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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 19/140,976 filed 6/18/2025. Claims 1-11 were withdrawn from further consideration in light of the restriction and associated election made by attorney Andrew Pettit over the phone on 6/11/2026. Claims 12-16 are pending. This action is non-final.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a device.
Group II claims 12-16, drawn to a method of recording conditions.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical features of:
A device
these technical features are not special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Banter (U.S. Pat. No. 11,408,820).
See Banter [Col. 10, line 66 – Col. 11, line 6]; (Fig. 6A) which teaches a device.
Reference is cited in the International search report filed on 6/18/2025.
Therefore, the shared technical feature lacks novelty or inventive step because it is disclosed by the reference of Banter as cited above.
During a telephone conversation with Andrew Pettit on 6/11/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention II, claims 12-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 12 recites A method for tracking produce through the harvesting, packing, processing, or transporting processes, the method comprising: intermixing one or more indexing devices with the produce in a predetermined manner, such that each indexing device is associated with a different subset of the produce; and causing each indexing device to be documented over an interval of time, so as to create an auditable log of conditions experienced by the different subsets of the produce. Therefore, claim 12 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations A method for tracking produce through the harvesting, packing, processing, or transporting processes, the method comprising: intermixing ... with the produce in a predetermined manner, such that ... associated with a different subset of the produce; and causing ... to be documented over an interval of time, so as to create an auditable log of conditions experienced by the different subsets of the produce, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Mental Processes”. That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Mental Processes”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional element one or more indexing devices is recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional element of claim 12 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional element of claim 12, one or more indexing devices (described in spec. para. [0034]), is recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13-16 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 13-16 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claim 14 recites the additional element a transceiver, claims 14-16 recite the additional element a sensor, and claims 15-16 recite a memory, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claim 14 recites the additional element a transceiver (described in spec. para. [0037]), claims 14-16 recite the additional element a sensor (described in spec. para. [0034]), and claims 15-16 recite a memory (described in spec. para. [0036]), they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
(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.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawler (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0318302).
Regarding claim 12, Lawler discloses the following limitations:
A method for tracking produce through the harvesting, packing, processing, or transporting processes, the method comprising: intermixing one or more indexing devices with the produce in a predetermined manner, such that each indexing device is associated with a different subset of the produce; [See [0003] Lawler teaches tracking a product from ‘farm to fork.’ Lawler [0028-0030] specifically describes tracking the environment of a product from: starting at planting a seed in a field; harvesting the product that the seed grows into; storing the product; and delivering the product to a customer (i.e., A method for tracking produce through the harvesting, packing, processing, or transporting processes). Lawler [0028-0030] further teaches tracking the environment of a product along this supply chain via sensors such as: a field sensor which monitors the field in which the seed is planted; a storage sensor which monitors the storage environment; and delivery sensors which monitors the environment during delivery (i.e., intermixing one or more indexing devices with the produce in a predetermined manner, such that each indexing device is associated with a different subset of the produce).]
causing each indexing device to be documented over an interval of time, so as to create an auditable log of conditions experienced by the different subsets of the produce. [See [0003] Lawler teaches tracking a product from ‘farm to fork.’ Lawler [0028-0030] specifically describes tracking the environment of a product from: starting at planting a seed in a field; harvesting the product that the seed grows into; storing the product; and delivering the product to a customer (i.e., A method for tracking produce through the harvesting, packing, processing, or transporting processes). Lawler [0028-0030] further teaches tracking the environment of a product along this supply chain via sensors such as: a field sensor which monitors the field in which the seed is planted; a storage sensor which monitors the storage environment; and delivery sensors which monitors the environment during delivery (i.e., intermixing one or more indexing devices with the produce in a predetermined manner, such that each indexing device is associated with a different subset of the produce). Lawler [0059-0060] further teaches storing and organizing historical environmental data in a freshness calculation table 536 for all products that are monitored in supply chains (i.e., causing each indexing device to be documented over an interval of time, so as to create an auditable log of conditions experienced by the different subsets of the produce).]
Regarding claim 13, Lawler discloses all claim 12 limitations. Lawler further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the different subsets correspond to different farms, different fields, or different portions of fields. [See [0003]; [0028]; [0037] Lawler teaches that field sensors may be used to detect the conditions of different fields (i.e., different fields) or different rows within a field (i.e., different portions of fields) and that the different fields may be in different farms (i.e., different farms).]
Regarding claim 14, Lawler discloses all claim 12 limitations. Lawler further discloses the following limitations:
wherein each indexing device includes a transceiver that is able to engage in wireless communication [See [0003] Lawler teaches tracking a product from ‘farm to fork.’ Lawler [0028-0030] specifically describes tracking the environment of a product from: starting at planting a seed in a field; harvesting the product that the seed grows into; storing the product; and delivering the product to a customer. Lawler [0028-0030] further teaches tracking the environment of a product along this supply chain via sensors such as: a field sensor which monitors the field in which the seed is planted; a storage sensor which monitors the storage environment; and delivery sensors which monitors the environment during delivery. Lawler [0019] further teaches that readers (i.e., each indexing device) may be sensors as well. Lawler [0044] further teaches that readers act in a “store and forward” fashion, meaning that each reader listens or polls for sensors, collects and records associated information, and then transmits the information to the data storage system. Lawler [0070]; (Fig. 6, element 604) further teaches that a reader may receive a read request in order to initiate the collection of sensor data for transmission to the data storage system (i.e., wherein each indexing device includes a transceiver that is able to engage in ... communication). Lawler [0079] further teaches that communication interfaces may be wireless interfaces (i.e., wireless communication).]
wherein each indexing device is documented via presentation to a sensor that is able to detect and recognize a signal output by the transceiver. [See [0034]; (Fig. 3, element 300); Lawler teaches that sensors may collect environment data and that the data is then backscattered to a reader via RFID technology (i.e., wherein each indexing device is documented via presentation to a sensor that is able to detect and recognize a signal output by the transceiver) and that the reader then uploads the environment data to a cloud network. (Examiner’s Note: the term “backscattered” used in this context refers to RFID technology. The disclosed sensor contains an RFID device which may be energized by a wireless signal from the reader and in turn transmit information (i.e., backscatter information) back to the reader.)]
Regarding claim 15, Lawler discloses all claim 12 limitations. Lawler further discloses the following limitations:
wherein each indexing device includes at least one sensor that generates values for a property of that indexing device or an ambient environment a memory in which the values are stored and wherein the values are retrieved whenever that indexing device is documented. [See [0003] Lawler teaches tracking a product from ‘farm to fork.’ Lawler [0028-0030] specifically describes tracking the environment of a product from: starting at planting a seed in a field; harvesting the product that the seed grows into; storing the product; and delivering the product to a customer. Lawler [0028-0030] further teaches tracking the environment of a product along this supply chain via sensors such as: a field sensor which monitors the field in which the seed is planted; a storage sensor which monitors the storage environment; and delivery sensors which monitors the environment during delivery and Lawler [0019] further teaches that readers (i.e., each indexing device) may be sensors as well (i.e., wherein each indexing device includes at least one sensor that generates values for a property of that indexing device or an ambient environment ... and wherein the values are retrieved whenever that indexing device is documented). Lawler [0044] further teaches that readers act in a “store and forward” fashion, meaning that each reader listens or polls for sensors, collects and records associated information (i.e., wherein each indexing device includes ... a memory in which the values are stored), and then transmits the information to the data storage system.]
Regarding claim 16, Lawler discloses all claim 12 limitations. Lawler further discloses the following limitations:
wherein each indexing device includes at least one sensor that generates values for a property of that indexing device or an ambient environment and a memory in which the values are stored, and wherein the values are retrieved when that indexing device is removed from the corresponding subset of the produce. [See [0003] Lawler teaches tracking a product from ‘farm to fork.’ Lawler [0028-0030] specifically describes tracking the environment of a product from: starting at planting a seed in a field; harvesting the product that the seed grows into; storing the product; and delivering the product to a customer. Lawler [0028-0030] further teaches tracking the environment of a product along this supply chain via sensors such as: a field sensor which monitors the field in which the seed is planted; a storage sensor which monitors the storage environment; and delivery sensors which monitors the environment during delivery and Lawler [0019] further teaches that readers (i.e., each indexing device) may be sensors as well (i.e., wherein each indexing device includes at least one sensor that generates values for a property of that indexing device or an ambient environment). Lawler [0044] further teaches that readers act in a “store and forward” fashion, meaning that each reader listens or polls for sensors, collects and records associated information (i.e., wherein each indexing device includes ... a memory in which the values are stored), and then transmits the information to the data storage system. Lawler [0044-0045]; [0049] further teaches that readers may transmit the collected and recorded produce information upon arrival at a destination where the produce is delivered and separated from the reader (i.e., wherein the values are retrieved when that indexing device is removed from the corresponding subset of the produce).]
Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the invention but was not used in prior art rejections:
Nattar Ranganathan (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0245039) – Tracking system for food commodity supply chain
Biffert (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0200519) – Livestock management system
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights