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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “grinded” is used instead of “ground”. The use of the term “grinded” is not grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 5 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.
The phrase “legalized” in Claim 2, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the form is legal everywhere in the US or just some places in the US or is the possession not legal, but all laws are not enforced or something else.
The phrase “the limit” in Claim 5, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear who or what establishes a limit and whether it is arbitrary.
The phrase “the limit” in Claim 5, line 4 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear who or what establishes a limit and whether it is arbitrary.
The phrase “limit of detection” in Claim 5, line 10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the limit is applicable for all means of detection or just some.
Clarification and/or correction required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miles (US 2021/0251950).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a blend and not a method of making, using or storing or potential benefits of the blend. The method language is interpreted to the extent that it further describes the blend. How a person may store ingredients is up to the discretion of a user.
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 14 Miles (‘950) teaches a seasoning blend comprising: a tetrahydrocannabinol, wherein the tetrahydrocannabinol is in a grinded (ground) up form (See Abs., paras. 5, 8, 19, 20, 22, 33 and 34.).
Regarding Claim 2, Miles (‘950) teaches wherein the tetrahydrocannabinol is a legalized synthetic form of a delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, a delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol, or a combination thereof, in the grinded (ground) up form (See Abs., paras. 5, 8, 19, 20, 22, 33 and 34.).
Regarding Claim 3, Miles (‘950) teaches wherein the legalized synthetic form of the delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, a delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol, or the combination thereof, is dronabinol in the grinded (ground) up form (See Abs., paras. 5, 8, 19, 20, 22, 33 and 34.).
Regarding Claim 9, Miles (‘950) teaches further comprising additional ground ingredients including salt, sugar and herbs (See Abs., paras. 5 and 9.).
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.
Claim(s) 4-8, 10-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles (US 2021/0251950).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a blend and not a method of making, using or storing or potential benefits of the blend. The method language is interpreted to the extent that it further describes the blend.
Regarding 4-8, 10-12 and 15-20, Miles (‘950) teaches the blend discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose the types and amounts of the various ingredients.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for combining any particular combination and amount of various ingredients in the claimed seasoning blend. As discussed above, Miles (‘950) teaches the core ingredients used in the blend that can be used to season food. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to adjust the combination and amounts of ingredients based on consumer preference. The selection of combination and amounts of ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a blend that satisfies the subjective preference of a consumer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 September 2, 2025