DETAILED ACTION
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a sausage-like rectanguloid planar food-piece, having a hole extend through an entire thickness”. It would appear the claim should recite ‘a sausage-like rectanguloid planar food-piece, having a hole extending through an entire thickness’.
Claim 3 recites “the groove are capable of containing or a condiment”. It would appear the claim should recite ‘the groove is capable of containing a condiment’.
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 1, 3 and 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 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the planar food-piece”.
Regarding claim 3, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the planar food-piece”.
Regarding claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the planar food-piece”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ein-Gal US 2008/0124431 in view of Tarantino, JR. et al. US 2020/0359666.
Regarding claim 1, Ein-Gal discloses a sausage-like food piece (10) having a hole (core 12) extend through an entire length, i.e., the long wise thickness, of the food piece (open at both ends) (paragraph [0016]). Claim 1 differs from Ein-Gal in the food piece being a rectanguloid planar food piece.
Tarantino discloses a sausage like planar food piece (412) having a thickness (paragraph [0021]). Tarantino is providing the sausage like food piece as a planar food piece for the art recognized purpose of allowing the sausage like food piece to be used with traditional hamburger rolls or bread so that there is no need to purchase separate hotdog and hamburger rolls. By providing the sausage like food piece as a planar food piece Tarantino is allowing consumers to place condiments on the surface and stack other food that would normally roll or fall off a traditionally shaped hotdog (paragraph [0007]). Further, in providing said food piece as a planar food piece Tarantino is providing a safer product for children to eat in that the planar shape of the food piece is less likely to slide in a child’s mouth and cause harm which is applicant’s discloses reason for providing the sausage like food product as a planar food piece as well (paragraph [0009]). To therefore modify Ein-Gal and provide the sausage like food piece as a planar food piece as taught by Tarantino would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding the sausage-like planar food-piece being a rectanguloid planar food-piece, i.e., having a roughly rectangular shape, once it was known to provide a sausage-like planar food-piece it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular shape said food-piece would have. The particular configuration, that is the shape, of the food-piece would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan absent strong and persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the planar food-piece, i.e., rectanguloid, was significant (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B.).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ein-Gal in view of Tarantino discloses the planar food piece would include a groove (parallel grooves) (‘666, paragraph [0021] and fig. 5 and 6) which groove would be capable of containing a condiment applied to the surface of the sausage like food piece (condiments easily remain in place) (‘666, [paragraph 0022]) as well as enhancing a connection between the apparatus, i.e., said sausage like planar food piece and a bun (the product from sliding off the bread or bun) (‘666, paragraph [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 03 March 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792