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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claim 2 and 12-20 in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 1 and 3-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/14/2026.
Application Status
Claim 2 and 12-20 are under examination.
Claim 1 and 3-11 are withdrawn from examination.
Claim 2 and 12-20 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “claim2” should be a space between claim and 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of “system” in claim 20, is interpret as an apparatus in other words, the detector as recited in claim 2 and based on the method claim 2.
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 12 and 13 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.
The term “non-afterripened” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “non-afterripened” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “afterripening condition” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “afterripening condition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayward et al. (US 2021/033185 A1).
Regarding claim 2, 12 and 13, Hayward et al. (Hayward) discloses a method comprising (‘185, Abstract) collecting (‘185, [0007]) volatiles outgassed by food items including avocado (an epicarp of fruit) (‘185, [0158]; [0160], Fig. 3; Fig. 14) by collection device (Fig. 1A, 106B-N); analyzing (acquiring) and identifying by gas chromatograph machine (detector) (‘185, [0007]-[0008]) of the volatiles for volatile classifications (detection results) using different input data using a trained machine leaning data on quality characteristics including ripeness stage of the avocado (‘185, [0009], [0164]-[0166], [0171]). Hayward discloses the volatiles outgassed by the avocado includes limonene (‘185, [0166], Table 1). The ripeness stage of the avocado is expected to include non-afterrippened and after-ripening conditions (‘185, [0083], [0110], [0111]).
Regarding claim 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20, Hayward discloses a method comprising a system include a computing system for receiving a n output data generated by the gas chromatograph machine (detector) and determine, based on applying the machine learning model to the output data, a quality characteristic including ripeness stage of the avocado (‘185, [0010], [0016], [0082], [0093], [0116]). With respect to claim 14, Hayward discloses the identifying by the gas chromatograph machine (detector) (‘185, [0007]-[0008]) of the volatiles, more than the volatile (‘185, [0116], [0166], Table 1, claim 9).
Regarding claim 18, Hayward discloses the method comprising the computing system for generating an analysis of volatile marker profile indicates the one or more volatile compounds whose presence and concentrations are identified in some but not all of the n groups; and generating, by the computing system, a volatile ripening marker timeline, wherein each ripening stage represented in the volatile ripening marker timeline is correlated with the one or more volatile compounds in the volatile marker profile, meets the limitation of an arithmetic process (‘185, claim 16-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (Ref. U) identifies volatile organic compounds produced from avocado during ripening by gas chromatography with respect to a maturity of outer skin of avocado (pg. 667-668, Table 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at (571)270-3475. 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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights