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 .
Election/Restrictions
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 May 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 26 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of at least the following reasons, it: 1) uses phrasing and construction reserved for claims; and 2) does not narratively and concisely describe the invention “…to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 12-16 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said cooked cereal seeds” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the following limitations which are unclear: “another stackable,” “groupable geometric shape”. It is unclear what shapes are considered able to be stacked, and what a shape that is able to be grouped is. Additionally, “and/or” requires that all of the aspects are capable of being done at the same time; thus: how can a shape be a parallelepiped cube and a cylinder?
Claim 16 requires an impermeable layer, but does not specify what it is impermeable to.
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 12, rejected above.
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Leonberger (DE9308730U1), provided by Applicant.
For Claim 12, Leonberger discloses a biodegradable container (title, disclosure) comprising a structure (Figs. 1a-1b) with one or more layers1 of puffed and pressed cereal seeds (at least “rice” ¶0029), bound together by a quantity of starch of said cooked cereal seeds2 (honey or glucose, disclosed in line 132-133, ¶0021 reads on a starch; lines 129-131, ¶0021 uses a heating process to activate the binder), wherein said structure comprises at least one base structure (10), which defines a central space (Figs. 1a-1b).
For Claim 13, Leonberger discloses the biodegradable container, according claim 12, and Leonberger further discloses wherein said structure further comprises an upper structure (12) used to close said base structure (Figs. 1a. 1b), said upper structure resting or being wedged on said base structure (Figs. 1a, 1b).
For Claim 14, Leonberger discloses the biodegradable container according to claim 12, and Leonberger further discloses wherein said puffed and pressed cereals are selected from3 wheat, rice ¶0021, corn, oats or minor cereals or a mix of such cereals.
For Claim 15, Leonberger discloses the biodegradable container according to claim 12 and Leonberger further discloses wherein the shape of said base structure is a parallelepiped, a cube, a cylinder or another stackable and/or4 groupable geometric shape (Fig. 1b).
For Claim 16, Leonberger discloses the biodegradable container according to claim 12, and Leonberger further discloses wherein said structure comprises an edible and/or5 food grade impermeable layer ¶0017.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 20180237206 A1, US 10597219 B2, US 20180229916 A1, US 20160052692 A1, US 20120279896 A1, US 8763811 B2, and US 20090025290 A1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “one or more” limitation.
2 Interpretation note: the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 162 USPQ 221, 223.
3 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
4 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by “or” in the “and/or” limitation.
5 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by “and/or” in the “or” limitation.
