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 communications filed on January 16, 2026..
Claims 4, 23-24, and 26-30 were previously cancelled.
Claim 31 is new.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 11, and 25 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5-22, 25, and 31 are being examined in this office action.
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 1-3 and 5-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the method steps (i.e. selecting, dispensing, sealing, separating…into pods, and analyzing) do not recite a step for dispensing the edible materials into individual containments. As a result, the claim is rendered indefinite because it is unclear how the edible materials are not all mixed together if they are dispensed into a packaging unit, prior to sealing, and separating into pods.
See claim 25, which recites dispensing…into separate sections within a packaging unit. This recitation is clear and is understandable to a reader that the edible materials are not inadvertently mixed up.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the sides and ends (recited in claim 1) differ from the “edges.”
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rendered indefinite because the recitation “during the dispensing and they analyzing” is unclear. If this is referring to the steps of dispensing and analyzing recited in claim 1, please use such language (i.e. step of dispensing, step of analyzing.)
Claims 2 and 5-10, 12-22 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minard et al. (US 2004/0151760 A1, herein Minard).
Regarding claim 1, Minard discloses a method for producing packaged edible materials comprising:
selecting one or more edible materials and amount thereof based on a purchaser’s input [0037] [0040] [0042]-[0045] [0055]-[0059];
dispensing each of the edible materials to a packaging unit including respective sides and ends (1, 2, Figs. 1 and 2);
sealing the sides and ends (3) (Figs.1,2,4) of the packaging unit [0029] [0031] [0046];
separating (5) (Fig. 2) the packaging unit into a predetermined number of pods [0029], wherein each pod is collapsible (i.e. flexible thermoplastic [0029]); and
analyzing each pod of the packaging unit that contains the edible material for one or more of: metal levels, weight and optical characteristics [0043].
Regarding claim 2, Minard discloses [0032] (Fig. 7) wherein the packaging unit is formed out of a roll of film material.
Regarding claim 3, Minard discloses [0032] [0033] (Fig. 7) wherein the roll of film material is folded in half and sealed sideways onsides and ends thereof to form the packaging unit.
Regarding claim 5, Minard discloses [0055-0057] 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 6, Minard discloses [0055-0057] wherein the purchaser’s input is stored in and accessed from a database.
Regarding claim 7, Minard discloses [0046] wherein identifying information is
added to the packaging unit.
Regarding claim 9, Minard discloses [0047-0048] wherein the packaging unit includes a detectable tag.
Regarding claim 10, Minard discloses [0048] wherein the tag comprises RFID (i.e. may be achieved by a radio triangulation system, encoder or contact switches.)
Regarding claim 11, Minard discloses [0047-0052] wherein the packaging unit advances via a transport system during the dispensing and the analyzing.
Regarding claim 12, Minard discloses [0029] stacking multiple packaging units together.
Regarding claim 13, Minard discloses [0029] wherein multiple packaging units are stacked laterally and vertically.
Regarding claim 14, Minard discloses [0029] wherein packaging units are stacked in varying configurations.
Regarding claim 15, Minard discloses [0029] wherein adjacent packaging units are stacked in varying positions.
Regarding claim 16, Minard discloses [0029] 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 17, Minard discloses [0029] wherein one or more stacks of packaging units are transferred to a shipping container.
Regarding claim 18, Minard discloses [0030] wherein an interior surface of the film material is resistant to air and water (i.e. preferred material is PET…a good vapor (moisture) and oxygen barrier.)
Regarding claim 19, Minard discloses [0003] [0021] wherein the edible materials are equine feed or supplements.
Regarding claim 20, Minard discloses [0018] wherein each pod is divided into a plurality of sections based on the number of edible materials dispensed thereinto.
Regarding claim 25, Minard discloses a method for producing packaged edible materials comprising:
selecting one or more edible materials and amount thereof based on a purchaser’s input [0037] [0040] [0042]-[0045] [0055]-[0059];
dispensing the edible materials into separate sections within a packaging unit (1, 2, Figs. 1 and 2);
sealing the packaging unit (3) (Fig.1 ) [0029] [0031] [0046];
separating the packaging unit into a predetermined number of pods, each pod containing the separation sections (5) (Fig. 2) [0029], wherein each pod is collapsible (i.e. flexible thermoplastic [0029]); and
analyzing each pod of the packaging unit that contains the edible material for one or more of: metal levels, weight and optical characteristics [0043].
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.
Claims 8 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minard in view of Luciano, JR. et al. (US 2008/0312957 A1, herein Luciano ‘957).
Regarding claim 8, Minard discloses all of the claimed limitations, as discussed above.
Minard does not expressly disclose wherein the identifying information includes 1) edible material in the pod; 2) amount of edible material in the pod; and 3) indication of number of pods in packaging unit.
Luciano ‘957 teaches a packaging unit (930) (Fig. 45-46A) [0189-0192] containing a plurality of pods (i.e. pouches 962a-962g), wherein the identifying information includes 1) edible material in the pod (970); 2) amount of edible material in the pod (970); and 3) indication of number of pods in packaging unit (966).
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 identifying information as disclosed by Minard, to include further information as taught by Luciano ‘957, such that accuracy for patient dispensing is ensured.
Regarding claim 31, Minard discloses a method for producing packaged edible materials comprising:
selecting one or more edible materials and amount thereof based on a purchaser’s input [0037] [0040] [0042]-[0045] [0055]-[0059];
dispensing each of the edible materials to a packaging unit including respective sides and ends (1, 2, Figs. 1 and 2);
sealing the sides and ends (3) (Figs.1,2,4) of the packaging unit [0029] [0031] [0046];
separating (5) (Fig. 2) the packaging unit into a predetermined number of pods [0029]; and
analyzing each pod of the packaging unit that contains the edible material for one or more of: metal levels, weight and optical characteristics [0043], and
wherein identifying information is added to the packaging unit [0046].
Minard does not expressly disclose wherein the identifying information includes 1) edible material in the pod; 2) amount of edible material in the pod; and 3) indication of number of pods in packaging unit.
Luciano ‘957 teaches a packaging unit (930) (Fig. 45-46A) [0189-0192] containing a plurality of pods (i.e. pouches 962a-962g), wherein the identifying information includes 1) edible material in the pod (970); 2) amount of edible material in the pod (970); and 3) indication of number of pods in packaging unit (966).
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 identifying information as disclosed by Minard, to include further information as taught by Luciano ‘957, such that accuracy for patient dispensing is ensured.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minard.
Regarding claim 21, Minard discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each pod is made of an edible or compostable film.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize compostable film, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Doing so would provide environmentally friendly packaging.
Regarding claim 22, Minard discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each pod is made of a paper material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize compostable film, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Doing so would provide environmentally friendly packaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026, have been fully considered.
Examiner has mailed a second action non-final to address an oversight of dependent claim 23 (i.e. where each pod is collapsible.) In the previous office action, Examiner inadvertently did not treat claim 23 under the prior art of record. However, Minard discloses wherein each pod is collapsible (i.e. composed of flexible thermoplastic [0029]). Thus, the incorporation of this limitation alone into the independent claims 1 and 25 does not make the independent claims allowable.
Furthermore, the Official Noticed previously taken with regards to claim 8 has been removed, and claim 8 is now being rejected as being unpatentable over Minard in view of Luciano, JR. et al. (US 2008/0312957 A1, herein Luciano ‘957).
Similarly, new independent claim 31 is rejected as being unpatentable over Minard in view of Luciano, JR. et al. (US 2008/0312957 A1, herein Luciano ‘957).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, please refer to Luciano, JR. et al. (US 10,435,192 B2, herein Luciano ‘192). Luciano ‘192 discloses (Figs. 2-5B) an inspection system and method that inspects packages filled with at least two different medications that are to be consumed by a patient.
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 on (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
March 16, 2026