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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application filed April 18, 2024, in which claim(s) 1 is/are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1 is/are pending of which Claim(s) 1 is/are presented in independent form.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 the limitation "the food sector" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same package" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shelf life" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (hereinafter Berg) USPN 3,067,896.
Regarding Claim 1, Berg discloses a double chamber honey package (Figs. 1-6) with a cylindrical form (Fig. 6) to be used in the food sector (col. 1, lines 8-12), where honeycomb honey and extracted honey are capable to be provided in the same package (col. 2, lines 45-52), in order to ensure that they are offered for sale as two separate products (Fig. 1, 10; note Fig. 6 shows 3 different single and separate containers in stacked) without coming into contact with each other and to increase the shelf life of the product (col. 2, lines 45-52; like structure is deemed to have like characteristics; additionally, it is inherent that storing a food product free from outside air increases the shelf life of the product at least marginally), the double chamber honey package comprising:
a honeycomb honey chamber where the honeycomb honey is capable of being stored (Fig. 6 a first one of sections 10 as shown); an extracted honey chamber where the extracted honey is capable of being stored (Fig. 6 a second one of sections 10 as shown), wherein the honeycomb honey chamber and the extracted honey chamber are positioned on top of each other and connected with each other (Fig. 6 col. 2, lines 45-53);
a bottom cover (generally 12, 20, and 19), made of a monolithic structure (col. 1, lines 55-56; moulded structures are considered monolithic but also Berg clearly shows in drawings this structure as being monolithic in Fig. 1) with the honeycomb honey chamber, which serves as a base for the honeycomb honey chamber and as a cover for the extracted honey chamber (Fig. 6, when stacked); and
a full volume top cover (Fig. 2) to cover the honeycomb honey chamber.
Berg does not explicitly disclose “honey and honeycomb” as being the items intended to be stored in the jars. However, Berg does note explicitly in at least col. 1, lines 8-12 that the containers are intended to be use with various food products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have known that honey and honeycomb would be suitable food products to store in the invention of Berg.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhorter et al. (hereinafter Mc) USPUB 2014/0224757.
Regarding Claim 1, Mc discloses a double chamber honey package (Figs. 1-5) with a cylindrical (Figs. 1-5) form to be used in the food sector (Abstract, at least Paras. [0009 and 0012]), where honeycomb honey and extracted honey are capable to be provided in the same package (Para. [0023]), in order to ensure that they are offered for sale as two separate products without coming into contact with each other (Para. [0023]) and to increase the shelf life of the product (like structure is deemed to have like characteristics; additionally, it is inherent that storing a food product free from outside air increases the shelf life of the product at least marginally), the double chamber honey package comprising:
a honeycomb honey chamber (a first one of 14 as shown in Figs. 1 or 2) where the honeycomb honey is capable of being stored; an extracted honey chamber (a second one of 14 as shown in Figs. 1 or 2) where the extracted honey is capable of being stored, wherein the honeycomb honey chamber and the extracted honey chamber are positioned on top of each other (Figs. 1 and 2) and connected with each other (Figs. 1 and 2; at least Paras. [0034, 0044, and 0045]);
a bottom cover (at least Paras. [0034, 0044, and 0045]; bottom cover is shown in Fig. 1 separating the different stored condiments), made of a monolithic structure (Figs. 1-3; at least Paras. [0044-0045]; at least glass is considered “monolithic” inasmuch as currently claimed) with the honeycomb honey chamber, which serves as a base for the honeycomb honey chamber and as a cover for the extracted honey chamber (Fig. 1); and
a full volume top cover (12) to cover the honeycomb honey chamber.
Mc does not explicitly disclose “honey and honeycomb” as being the items intended to be stored in the jars. However, Mc does note explicitly in at least Paras. [0009 and 0012] that the containers are intended to be use with various food products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have known that honey and honeycomb would be suitable food products to store in the invention of Mc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See any related prior art listed on the 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA K KINSAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731