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
This office action is in response to communication filed 1/27/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1-9,12, and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigby et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230316032 in view of August US Patent 7,623,035 and further in view of Kirshenbaum et al. US Patent 7212955.
Regarding claim 1, Rigby et al. teaches a support for monitoring the state of a plurality of fruits, in particular tropical fruits, comprising cavity (package provides cavity for holding the fruits, fig. 1A) for containing respective fruits (paragraph 0108), each containing cavity has a bottom and a side wall (the package containing the fruits inherently include a bottom and side wall, paragraph 0107-0108); a plurality of RFID tags associated to each fruit, said RFID tags being attached directly attached on the fruit (fig. 1A), and a housing seat containing a respective interrogation antenna, each interrogation antenna being, in use, operatively associated to said plurality of RFID tags (paragraph 0108-0110). The examiner consider the freshness of the fruit as equivalent to detecting the ripeness of fruit but Rigby is not explicit in teaching monitoring the ripeness of a fruit and the package comprises a plurality of cavities with each cavity associated with a RFID tag. August et al. in an analogous art teaches package comprises a plurality of cavities with each cavity associated with a RFID tag (col. 5 lines 41-49). Kirshenbaum et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of RFID tag to monitor the ripening state of a fruit (col. 7 lines 45-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby as disclosed by August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. because the system of Rigby discloses a system for detecting the freshness of a perishable item such as a fruit and the ripeness is an indication of the freshness of the fruit and the plurality of cavities represents an alternate packaging for the fruits.
Regarding claim 3, Rigby teaches each containing cavity has a bottom and a side wall ending in an upper edge or opening with perimeter extension and a plurality of RFID tags associated to the cavity for containing a fruit (package for containing the fruit (fig 1A, paragraph 0108).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigby et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230316032 in view of August US Patent 7,623,035 in view of Kirshenbaum et al. US Patent 7212955 and further in view of Beasley US Patent Application Publication 20200293984.
Regarding claim 2, Rigby teaches a first RFID tag arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a basal area of said fruit (paragraph 0108) but is not explicit in teaching a second RFID tag arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a side area of said fruit. Beasley in an analogous art teaches a first RFID tag (62) in contact with or close to a basal area of said fruit (paragraph fig. 3,033) and a second RFID tag (72) arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a side area of said fruit (fig. 3, paragraph 035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby in view of August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. as disclosed by Beasley because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum in view of August in order to provide various sensors for detecting the state of the fruit.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigby et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230316032 in view of August US Patent 7,623,035 in view of Kirshenbaum et al. US Patent 7212955 and further in view of Elizondo, II US Patent Application Publication 20170286903.
Regarding claim 4, Rigby teaches cavities for containing respective fruits, and the base comprising at least one a housing seat and a respective interrogation antenna housed in said seat, each housing seat with the respective interrogation antenna being arranged close to a respective group of cavities for containing fruits and each interrogation antenna being, in use, operatively associated to the RFID tags associated to the containing cavities of the respective group (package provides cavities for holding the fruits, fig. 1A, paragraph 0108-0110). Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum et al is silent on teaching a base and a tray removably associated or coupled with each other, the tray comprising said cavities for containing respective fruits. Elizondo, II in an analogous art teaches a base and a tray removably associated or coupled with each other, the tray comprising said cavities for containing respective objects (paragraph 087-093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum et al. in view of August as disclosed by Elizondo, II because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Rigby in view of August in view of Kirshenbaum et al by providing the means for the convenient transportation means for the stored and monitored items and providing a record of the storage and removal of the items.
Claim(s) 5,7,10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigby et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230316032 in view of August US Patent 7,623,035 in view of Kirshenbaum et al. US Patent 7212955 and further in view of Gold US Patent Application Publication 20100156606.
Regarding claim 5, Rigby teaches a system of a plurality of fruits, comprising
a Support comprising:
a package for containing a plurality of fruits (package provides cavity for holding the fruits, fig. 1A), each containing cavity has a bottom and a side wall (the package containing the fruits inherently include a bottom and side wall, paragraph 0107-0108);
a plurality of RFID tags associated to each package for containing a fruit, said RFID tags being attached directly attached on the fruit (fig. 1A), and at least one a housing seat containing a respective interrogation antenna (30), each interrogation antenna being, in use, operatively associated to said plurality of RFID tags (paragraph 0108-0110), wherein the RFID tags associated to each package for containing a fruit operate in the UHF band, the system further comprising:
an interrogation device for interrogating said plurality of RFID tags, comprising a reader, which is in electrical communication with said at least one interrogation antenna (paragraph 0108-0110), and means for processing electromagnetic signals or data relative to or related to the degree of freshness of said fruits coming from the reading of said RFID tags by said interrogation device (IC 40 processes sensor data, paragraph 0109). The examiner consider the freshness of the fruit as equivalent to detecting the ripeness of fruit but Rigby is not explicit in teaching and the package comprises a plurality of cavities with each cavity associated with a RFID tag and monitoring the ripeness of a fruit. August et al. in an analogous art teaches package comprises a plurality of cavities with each cavity associated with a RFID tag (col. 5 lines 41-49). Kirshenbaum et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of RFID tag to monitor the ripening state of a fruit (col. 7 lines 45-67). Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum is silent on teaching the RFID tag operate in the UHF range. Gold in an analogous art teaches selecting the operating frequency of the RFID based on the operating environment of the RFID tag and teaches operating the RFID tag in the UHF frequency range based on the required read range (paragraph 03).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby as disclosed by Auguste in view of Kirshenbaum et al. in view of Gold because the system of Rigby discloses a system for detecting the freshness of a perishable item such as a fruit and the ripeness is an indication of the freshness of the fruit and operating the RFID tag in the UHF range is based on the operating environment of the RFID tag.
Regarding claim 7, Rigby teaches said side wall ends in an upper edge or opening with perimeter extension and, each containing cavity has a tongue extending from said upper edge or opening toward the inside of said containing cavity (the container as shown in fig. 1A and Fig 1B reads on the claimed limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Rigby teaches local or remote display means which are in communication with the processing means for displaying information about the degree or state of freshness of fruits related to the data processed by the processing means (paragraph 015,211-212). The examiner consider the freshness of the fruit as equivalent to detecting the ripeness of fruit but Rigby is not explicit in teaching monitoring the ripeness of a fruit. Kirshenbaum et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of RFID tag to monitor the ripening state of a fruit (col. 7 lines 45-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby as disclosed by Kirshenbaum et al. in view of Gold because the system of Rigby discloses a system for detecting the freshness of a perishable item such as a fruit and the ripeness is an indication of the freshness of the fruit and operating the RFID tag in the UHF range is based on the operating environment of the RFID tag.
Regarding claim 11, Rigby teaches processing means are integrated in said reader (IC 40 processes sensor data, paragraph 0109). .
Regarding claim 12, Rigby teaches a method for monitoring the degree of freshness of a plurality of fruits comprising the steps of:
arranging a plurality of fruits in package with a plurality of RFID tags and associated to each fruit (package provides cavities for holding the fruits, fig. 1A)
, wherein said RFID tags are attached directly to the fruit (fig.1A, paragraph 0108),
generating at least one an electromagnetic signal by means of the reader of said interrogation device, each electromagnetic signal generated by said reader being irradiated/directed by an interrogation antenna so that it involves the RFID tags of at least one a cavity for containing a fruit which is/are operatively associated to said interrogation antenna (paragraph 0108-0110),
recording, by means of said interrogation device, a plurality of signals transmitted by the RFID tags associated to the respective cavities for containing the fruits, each signal being related to the frequency and/or phase and/or power transmitted by the RFID tags associated to a respective cavity for containing a fruit (paragraph 0108-110),
processing data relative to or related to the frequency and/or phase and/or power of the transmitted signals and/or processing data relative to or related to the variation of frequency and/or phase and/or power between the signals transmitted by the RFID tags and a preset value of frequency and/or phase and/or power (IC 40 processes sensor data, paragraph 0109),
displaying a piece of information about the degree or state of freshness of said fruits related to the processed data (paragraph 015,211-212). The examiner consider the freshness of the fruit as equivalent to detecting the ripeness of fruit but Rigby is not explicit in teaching the package comprises a plurality of cavities with each cavity associated with a RFID tag and monitoring the ripeness of a fruit. August et al. in an analogous art teaches package comprises a plurality of cavities with each cavity associated with a RFID tag (col. 5 lines 41-49). Kirshenbaum et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of RFID tag to monitor the ripening state of a fruit (col. 7 lines 45-67). Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum is silent on teaching the RFID tag operate in the UHF range. Gold in an analogous art teaches selecting the operating frequency of the RFID based on the operating environment of the RFID tag and teaches operating the RFID tag in the UHF frequency range based on the required read range (paragraph 03).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby as disclosed by August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. in view of Gold because the system of Rigby discloses a system for detecting the freshness of a perishable item such as a fruit and the ripeness is an indication of the freshness of the fruit and operating the RFID tag in the UHF range is based on the operating environment of the RFID tag.
Regarding claim 13, Rigby teaches comparing the processed data relative to or related to the frequency and/or phase and/or power of the signals transmitted by said RFID tags with reference signal data relative to or related to an initial said fruits (paragraph 0109,0137,0204), and
classifying said fruits according to their state on the basis of the variation between said processed data and said reference data (paragraph 0109,0137,0204),
displaying a piece of information about the classification of said fruits (paragraph 015,211-212). The examiner consider the freshness of the fruit as equivalent to detecting the ripeness of fruit but Rigby is not explicit in teaching monitoring the ripeness of a fruit. Kirshenbaum et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of RFID tag to monitor the ripening state of a fruit (col. 7 lines 45-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby as disclosed by Kirshenbaum et al. because the system of Rigby discloses a system for detecting the freshness of a perishable item such as a fruit and the ripeness is an indication of the freshness of the fruit.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigby et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230316032 in view of August US Patent 7,623,035 in view of Kirshenbaum et al. US Patent 7212955 in view of Gold US Patent Application Publication 20100156606 and further in view of Beasley US Patent Application Publication 20200293984.
.
Regarding claim 6, Rigby teaches a first RFID tag arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a basal area of said fruit (paragraph 0108) but is not explicit in teaching a second RFID tag arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a side area of said fruit. Beasley in an analogous art teaches a first RFID tag (62) in contact with or close to a basal area of said fruit (paragraph fig. 3,033) and a second RFID tag (72) arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a side area of said fruit (fig. 3, paragraph 035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby in view of August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. in view of Gold because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum in order to provide various sensors for detecting the state of the fruit.
Regarding claim 8, Rigby teaches a first RFID tag arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a basal area of said fruit (paragraph 0108) but is not explicit in teaching a second RFID tag arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a side area of said fruit. Beasley in an analogous art teaches a first RFID tag (62) in contact with or close to a basal area of said fruit (paragraph fig. 3,033) and a second RFID tag (72) arranged, in use, in contact with or close to a side area of said fruit (fig. 3, paragraph 035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby in view of August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. in view of Gold because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum in view of Gold in order to provide various sensors for detecting the state of the fruit.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigby et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230316032 in view of August US Patent 7,623,035 in view of Kirshenbaum et al. US Patent 7212955 view of Gold US Patent Application Publication 20100156606 and further in view of Elizondo, II US Patent Application Publication 20170286903.
Regarding claim 9, Rigby teaches cavities for containing respective fruits, and the base comprising at least one housing seat and a respective interrogation antenna housed in said seat, each housing seat with the respective interrogation antenna being arranged under respective group of cavities for containing fruits and each interrogation antenna being, in use, operatively associated to the RFID tags associated to the containing cavities of the respective group (package provides cavities for holding the fruits, fig. 1A, paragraph 0108-0110). Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum et al is silent on teaching a base and a tray removably associated or coupled with each other, the tray comprising said cavities for containing respective fruits. Elizondo, II in an analogous art teaches a base and a tray removably associated or coupled with each other, the tray comprising said cavities for containing respective objects (paragraph 087-093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby in view of August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. in view of Gold as disclosed by Elizondo, II because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum et al in view of Gold by providing the means for the convenient transportation means for the stored and monitored items and providing a record of the storage and removal of the items.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigby et al. US Patent Application Publication 20230316032 in view of August US Patent 7,623,035 in view of Kirshenbaum et al. US Patent 7212955 and further in view of Durkee et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200065748.
Regarding claims 14-15, Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum et al is silent on teaching a stillage comprising a frame with vertical supporting elements, a plurality of shelves arranged between said supporting elements at predetermined heights between each other and connected to said supporting elements. Durkee et al. in an analogous art teaches a stillage comprising a frame with vertical supporting elements, a plurality of shelves arranged between said supporting elements at predetermined heights between each other and connected to said supporting elements (fig. 5, paragraph 022-023,037,090). Durkee also teaches a plurality of small wheels fixed at the lower end of said vertical supporting elements and at least one a handle element, fixed at the upper ends of opposite supporting elements (fig. 5, fig. 6,fig.8, paragraph 044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby in view of August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Rigby in view of Kirshenbaum et al by providing the means for the convenient transportation means for the stored and monitored items and providing a record of the storage and removal of the items.
Regarding claim 16, Rigby teaches a reader of the RFID tags associated to the containing cavities of the supports (paragraph 0108), means for processing electromagnetic signals or data relative to or related to the degree of freshness of fruits coming from the reading of said RFID tags (paragraph 0109), said processing means and local or remote display means in communication with the processing means for displaying information about the degree or state of fruits related to the data processed by the processing means (paragraph 015,0211-0212). The examiner consider the freshness of the fruit as equivalent to detecting the ripeness of fruit but Rigby is not explicit in teaching monitoring the ripeness of a fruit. Kirshenbaum et al. in an analogous art teaches the use of RFID tag to monitor the ripening state of a fruit (col. 7 lines 45-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Rigby as disclosed by August in view of Kirshenbaum et al. because the system of Rigby discloses a system for detecting the freshness of a perishable item such as a fruit and the ripeness is an indication of the freshness of the fruit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights