DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed June 18th, 2025. Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: independent claims 1 and 6 recite “the multiple risk mitigation elements” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “multiple risk mitigation elements”. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 2-5 are objected to due to their dependency of the independent claims.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the line 3 recites "the time" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "a time". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a storage that stores first information” in claim 1;
“a receiver that accepts input” in claim 1;
“a first acquisition unit that acquires” in claim 1;
“a second acquisition unit that acquires” in claim 1;
“the first acquisition unit refers to the first information and acquires the related elements” in claim 2;
“the storage stores, as third information” in claim 3;
“the second acquisition unit acquires the contents related to bacteria” in claim 3;
“the second acquisition unit acquires mitigation details” in claim 4;
“the second acquisition unit acquires a type of bacteria to be inspected and a predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product to be inspected” in claim 5;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
When looking to the specification, the hardware structure associated with the “receiver, storage, first acquisition unit, and second acquisition unit” is being interpreted as “controller (arithmetic processor),” please see at least Fig. 3 and [0037] of the instant specification. The corresponding algorithm of the “receiver, storage, first acquisition unit, and second acquisition unit” can be found in at least Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs [0046-48, 0054-62]. This is to be the structure and algorithm required for the claim, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (device), 6 (method), and 7 (non-transitory computer readable medium) and dependent claims 2-5, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a device (i.e. machine), claim 6 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 7 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite a food product risk evaluation method causing a computer including a storage that stores first information, which associates a food product with related elements related to the food product, and second information, which associates the related elements with a plurality of risk mitigation elements in accordance with the related elements, to perform: an accepting step of accepting input regarding the food product to be evaluated for risk and respective details of the multiple risk mitigation elements for the food product; a first acquiring step of acquiring the related elements to be evaluated for the food product on the basis of details of the food product accepted in the accepting step and the first information stored in the storage; and a second acquiring step of acquiring inspection items for evaluating food product risk on the basis of hazard elements as food product risk in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired in the first acquiring step, the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted in the accepting step, and the second information stored in the storage (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are performing a food product risk evaluation method evaluating and associating food products with risk mitigation elements, which is managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing a food product risk evaluation method, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are performing a food product risk evaluation method involving storing first information, which associates a food product with related elements related to the food product, and second information, which associates the related elements with a plurality of risk mitigation elements in accordance with the related elements; accepting input regarding the food product to be evaluated for risk and respective details of the multiple risk mitigation elements for the food product; acquiring the related elements to be evaluated for the food product on the basis of details of the food product accepted in the accepting step and the first information stored in the storage; and acquiring inspection items for evaluating food product risk on the basis of hazard elements as food product risk in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired in the first acquiring step, the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted in the accepting step, and the second information stored in the storage, which are observations, judgments, evaluations, and opinions of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are performing a food product risk evaluation method, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-5 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the first information; referring to first information and acquiring related elements to be evaluated; storing, as third information, hazard elements; acquiring the contents related to bacteria; the second information; acquiring mitigation details that mitigate the food product risk; and acquiring a type of bacteria to be inspected and a predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product to be inspected at the time of inspection as the inspection items. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions as well as mental process. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “stores first information, which associates a food product with related elements related to the food product, and second information, which associates the related elements with a plurality of risk mitigation elements in accordance with the related elements; acquiring the related elements to be evaluated for the food product on the basis of details of the food product accepted in the accepting step and the first information stored in the storage; acquiring inspection items for evaluating food product risk on the basis of hazard elements as food product risk in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired in the first acquiring step, the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted in the accepting step, and the second information stored in the storage” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A food product risk evaluation device; a storage; a receiver; a first acquisition unit; a second acquisition unit; a computer; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a food product risk evaluation program causing a computer to embody” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-5 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2-5 additionally recite “wherein the first information stored in the storage records, as the related elements, at least one element selected from a group including: ingredients of the food product, a manufacturing process of the food product, whether the food product is heated and cooked before consumption, and characteristics of the food product”; “acquires the related elements to be evaluated in accordance with the details of the food product accepted by the receiver”; “stores, as third information, hazard elements that associate the related elements with contents related to bacteria in accordance with the related elements”; “acquires the contents related to bacteria in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired by the first acquisition unit on the bases of the third information stored in the storage”; “wherein the second information stored in the storage records, as risk mitigation elements, risk mitigation details for bacteria as the food product risk”; “acquires mitigation details that mitigate the food product risk in accordance with the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted by the receiver by referring to the second information, reduces the contents related to bacteria in accordance with the acquired mitigation details, and acquires the inspection items for evaluating the food product risk”; “acquires a type of bacteria to be inspected and a predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product to be inspected at the time of inspection as the inspection time” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “storage”, “receiver”, “first acquisition unit”, and “second acquisition unit” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A food product risk evaluation device; a storage; a receiver; a first acquisition unit; a second acquisition unit; a computer; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a food product risk evaluation program causing a computer to embody” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claim 6; device claims 1-5; and non-transitory computer readable medium claim 7 recite “A food product risk evaluation device; a storage; a receiver; a first acquisition unit; a second acquisition unit; a computer; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing therein a food product risk evaluation program causing a computer to embody”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0080-81 and Figure 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “stores first information, which associates a food product with related elements related to the food product, and second information, which associates the related elements with a plurality of risk mitigation elements in accordance with the related elements; acquiring the related elements to be evaluated for the food product on the basis of details of the food product accepted in the accepting step and the first information stored in the storage; acquiring inspection items for evaluating food product risk on the basis of hazard elements as food product risk in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired in the first acquiring step, the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted in the accepting step, and the second information stored in the storage” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-5 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2-5 additionally recite “wherein the first information stored in the storage records, as the related elements, at least one element selected from a group including: ingredients of the food product, a manufacturing process of the food product, whether the food product is heated and cooked before consumption, and characteristics of the food product”; “acquires the related elements to be evaluated in accordance with the details of the food product accepted by the receiver”; “stores, as third information, hazard elements that associate the related elements with contents related to bacteria in accordance with the related elements”; “acquires the contents related to bacteria in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired by the first acquisition unit on the bases of the third information stored in the storage”; “wherein the second information stored in the storage records, as risk mitigation elements, risk mitigation details for bacteria as the food product risk”; “acquires mitigation details that mitigate the food product risk in accordance with the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted by the receiver by referring to the second information, reduces the contents related to bacteria in accordance with the acquired mitigation details, and acquires the inspection items for evaluating the food product risk”; “acquires a type of bacteria to be inspected and a predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product to be inspected at the time of inspection as the inspection time” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “storage”, “receiver”, “first acquisition unit”, and “second acquisition unit” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randhawa (U.S 2020/0219034 A1).
Claims 1, 6, and 7
Regarding Claim 1, Randhawa discloses the following:
A food product risk evaluation device comprising [see at least Paragraph 0020 for reference to a system and technique for tracking a food product throughout the supply chain of the food product; Paragraph 0042 for reference to computer system/server 12' in computing node 10' is shown in the form of a general purpose computing device; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 10 ‘computing node’ or 12 ‘computing server’]
a storage that stores first information, which associates a food product with related elements related to the food product, and second information, which associates the related elements with risk mitigation elements in accordance with the related elements [see at least Paragraph 0003 for reference to the method comprising obtaining, at a central database and for each step in a food supply chain, information corresponding to extraneous factors, wherein the extraneous factors comprise factors that may affect quality of a food product within the food supply chain; Paragraphs 0027-0030 for reference to a cognitive engine may collect different forms of data that may play a part in contamination of a food product, wherein the cognitive engine may collect extraneous factor information in real - time from multiple sources, for example, by utilizing Internet connections, cloud storage, and the like, wherein the data collected may include temporal data, textual data, discrete data, and the like]
a receiver that accepts input regarding the food product to be evaluated for risk and respective details of the multiple risk mitigation elements for the food product [see at least Paragraph 0024 for reference to use of a cognitive engine may allow temporal, textual, and discrete information to be input into a system by use of a cloud - based network; Paragraph 0026 for reference to a system may obtain information corresponding to possible extraneous factors on a food product, wherein extraneous factors; Paragraph 0026 for reference to extraneous factors being obtained from one or more sources including manual input by a person; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 101 ‘Obtain information corresponding to extraneous factors’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 14 ‘external device’ and item 24 ‘display’ which enables a user to interact with computer/server]
a first acquisition unit that acquires the related elements to be evaluated for the food product on the basis of details of the food product accepted by the receiver and the first information stored in the storage [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to system may determine what extraneous factors to record or obtain based upon a category of the step within the supply chain; Paragraph 0031 for reference to the system may categorize the supply chain step (e.g. , transportation, cultivation, storage, end - location, etc.) and, from this categorization, determine which extraneous factors could affect the quality of the food product wherein the system may then only obtain these extraneous factors for that category of the supply chain; Paragraph 0044 for reference to memory 28′ may include at least one program product having a set (e.g., at least one) of program modules that are configured to carry out the functions of embodiments of the invention; Paragraph 0045 for reference to Program/utility 40′, having a set (at least one) of program modules 42′, may be stored in memory 28′ (by way of example, and not limitation), as well as an operating system, at least one application program, other program modules, and program data wherein program modules 42′ generally carry out the functions and/or methodologies of embodiments of the invention as described herein; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 42 ‘program modules’]
a second acquisition unit that acquires inspection items for evaluating food product risk on the basis of hazard elements as food product risk in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired by the first acquisition unit, the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted by the receiver, and the second information stored in the storage [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the system may generate a rating at each node indicating the pollution level to which a food product may have been exposed during that node of the supply chain, wherein each extraneous factor recorded at a node may indicate some level of pollution or contamination to which a product may have been exposed; Paragraph 0045 for reference to Program/utility 40′, having a set (at least one) of program modules 42′, may be stored in memory 28′ (by way of example, and not limitation), as well as an operating system, at least one application program, other program modules, and program data wherein program modules 42′ generally carry out the functions and/or methodologies of embodiments of the invention as described herein; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 102 ‘Generate a rating indicating a pollution level that a food product was exposed to’; Figure 3 and related text regarding item 42 ‘program modules’]
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Randhawa teaches a food product risk evaluation method causing a computer [Paragraph 0026 & Figures 1-2]. Regarding claim 7, Randhawa teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a food product risk evaluation program causing a computer to embody [Paragraphs 0049-54]. Therefore, claims 6 and 7 are rejected as being unpatentable in view of Randhawa.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Randhawa discloses the following:
wherein the first information stored in the storage records, as the related elements, at least one element selected from a group including: ingredients of the food product, a manufacturing process of the food product, whether the food product is heated and cooked before consumption, and characteristics of the food product [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to example extraneous factors may include pesticides, soil pH, temperature, humidity, amount of light, air quality, vibration, and any other factor that may affect the quality of the food product or that may identify a contamination of the food product; Paragraphs 0027-0030 for reference to a cognitive engine may collect different forms of data that may play a part in contamination of a food product, wherein the cognitive engine may collect extraneous factor information in real - time from multiple sources, for example, by utilizing Internet connections, cloud storage, and the like, wherein the data collected may include temporal data, textual data, discrete data, and the like]
the first acquisition unit refers to the first information and acquires the related elements to be evaluated in accordance with the details of the food product accepted by the receiver [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to system may determine what extraneous factors to record or obtain based upon a category of the step within the supply chain; Paragraph 0031 for reference to the system may categorize the supply chain step (e.g. , transportation, cultivation, storage, end - location, etc.) and, from this categorization, determine which extraneous factors could affect the quality of the food product wherein the system may then only obtain these extraneous factors for that category of the supply chain]
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Randhawa discloses the following:
wherein the storage stores, as third information, hazard elements that associate the related elements with contents related to bacteria in accordance with the related elements [see at least Paragraph 0021 for reference to throughout the supply chain process, extraneous factors, or possible factors that may contribute to contamination, are recorded at particular instances to provide information about possible hazardous conditions to which the food product may be exposed; Paragraph 0027 for reference to weather data being taken into consideration during transport to protect some product from being infected by bacteria; Paragraph 0028 for reference to textual data being collected to avoid encounters with pollutants, for example, an Ebola outbreak may prevent an agriculturist who grows lettuce from not producing lettuce for a certain amount of time]
the second acquisition unit acquires the contents related to bacteria in accordance with the related elements as evaluation targets acquired by the first acquisition unit on the basis of the third information stored in the storage [see at least Paragraph 0032 for reference to the system may generate a rating at each node indicating the pollution level to which a food product may have been exposed during that node of the supply chain, wherein each extraneous factor recorded at a node may indicate some level of pollution or contamination to which a product may have been exposed; Paragraph 0032 for reference to for each extraneous factor recorded, a score/rating may be produced describing the severity of an encounter of a product to a possible contamination source, thus, the system scores the extraneous factor with the score identifying a pollution or contamination effect on the food product; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 102 ‘Generate a rating indicating a pollution level that a food product was exposed to’]
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Randhawa discloses the following:
wherein the second information stored in the storage records, as risk mitigation elements, risk mitigation details for bacteria as the food product risk [see at least Paragraph 0027 for reference to weather data may also be taken into consideration during transportation, for example, the vehicle in which the food product is transported may face severe weather, or extending the length of a trip may not be suitable for a food product for a given amount of time; Paragraph 0027 for reference to if a watermelon needs to be stored in a cooler at a certain temperature and a very hot day arises, a cooler may not be able to maintain a specific temperature, thus spoiling some product and releasing bacteria into a storage unit; Paragraph 0028 for reference to use of crowd-sourced data may assist agriculturists in determining which food products to produce the most of and which the least; Paragraph 0028 for reference to textual data may also be used in, but not limited to, determining the best route for travel during the transportation process, notifying a storage unit of new storage information regarding increased life of a food product, determining where in a grocery store a food product should be located to maximize sales, and the like; Paragraph 0029 for reference to discrete data such as water index quality, land index quality, and air index quality are each important to the cultivation process and in cases where any of these three indexes fall below a certain threshold value, or become unhealthy, production of a food product may also decrease, further, the use of discrete data may lead agriculturalists in the correct direction when determining where the highest yield of a product may be produced]
the second acquisition unit acquires mitigation details that mitigate the food product risk in accordance with the details of the multiple risk mitigation elements accepted by the receiver by referring to the second information, reduces the contents related to bacteria in accordance with the acquired mitigation details, and acquires the inspection items for evaluating the food product risk [see at least Paragraph 0031 for reference to the system may categorize the supply chain step (e.g., transportation, cultivation, storage, end-location, etc.) and, from this categorization, determine which extraneous factors could affect the quality of the food product and the system may then only obtain these extraneous factors for that category of the supply chain; Paragraph 0032 for reference to for each extraneous factor recorded, a score/rating may be produced describing the severity of an encounter of a product to a possible contamination source; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 102 ‘Generate a rating indicating a pollution level that a food product was exposed to’]
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randhawa (U.S 2020/0219034 A1) in view of Singh (U.S 2002/0163436 A1).
Claim 5
While Randhawa discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose wherein the second acquisition unit acquires a type of bacteria to be inspected and a predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product to be inspected at the time of inspection as the inspection items.
Regarding Claim 5, Singh discloses the following:
wherein the second acquisition unit acquires a type of bacteria to be inspected and a predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product to be inspected at the time of inspection as the inspection items [see at least Paragraph 0052 for reference to bacteria-count routine peri odically calculates the bacteria count for a given temperature at a given time, thereby producing the bacteria-count curve; Paragraph 0053 for reference to the bacteria count is calculated for each type of bacteria (i.e. pathogen, spoiler), and is a function of a base bacteria count, time, product type, and temperature wherein the product type and temperature determines the rate at which a particular type of bacteria will grow; Paragraph 0053 for reference to an exemplary base bacteria count for pathogen bacteria is 100 counts/gram and for spoiler bacteria is 10,000 counts/gram; Examiner notes the ‘base bacteria count’ as analogous to the ‘predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data acquired by the second acquisition unit of Randhawa to include the type of bacteria to be inspected and the predicted number of specific bacteria in the food product to be inspected of Singh. Doing so would accurately determine the quality and safety of the food product as a function of the temperature history and length of time stored, as stated by Singh (Paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ripolles‐Avila, Carolina, et al. "From hazard analysis to risk control using rapid methods in microbiology: A practical approach for the food industry." Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 19.4 (2020): 1877-1907.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
WO 2014/092230 A1
Hong et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSPECTING IMPORTED FOOD-BASED HARM PREDICTION
US 2010/0299323 A1
Crook, Edward Llewellyn
SYSTEM, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RATING RISK
US 6,874,000 B2
Scholl et al.
System and method for identifying a food event, tracking the food product, and assessing risks and costs associated with intervention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights