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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/06/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, insert --the-- before “irradiating”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugano (20130337121).
As to Claim 1, Sugano (‘121) discloses a storage method comprising:
supplying ethylene gas (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0047]) into a storage, a storage vessel, or a storage bag (see Figure 1 and 5-28); and
irradiating a photocatalyst (3) in the storage, the storage vessel, or the storage bag (1) storing at least one of a vegetable or a fruit (2) with light (4), thereby decomposing the ethylene gas (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-28, p. 1 [0002], p. 2 [0042] and [0047]-[0048], p. 7 [0098]).
As to Claim 4, Sugano (‘121) discloses that the photocatalyst (3) includes tungsten oxide (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [00051] – line 2).
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota (JP2001330365).
As to Claim 1, Ota (‘365) discloses a storage method comprising:
supplying ethylene gas into a storage or a storage vessel (3) (see entire English translation, particularly Figures 1(a) and 2(a), p. 7 lines 8-9, p. 9 lines 2-8); and
irradiating a photocatalyst (15) in the storage or the storage vessel (3) storing at least one of a vegetable, a fruit, a flower, or an ornamental plant with light (17), thereby decomposing the ethylene gas (see entire English translation, particularly Figures 2(a)-(b), p. 7 lines 14-25, p. 8 line 20, p. 9 lines 2-3 and 21-34).
As to Claim 2, Ota (‘365) discloses that a concentration of the ethylene gas in the storage, the storage vessel, or the storage bag into which the ethylene gas is supplied is from 5 ppm to 160 ppm (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 lines 28-29).
As to Claim 3, Ota (‘365) discloses that the irradiating the photocatalyst with light comprises irradiating the photocatalyst with light at least until the concentration of the ethylene gas in the storage, the storage vessel, or the storage bag becomes 2 ppm or less (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 - lines 19-31).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano (20130337121) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ota (JP2001330365).
Sugano (‘121) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Sugano (‘121) does not appear to specifically teach that a concentration of the ethylene gas in the storage, the storage vessel, or the storage bag into which the ethylene gas is supplied is from 5 ppm to 160 ppm, or that the irradiating the photocatalyst with light comprises irradiating the photocatalyst with light at least until the concentration of the ethylene gas in the storage, the storage vessel, or the storage bag becomes 2 ppm or less.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a concentration of ethylene gas in a storage, a storage vessel, or a storage bag into which the ethylene gas is supplied is from 5 ppm to 160 ppm where a photocatalyst is irradiated with light at least until the concentration becomes 2 ppm or less. Ota (‘365) discloses a storage method comprising:
supplying ethylene gas into a storage or a storage vessel (3) (see entire English translation, particularly Figures 1(a) and 2(a), p. 7 lines 8-9, p. 9 lines 2-8); and
irradiating a photocatalyst (15) in the storage or the storage vessel (3) storing at least one of a vegetable, a fruit, a flower, or an ornamental plant with light (17), thereby decomposing the ethylene gas (see entire English translation, particularly Figures 2(a)-(b), p. 7 lines 14-25, p. 8 line 20, p. 9 lines 2-3 and 21-34),
wherein a concentration of the ethylene gas in the storage, the storage vessel, or the storage bag into which the ethylene gas is supplied is from 5 ppm to 160 ppm (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 lines 28-29), and
wherein the irradiating the photocatalyst with light comprises irradiating the photocatalyst with light at least until the concentration of the ethylene gas in the storage, the storage vessel, or the storage bag becomes 2 ppm or less (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 - lines 19-31),
in order to prevent yellowing of vegetables/produce by decreasing the concentration of ethylene gas so as to improve/maintain freshness of the stored product such as vegetables for days (see entire English translation, particularly p. 7 – lines 28-30, p. 9 lines 33-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Sugano when a concentration of ethylene gas is at 5 ppm or more such as 5 ppm to 160 ppm and to reduce the concentration to 2 ppm or less as a known concentration thresholds in order to activate/initiate photocatalytic reaction and decompose ethylene gas in a storage/storage vessel/storage bag so as to prevent yellowing of vegetables/produce//plants therein and maintain freshness of vegetables/produce/plants within the storage/storage vessel/storage bag for 10 days or more as shown by Ota.
Thus, Claims 2-3 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Sugano (‘121) and Ota (‘365).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: CN110915907 and WO2013162192 and EP2256485 and WO2010136563 and 8535426 and KR20020048057 and 20170273325 and 20140338373 and 20140342064 and 20130295247 and 20050217282 and JP2006061133 and CN115845548 and CN115739126 (fruit and vegetable and flower preservation device using photocatalyst and light), CN108479840 (a decomposition method of supplying ethylene gas and irradiating a photocatalyst with light in a vessel thereby decomposing the ethylene gas in a reaction chamber).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights