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. Claim s 1-4 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 claim recites “ comprising maple syrup, water, and food coloring ” wherein these elements ( syrup, water, coloring ) are recited individually and in isolation as a mere parts/ingredients listing . The elements are not sufficiently structurally or functionally related to one another within the claim where one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain their relation. As such, the artificial blood of Claim 1 and its dependents is indefinitely arranged. Applicant may wish to amend the claim with a recitation on the order of “ comprising a mixture of maple syrup, water, and food coloring ” so as to provide for these elements forming a mixture resulting in an artificial blood. By this rejection of Claim 1, Claims 2-4 are further rejected as indefinite for their dependence on Claim 1. 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. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Food.com (“Fake Blood”, Food.com Recipes/Dessert, Submitted by Yashaqueen13, first indexed 27 October 2012 by Internet Archive.), hereinafter “Food.com” . Regarding Claim 1 , Food.com teaches artificial blood for reproducing an expectorated blood spatter comprising maple syrup, water, and food coloring (See the “Ingredients” section listing “2 tablespoons maple syrup”, “1 teaspoon water”, and various amounts of red, yellow, and green food coloring. – Given its commensurate ingredients as in the instant claim, the fake blood of Food.com is fully capable of performing the intended use of reproducing an expectorated blood spatter. Limitations based on the intended use of a structure do not confer patentability if the prior art is capable of performing the same function – see MPEP 2111.02(II). ), as in Claim 1. Regarding Claim 5 , Food.com teaches a method of manufacturing artificial blood for reproducing an expectorated blood spatter, the method comprising: making a maple syrup solution by mixing maple syrup and water (See the “Directions” section Step 1: “ Mix maple syrup ... and water in a small microwave safe bowl. ”) ; and mixing the maple syrup solution and food coloring ( See the “Directions” section Step 2: “ Add your food coloring ...”.), as in Claim 5. 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. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Food.com in view of WIRED Magazine (Gonzalez, Robbie; “Water, Flour, Syrup, Dye: Mastering the Elements of Fake Blood”, WIRED, 31 October 2018. ), hereinafter “WIRED” . Food.com has been discussed above. Regarding Claim 2 , the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Food.com does not specifically teach the artificial blood discussed above wherein a volume ratio of the maple syrup and the water is 5:1 , as in Claim 2. However, as the viscosity of the artificial blood , a factor that affects its level of similarity/semblance to genuine blood , is a property that can be modified by adjusting the ratio of syrup and water , as seen through WIRED (See the “ Real Blood's Thick—But Not Too Thick ” section: “... few liquids match blood's particular non-Newtonian consistency. To approximate it, you'll need a mixture: Try starting with a cup of corn syrup and thinning it with water, mixing in a bit at a time til it reaches the texture you're going for. If you overshoot and your blood runs a little too freely, just add some syrup. ”) , the precise syrup/water value would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed syrup/water ratio cannot be considered critical. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize through routine experimentation the particular water/syrup ratio to maximally obtain the desired properties of high similarity to those of genuine blood ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223). It is further noted that Food.com teaches a 6:1 ratio of syrup to water, said ratio being close to the 5:1 ratio of the instant claims, and would thereby not be rendered ineffective through such routine optimization discussed above given that optimizing to a 5:1 ratio does not significantly depart from the taught 6:1 ratio. As such, said optimization would have a reasonable expectation of success in the artificial blood provided by Food.com. Regarding Claim 6 , the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above. Further, Food.com does not specifically teach the method discussed above wherein a volume ratio of the maple syrup and the water is 5:1 , as in Claim 6 . However, as the viscosity of the artificial blood , a factor that affects its level of similarity/semblance to genuine blood , is a property that can be modified by adjusting the ratio of syrup and water , as seen through WIRED (See the “ Real Blood's Thick—But Not Too Thick ” section: “... few liquids match blood's particular non-Newtonian consistency. To approximate it, you'll need a mixture: Try starting with a cup of corn syrup and thinning it with water, mixing in a bit at a time un til it reaches the texture you're going for. If you overshoot and your blood runs a little too freely, just add some syrup. ”) , the precise syrup/water value would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed syrup/water ratio cannot be considered critical. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize through routine experimentation the particular water/syrup ratio to maximally obtain the desired properties of high similarity to those of genuine blood ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223). It is further noted that Food.com teaches a 6:1 ratio of syrup to water, said ratio being close to the 5:1 ratio of the instant claims, and would thereby not be rendered ineffective through such routine optimization discussed above given that optimizing to a 5:1 ratio does not significantly depart from the taught 6:1 ratio. As such, said optimization would have a reasonable expectation of success in the artificial blood provided by Food.com. Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Food.com in view of BBC Food (Gilhooly, Katy; “Edible fake blood”, BBC Food: goodFOOD Middle East, first indexed 8 November 20 20 by Internet Archive .), hereinafter “BBC Food” , and Lee et al. ( US 2021 / 0396770 A1 ), hereinafter “Lee” . Food.com has been discussed above. Regarding Claim 3 , the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Food.com teaches the artificial blood discussed above wherein the food coloring comprises red and yellow colors (See the “Ingredients” section: “7 drops red food coloring”, “3 drops yellow food coloring”.), as in Claim 3. Further regarding Claim 3 , Food.com does not specifically teach the artificial blood discussed above wherein the food coloring comprises blue-violet color , as in Claim 3. However, BBC Food teaches a respective artificial blood using blue food coloring gel so as to achieve a “deep red-brown color” for most authentically simulating the color of genuine blood. Further, the artificial blood taught by BBC Food also utilizes red and yellow food coloring, wherein red and blue mixed together make a violet tar color . As such blue-violet color is provided through t he mixing of colors in BBC Food, s electing a blue-violet tar color food dye in place of plain blue food dye would have been a predictable shade-selection variant obvious to one skilled in the art attempting to match realistic blood tones in view of BBC Food and would not differently affect the coloration of the artificial blood product compared to mixing red and blue to produce a violet color. The end-resulting color remains the same regardless of how it is pre-mixed as a commercial dye . Similarly, the selection of a “tar”-based dye would further not materially affect the end-resulting color as the color remains having its specific effect (absorption of light) regardless of its origin in coal tar. As such, the use of a tar-based dye is merely another predictable variant which would be obvious to use by one skilled in the art. Further, the prior art of Lee teaches an artificial blood product utilizing a violet tar color ([0055]) demonstrating the interchangeability of pre-mixed food dyes in the coloring of the artificial blood which would thereby be obvious to one skilled in the art as a simple substitution. Herein, Applicant’s “blue-violet” color is interpreted as a particular shade of violet. However, Applicant’s instant disclosure does not specify a particular commercial dye code utilized for the blue-violet color. As such, the violet color of Lee is interpreted as equivalent to Applicant’s instant blue-violet color. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the artificial blood of Food.com wherein the food coloring comprises blue-violet tar color , such as suggested by BBC Food and Lee , so as to achieve a “deep red-brown color” for most authentically simulating the color of genuine blood . Regarding Claim 4 , the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above. Further, Food.com does not specifically teach the artificial blood discussed above wherein a mass ratio of the red, yellow and blue-violet tar colors is 4:1:1 , as in Claim 4. However, as the overall coloration of the final artificial blood product , a factor that affects its level of similarity/semblance to genuine blood, is a property that can be modified by adjusting the red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio (or blue-violet tar in place of blue as discussed above as an obvious simple substitution for plain blue) , as seen through BBC Food (See the “Method” section Step 2: “... add a very small drop each of the blue and yellow food coloring gels and stir again ... Continue adding little drops of food coloring, stirring well between each addition, until you reach your desired color. ”) , the precise red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio cannot be considered critical. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize through routine experimentation the red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio to maximally obtain the desired properties of similarity/semblance to genuine blood ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223). Regarding Claim 7 , the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Food.com teaches the artificial blood discussed above wherein the food coloring comprises red and yellow colors (See the “Ingredients” section: “7 drops red food coloring”, “3 drops yellow food coloring”.), as in Claim 7 . Further regarding Claim 7 , Food.com does not specifically teach the method discussed above wherein the food coloring comprises blue-violet color , as in Claim 7. However, BBC Food teaches a respective artificial blood using blue food coloring gel so as to achieve a “deep red-brown color” for most authentically simulating the color of genuine blood. Further, the artificial blood taught by BBC Food also utilizes red and yellow food coloring, wherein red and blue mixed together make a violet tar color. As such blue-violet color is provided through t he mixing of colors in BBC Food, selecting a blue-violet tar color food dye in place of plain blue food dye would have been a predictable shade-selection variant obvious to one skilled in the art attempting to match realistic blood tones in view of BBC Food and would not differently affect the coloration of the artificial blood product compared to mixing red and blue to produce a violet color. The end-resulting color remains the same regardless of how it is pre-mixed as a commercial dye. Similarly, the selection of a “tar”-based dye would further not materially affect the end-resulting color as the color remains having its specific effect (absorption of light) regardless of its origin in coal tar. As such, the use of a tar-based dye is merely another predictable variant which would be obvious to use by one skilled in the art. Further, the prior art of Lee teaches an artificial blood product utilizing a violet tar color ([0055]) demonstrating the interchangeability of pre-mixed food dyes in the coloring of the artificial blood which would thereby be obvious to one skilled in the art as a simple substitution. Herein, Applicant’s “blue-violet” color is interpreted as a particular shade of violet. However, Applicant’s instant disclosure does not specify a particular commercial dye code utilized for the blue-violet color. As such, the violet color of Lee is interpreted as equivalent to Applicant’s instant blue-violet color. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the artificial blood of Food.com wherein the food coloring comprises blue-violet tar color , such as suggested by BBC Food and Lee , so as to achieve a “deep red-brown color” for most authentically simulating the color of genuine blood . Regarding Claim 8 , the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above. Further, Food.com does not specifically teach the method discussed above wherein a mass ratio of the red, yellow and blue-violet tar colors is 4:1:1 , as in Claim 8. However, as the overall coloration of the final artificial blood product , a factor that affects its level of similarity/semblance to genuine blood, is a property that can be modified by adjusting the red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio (or blue-violet tar in place of blue as discussed above as an obvious simple substitution for plain blue) , as seen through BBC Food (See the “Method” section Step 2: “... add a very small drop each of the blue and yellow food coloring gels and stir again ... Continue adding little drops of food coloring, stirring well between each addition, until you reach your desired color. ”) , the precise red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio cannot be considered critical. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize through routine experimentation the red/yellow/blue dye mass ratio to maximally obtain the desired properties of similarity/semblance to genuine blood ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number ( 571 ) 270-3638 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is ( 571 ) 273-8300 . Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300): “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03. 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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. 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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call ( 800 ) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or ( 571 ) 272-1000. /B.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1798 /CHARLES CAPOZZI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798