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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. GROUND 1 : Claims 1-11 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 1 recites, in part, “an edible food product” (see line 1), “a pre-final food product” (see line 4), “a final food product” (see line 5) and “food products” (see line 7). It is unclear if the various food products recited throughout the claim, are the same food products or different food products produced by the system. Likewise, it is unclear which “food product” is being referred to within claims 8-11 , as each claim recites “per food product” but does not define which the specific food product. Claims 8-11 also recite the words “per” and “each” with regard to food products, which infers multiple food products, however, claim 1 merely recites preparation of “ an edible food product” not multiple. The term “ accurate ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ accurate FILLIN "Re-enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph [0009] of applicant's specification refers to a measurement device that is more accurate than the dosing device than the dosing device that dispensed the measured amount raising doubt as to the requisite amount of accuracy required to be achieved. Claims 2-11 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. The term “ large enough ” in claim s 8-9 is a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “ large enough ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The measured amount of cannabinoid additive solution is not defined within the claim, thus it unclear how big of a depression would be needed to hold the undefined amount. 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. GROUND 2 : Claim(s) 1- 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0352826 to Warren et al. In regard to claim 1, Warren et al. disclose a system 20 for preparation of an edible food product having an accurate (see para s 0034 , 0039 ) , predetermined dosage of a cannabinoid, the system comprising: a cannabinoid dosing module 36 adapted to administer a predetermined amount of the cannabinoid 22 to a pre-final food product for incorporation of the cannabinoid into the pre-final food product to create a final food product having the accurate, predetermined dosage of the cannabinoid; and a food product handling module adapted to hold food products during cannabinoid incorporation (See Figs. 1-2 and 5a-b and paras 0062-0066) . It is noted, regarding the limitations “for preparation” and “adapted to”, recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In regard to claim 2, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product , wherein the cannabinoid constitutes one or more non-intoxicating cannabinoids (see paras 0034, 0045, 0047 and 0078). In regard to claim 3, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein the cannabinoid constitutes cannabidiol ("CBD") (see paras 0034, 0045, 0047 and 0078). In regard to claim 4, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein the food product handling module 38/78 is further adapted to transport the food products (see Figs. 1a, 5a-b and paras 0068, 0101, 0110). In regard to claim 5, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein the food product handling module is further adapted to desiccate a solvent of a cannabinoid additive solution used in cannabinoid incorporation into the pre-final food product (See paras 0037, 0042-0043, 0071-0072, 0082 and 0093-0094 ). In regard to claim 6, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein the food product handling module is further adapted to package the final food products (See paras 0063, 0070 and 0096). In regard to claim 7, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein the cannabinoid dosing module is adapted to administer the predetermined amount of the cannabinoid in the form of a measured amount of a cannabinoid additive solution having the cannabinoid in solution with a solvent (See paras 0037, 0042-0043, 0071-0072, 0082 and 0093-0094 ). In regard to claim 8, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein each pre-final food product includes a pool-shaped depression, in which the pool-shaped depression is large enough to hold the measured amount of cannabinoid additive solution per food product (See paras 0035, 0045, 0049-00 61 ). In regard to claim 9, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product , wherein the food product handling module is further adapted to create a pool-shaped depression in each pre-final food product, in which the pool-shaped depression is large enough to hold the measured amount of cannabinoid additive solution per food product (See para s 0046 , 0049-0061). In regard to claim 10, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein the measured amount of cannabinoid additive solution per food product includes an evaporation amount of the solvent that is adapted to evaporate between administering the cannabinoid additive solution to the pre-final food product and creating the final food product (See paras 0037, 0042-0043, 0066, 0071-0072, 0082 and 0093-0094 ). In regard to claim 11, Warren et al. disclose a system for preparation of an edible food product, wherein the measured amount of cannabinoid additive solution per food product includes a residue amount of the solvent that is adapted to remain in and be incorporated in the food product between administering the cannabinoid additive solution to the pre-final food product and creating the final food product, in which the residue amount is non-toxic and biocompatible in the final food product (See paras 0037, 0042-0043, 0071-0072, 0082 and 0093- 0094). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6086 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 7AM--3PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eileen Lillis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6928 . 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. /MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993