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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I: claims 1-2, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 01/05/26 is acknowledged and entered by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-2 are thus pending for prosecution, of which, non-elected claims 3-5 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1-2 are examined on their merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, "A frame (1) with a plurality of sensors (3) for sampling the contents of a honeycomb, based on a method of absorption spectroscopy, wherein a honeycomb base (2) inside which there are the plurality of sensors (3) connected by a wire bus (4) with a central microprocessor unit with memory (5) which is connected to a power supply unit (6) and a communication subsystem (7)" in lines 1-6, should be changed to – A frame (1) with a plurality of sensors (3) for sampling a the plurality of sensors (3) connected by a wire bus (4) with a central microprocessor a memory (5) which is connected to a power supply
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 of this title, 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PETAR (RS 1705 U1) (herein after PETAR)[cited in the IDS filed by the applicant] in view of Rivera et al. (US 20170167977 A1) (herein after Rivera).
As to claim(s) 1, PETAR discloses a frame with a plurality of sensors [Figure 1. Frames 8 with sensors 11…page 3] for sampling the contents of a honeycomb [10@page 3], based on a method,
wherein a honeycomb base inside which there are the plurality of sensors [11] connected by a wire bus [there are sensors 11 for sampling the content of the honeycomb 10 on the frames. Through the channel 9, a parallel bundle of wires is led from the sensor 11…page 3] with a central microprocessor unit [19] with memory which is connected to a power supply unit [20] and a communication subsystem [a controller 19, which contains a central microprocessor unit, memory, and a radio communication subsystem that enables two-way networking with the global computer network 5…page 3]
Note: Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
PETAR discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “method of absorption spectroscopy”.
However, Rivera from the same field of endeavor discloses a method of absorption spectroscopy [¶0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of PETAR such that the method of absorption spectroscopy, as taught by Rivera, for the advantages such as: to detect absorption of the at least one spectral component by the sample [¶0008].
As of claim 2, PETAR discloses the frame wherein the frame and the honeycomb base are of the same dimensions [The construction 16 of the connectors 2 and the frames 8 is integrated into the hive system so that the standard dimensions and functions of the individual parts of the hive are preserved…page 3] as the frame and the honeycomb base of beehive system for rational beekeeping [The beekeeper can set the sampling period of the honeycomb content 10 within the brood extension of the hive 1, as well as the set of frames 8 from which the reading will be performed…page 3].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877