the product related information. [0136-0137] As further shown in FIG. 8, the process 800 may include, as illustrated in box 808, receiving a tracking request, querying the database 504 to obtain data on the tracking request, and providing information responding to the tracking request. In this regard, the query to the data collection system 500 may include a query for tracking a particular product 1 and the data collection system 500 in conjunction with the database 504 may obtain and transmit the response. In particular, the tracking functionality query can be based on the particular product 1, the particular facility 200 (farm, distribution center, restaurant, and/or the like), by case number, by lot number, by batch number, by item number, and/or the like).
Javaheri does not expressly disclose a biomarker detector for detecting a biomarker in a flesh of a fish or within a fish product; scan, by the biomarker detector, the flesh of the fish or the fish product; generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product but Kasin teaches, a biomarker detector for detecting a biomarker in a flesh of a fish or within a fish product; scan, by the biomarker detector, the flesh of the fish or the fish product; generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product; send a request including the biomarker identifier to a server (Fig. 1, [0082] The biometric sensor 102 captures characteristic data and behavior data of an individual. The characteristic data are images of an individual. The biometric sensor 102 is at least one gyro stabilized 2D cameras and/or at least one gyro stabilized 3D cameras equipped with a laser device to lock on to a target. Optionally, the biometric sensor 102 is at least one camera equipped with an autofocusing apparatus that allows sharp pictures to be taken at various focusing lengths or at least one camera equipped with a fixed focus lens that may capture blurry images for objects that does not fall within the fixed focus distance. [0083] The characteristic data processing engine 106 processes the characteristic data of the individual to form biometric data identifying minutiae based skin markings of the individual and biometric data identifying physical characteristics of the individual).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product identification of Javaheri, a biomarker detector for detecting a biomarker in a flesh of a fish or within a fish product; scan, by the biomarker detector, the flesh of the fish or the fish product; generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product; send a request including the biomarker identifier to a server as taught by Kasin, in order to provide and register unique identification of the fish in order to analyze the conditions of the fish (Kasin [0045]).
Claims 45 and 55: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 42 and 54 above. Kasin further teaches, wherein the biomarker detector includes a camera, and wherein to scan the flesh of the fish or the fish product includes to capture a picture of the flesh of the fish or the fish product (see Fig. 1, [0082] The biometric sensor 102 captures characteristic data and behavior data of an individual. The characteristic data are images of an individual. The biometric sensor 102 is at least one gyro stabilized 2D cameras and/or at least one gyro stabilized 3D cameras equipped with a laser device to lock on to a target. Optionally, the biometric sensor 102 is at least one camera equipped with an autofocusing apparatus that allows sharp pictures to be taken).
Claims 46 and 56: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 42 and 54 above. Kasin further teaches, wherein to generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product includes to: process the picture to generate a biomarker identifier associated with the fish or the fish product (see [0082] The biometric sensor 102 captures characteristic data and behavior data of an individual. The characteristic data are images of an individual. [0083]: The characteristic data processing engine 106 processes the characteristic data of the individual to form biometric data identifying minutiae based skin markings of the individual and biometric data identifying physical characteristics of the individual.
Claims 47 and 57: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 42 and 54 above. Javaheri further teaches, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: verify, by the blockchain database server, that the scanning device has been registered (see [0007]: data from the radio frequency identification (RFID) device or tag may be chained in a blockchain with data from other interfaces. The system may also include at least one sensor configured to sense a physical characteristic).
Claim 48: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 42 above. Javaheri further teaches, wherein the production information includes data that is generated based on at least one of the following: a date the fish was harvested, a date that the fish was processed to generate the fish product, a packaging method used for the fish or the fish product, a transportation method used for the fish or the fish product, and whether the fish or the fish product is fresh or frozen (See [0123]: include one or more of a fish type, fishing location, fisherman identification, boat information).
Claims 51 and 58: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 42 and 54 above. Javaheri further teaches, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: receive, via the display device, a confirmation of the production information related to the fish or the fish product received from the blockchain database server (see [0042]: The product related information 302 may include processing business rules for consensus management and certification and the like. In this aspect, business rules may also include algorithms to determine acceptance criteria for product receipt and delivery) .
Claims 52 and 59: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 42 and 54 above. Javaheri further teaches, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: receive, via the display device, an acceptance or rejection of the fish or the fish product based on the production information (see [0042]: The product related information 302 may include processing business rules for consensus management and certification and the like. In this aspect, business rules may also include algorithms to determine acceptance criteria for product receipt and delivery).
Claims 53 and 60: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claims 52 and 59 above. Javaheri further teaches, wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to: after the acceptance of the fish or the fish product, transfer funds according to the information in the blockchain database server associated with a batch of fish to which the fish belongs (see [0042]: The product related information 302 may include processing business rules for consensus management and certification and the like. In this aspect, business rules may also include algorithms to determine acceptance criteria for product receipt and delivery. Additionally, the product related information 302 may include business rules triggering payment and invoicing confirmations and the like.).
Claim 61: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 54 above. Javaheri further teaches, wherein the display device includes at least one of: an interface for receiving information from a producer, an interface for receiving information from a funder, an interface for receiving payments from the funder, an interface for receiving information associated with a batch funding, an interface for receiving information from a production system of the fish or the fish product, an interface for receiving information from a post-production system, an interface for receiving information from a transportation system, an interface for receiving information from a direct to consumer system, an interface for receiving information or requests from a wholesaler or retailer, an interface for communication with the scanning device, and an interface for receiving information from a financial institution handling a batch payments (See [0071] The touchscreen of the disclosure may be implemented in the display 318 and may detect a presence and location of a touch of a user within the display area. For example, touching the display 318 of the tracking device 300 with a finger or hand. The touchscreen may also sense other passive objects, such as a stylus. In one aspect, a user can enter the product related information 302 into the display).
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javaheri and Kasin as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Kanetani (JP 2002132856 A).
Claim 49: The combination of Javaheri and Kasin discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 42 above. Javaheri and Kasin do not expressly disclose the following limitations but Kanetani teaches receive, from the blockchain database server, funding information related to the fish where the flesh of the fish or the fish product come from; and display, on the display device, the funding information (see page 10: Shows how many investors have invested in this agricultural product so far. Since these numbers are obtained by re-accessing the database every time the browser refresh button is clicked, they can change every moment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Javaheri and Kasin with the system of receiving, from the blockchain database server, funding information related to the fish where the flesh of the fish or the fish product come from; and display, on the display device, the funding information as taught by Kanetani because it would “provide a web that allows investors to invest in their producers with an understanding of the technology, philosophy, and philosophy of each producer, and grow their investment value on the web” (Kanetani, [0008]).
Claim 50: The combination of Javaheri, Kasin and Kanetani discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 49 above. Kanetani further teaches, wherein the funding information includes at least one of the following: information regarding an amount of funding to cover an expense for the raising of a batch of fish in which the fish belongs, information regarding one or more sources of funding used to raise the batch of fish, and payment instructions for a funder (see [0020]: A method for mediating investment in a catch according to the present invention is a method for mediating investment in a fishing activity via a computer network, and introduces a catch producer and characteristics of the production activity on the computer network. Together with a fishing activity investment promotion step for indicating that an investor is to be recruited, a point giving step for giving the investor points according to the amount of the investment, and the points given in the point giving step. [0041]: This web server has a storage medium of the required size (or is accessible), and stores information on agricultural producers, information on applicants for distribution (investors). Page 10: Shows how many investors have invested in this agricultural product so far. Since these numbers are obtained by re-accessing the database every time the browser refresh button is clicked, they can change every moment).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43 and 44 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 43 recites, wherein the biomarker is included in a fish food configured to be fed to the fish and consumed by the fish. Claim 44 recites, wherein the biomarker can be customized for a need of a customer.
The cited closest prior art: Javaheri (US 2020/0184416 A1) discloses: [0006]: database that stores product information, where the identification of the product is based in part on a machine readable code located with the product, the machine readable code including the identification of the product and the machine readable code being implemented with at least one of the following: a radio frequency identification (RFID) device, a barcode, a QR (quick response) code, and a data matrix (DM) code. [0123]: Accordingly, a detailed history of the location of the product 1, the sensed physical characteristics of the product 1, and the like related to fishing may be obtained by the tracking device 300 and provided to the data collection system 500. In one aspect, when the facility 200 is a fish farm, the product related information 302 captured by the tracking device 300 (either manually or automatically) may include fish type, water source, feed source, farm location, as well as the other product related information 302 consistent with the disclosure (i.e., temperature), and the like. [0059]: fish 206 may be identified after having been tagged using, for example, morphological marks, micro tags, passive integrated transponder tags, wire tags, radio tags, RFID tags, and the like).
Kasin et al (US 20170103257 A1) discloses [0081]: The computer 104 is also connected to the database 112, which stores data for biometrical identification of animals. [0094]: By using minutiae based skin markings together with unique mouth shape, eye location, fin shape and gill location, the present invention is able to seek out a unique individual fish and give it an unique identity and next identify it among other fishes. [0097]: collect biometric data from swimming fish. [0086] The biometric characteristic data comparing engine 110 compares the biometric characteristic data of the individual to characteristic data of predetermined registered individuals.
However, the closest prior art either singularly or in combination, fail anticipate or render obvious to following claimed features, wherein the biomarker is included in a fish food configured to be fed to the fish and consumed by the fish and wherein the biomarker can be customized for a need of a customer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Parreño-Marchante, A., Alvarez-Melcon, A., Trebar, M., & Filippin, P. (2014). Advanced traceability system in aquaculture supply chain. Journal of food engineering, 122, 99-109 describes, The new traceability system is based on the EPC global Architecture Framework allowing to exploit data derived from the use of Electronic Product Codes (EPC) and RFID technologies within business processes (EPC global, 2013). To achieve this, RFID and WSN technologies are in use in all stages, starting from fish farms up to the delivery to the retail. The novel architecture is divided into four main components as shown in Fig. 1. The first component comprises of RFID Readers, Sensors and Data Input devices to implement traceability operations in the supply chain. In general, this includes fixed or hand held RFID readers, antennas, tags and barcode readers. To control environmental conditions, sensors include different WSN components and RFID data loggers collecting relevant parameters such as temperature in the processing environment, during transport or warehousing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights