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 office action is responsive to a request for continued examination filed on May 12, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, 5, 7 are acknowledged.
Claim 8, 19-23 are cancelled.
Claims 25-31 are new.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, 24-31 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2025, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method particulars (i.e. analyzing metal levels, weight, and optical characteristics; printing identifying information; equipment analysis; stacking packaging units, etc. ) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 11, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "packing unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited “packing unit” is referring to the “packaging unit” recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the equipment analysis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the analyzing comprising" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited “analyzing” is referring to the step of analyzing recited in claim 27, from which claim 28 depends.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the analyzing comprising" in line 1, and “the metal detection” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited “analyzing” is referring to the step of analyzing recited in claim 27, from which claim 29 depends. Furthermore, is the metal detection referring to the outcome of the analysis recited in claim 27? Also, there is an incomplete “if” statement (line 2). It is unclear what the if/then clause is here.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the analyzing comprising" in line 1, and “the metal detection” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited “analyzing” is referring to the step of analyzing recited in claim 27, from which claim 30 depends. Furthermore, is the metal detection referring to the outcome of the analysis by the metal detection sensor in claim 28? Also, there is an incomplete “if” statement (line 2). It is unclear what the if/then clause is here.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "packaging unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no preceding article (i.e. a or the) for the limitation.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "optical analysis" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this a further optical anaylsis (i.e. analyzing for optical characteristics is already introduced in claim 27 from which claim 31 depends)?
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the metal detection" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "a metal detection sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this a further metal detection sensor (i.e. a metal detection sensor is already introduced in claim 29 from which claim 31 depends)?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 9 and 10 recite analyzing the packaging unit for metal content, weight, and optical characteristics. However, claim 1 from which claims 9 and 10 depend, already recites analyzing the packaging unit for two or more of: metal levels, weight and optical characteristics. It is unclear if claims 9 and 10 are reiterating this limitation, or performing a secondary analysis of these parameters.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites further inspection of the packaging unit, however it is unclear what is being inspected, as claims 1 and 9, from which claim 11 depends, already recites analyzing the packaging unit for two or more of: metal levels, weight and optical characteristics (claim 1); and further analyzing the packaging unit for metal content, weight, and optical characteristics(claim 9).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-18, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luciano, Jr. et al. (US 10,435,192 B2, herein Luciano).
Regarding claim 1, Luciano discloses (Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 58) (Col. 6, lines 10-19; 55-67) a method for producing packaged edible materials comprising:
(a) selecting one or more edible materials and amount thereof based on a purchaser's input (402) (Fig. 6);
(b) separately dispensing each of the edible materials to a packaging unit that comprises multiple pods;
(c) analyzing the packaging unit that contains the edible material for two one-or more of: metal levels, weight and optical characteristics; and thereafter
(d) sealing one or more of the pods with lidding material (i.e. blister packaging embodiment).
Regarding claim 2, Luciano discloses (252) (Fig. 4A) wherein based on a purchaser's input each of the following are selected: 1) one or more edible materials and amount thereof; 2) packing unit; and 3) shipping date.
Regarding claim 3, Luciano discloses (Fig. 6) (Col. 14, lines 24-40; lines 18-23) wherein the purchaser's input is stored in and accessed from a database (i.e. pharmacy management system).
Regarding claim 4, Luciano discloses (Col. 12, lines 19-29) wherein identifying information is added to the lidding material following sealing.
Regarding claim 5, Luciano discloses (Col. 12, lines 19-29) wherein identifying information is printed on the lidding material.
Regarding claim 6, Luciano discloses (252) (Fig. 4A) wherein a pod or lidding material thereof has one or more of the following identifying information appearing thereon: 1) edible material in the pod; 2) amount of edible material in the pod; and 3) indication of number of pods in packaging unit.
Regarding claim 7, Luciano discloses (Col. 12, lines 19-29) wherein a packaging unit is associated with a detectable tag during steps of dispensing and analyzing.
Regarding claim 12, Luciano discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the packaging unit advances via a transport system through process stations during steps of dispensing, analyzing and sealing.
Regarding claim 13, Luciano discloses (Fig. 5B) stacking multiple packaging units together.
Regarding claim 14, Luciano discloses (Fig. 5B) wherein multiple packaging units are stacked laterally and vertically.
Regarding claim 15, Luciano discloses (Fig. 5B) wherein packaging units are stacked in varying configurations.
Regarding claim 16, Luciano discloses (Fig. 5B) wherein adjacent packaging units are stacked in varying positions.
Regarding claim 17, Luciano discloses (Fig. 5B) wherein a first portion of the packaging units are stacked in an inverted position with respect to a second portion of the packaging units.
Regarding claim 18, Luciano discloses (Fig. 5B) wherein one or more stacks of packaging units are transferred to a shipping container.
Regarding claim 26, Luciano discloses (Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 58) (Col. 6, lines 10-19; 55-67) wherein the packaging unit that contains the edible material is analyzed for optical characteristics.
Regarding claim 27, Luciano discloses (Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 58) (Col. 6, lines 10-19; 55-67) a method for producing packaged edible materials comprising:
(a) selecting one or more edible materials and amount thereof based on a purchaser's input (402) (Fig. 6);
(b) separately dispensing each of the edible materials to a packaging unit that comprises multiple pods;
(c) analyzing the packaging unit that contains the edible material for one or more of: metal levels and optical characteristics; and thereafter
(d) sealing one or more of the pods with lidding material (i.e. blister packaging embodiment).
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.
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciano in view of Minard et al. (US 2004/0151760 A1, herein Minard).
Regarding claim 24, Luciano discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention, as discussed above.
However, Luciano does not expressly disclose wherein the edible materials are equine feed or supplements.
Minard teaches [0003] wherein the edible materials being packaged are equine feed or supplements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the edible materials as disclosed by Luciano, by packaging equine feed or supplements as taught by Minard. Doing so would provide a process allowing efficient procurement and fulfillment of custom animal supplement orders.
Claims 25 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luciano in view of Zhao (US 2017/0371061 A1, herein Zhao).
Regarding claim 25, Luciano discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention, as discussed above.
However, Luciano does not expressly disclose wherein the packaging unit that contains the edible material is analyzed for metal levels.
Zhao teaches [0004] a metal detection apparatus used to detect metal contamination in edible goods.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the analysis as disclosed by Luciano, by further including analyzing the edible material for metal levels as taught by Zhao. Doing so is essential for ensuring consumer safety and maintaining regulatory compliance.
Regarding claim 28, Luciano discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention, as discussed above.
However, Luciano does not expressly disclose routing the packaging unit through a metal detection sensor to measure the packaging unit for metal.
Zhao teaches [0004] a metal detection apparatus used to detect metal contamination in edible goods.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the process flow as disclosed by Luciano, by further including a metal detection sensor for analyzing the edible material for metal levels as taught by Zhao. Doing so is essential for ensuring consumer safety and maintaining regulatory compliance.
Regarding claims 29-31, Luciano in view of Zhao teaches all of the claimed limitations of the invention, as discussed above.
However, Luciano in view of Zhao does not expressly disclose measuring the packaging unit for metal withing a predetermined range (claims 29 and 31), or more specifically measuring the packaging unit for metal within 5% of a target value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have optimized the metal detection range of the packaging unit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so is essential for ensuring consumer safety and maintaining regulatory compliance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRAACHI M. PATHAK whose telephone number is (571)272-8005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Tuesday 8:30 am-5:30 pm ET.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/Praachi M Pathak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights