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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s response filed 05 July 2026 the restriction requirement dated 07 May 2026 has been received. Applicant has elected Group I, claims 1 – 13 with traverse, cancelling claims 9 and 12. It is urged that the elected product claims and the non-elected method claims are directed to the same disclosed drinking straw technology and the same dextrin based matrix system, making the same type of drinking straw recited in the product claims and that examination of the elected product claims and the method claims should involve substantially overlapping subject matter and should not impose a serious additional search or examination burden.
These urgings are not convincing. It is first noted in this regard that no specifics have been presented; only generalizations. More importantly, the basis for the traversal is not the ground for determining the appropriateness for restriction. The restriction requirement details why the various inventions are properly restrictable under 35 U.S.C. 121. It is noted in this regard that one would expect some elements/features/limitations to be common to two groups of claims in the same application, unless there are two or more totally disparate inventions disclosed, such as a car and a method of cooking food. Thus, if an application claimed a package comprising a tray, a lid and a food therein, and also claimed a method of sterilizing food in the same tray and lid using, say, radiation, the two inventions would be properly restrictable, since the food in the same tray could be used in a different method such as a cooking method, a warming method or just a storage method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
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 – 8, 10, 11, and 13 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, lines 7 and 8, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the matrix”.
Regarding claim 10, lines 7 and 8, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the matrix”.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upsdell et al. US 2022/0186063.
Regarding claim 1, Upsdell discloses a drinking straw (2) which comprises a hollow tube having an outside and an inside, the inside including an interior wall comprising a fibrous, porous, hydrophilic, cellulosic material (paperboard) (paragraph [0034]). A dried matrix lining (dispersion 4) is disposed on the interior wall (paragraph [0033]) and the dried matrix lining comprises dextrin (paragraph [0038]) and a sweetener (paragraph [0039]). Since the interior of the straw would comprise a cellulosic material in the form of a paperboard it would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to provide the paperboard such that a first portion of the matrix would be absorbed into the interior wall. Upsdell further discloses a second portion of the matrix (second dispersion) would form the dried matrix lining disposed on the interior wall (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 3, Upsdell discloses the paper of the hollow tube would comprise at least sugarcane, wheat, and/or rice (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, since Upsdell does not disclose the dried matrix lining would contain partially hydrolyzed guar gum it is seen that Upsdell is disclosing the dried matrix does not contain any partially hydrolyzed guar gum.
Regarding claim 5, since Upsdell does not disclose the dried matrix lining would contain a modified cellulose gum selected from hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl ethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, or carboxymethylcellulose it is seen that Upsdell is disclosing the dried matrix does not contain any modified cellulose gum selected from hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl ethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, or carboxymethylcellulose.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, while Upsdell recites that a food grade acid (ascorbic acid) may be allowed in some embodiments as a flavouring (paragraph [0012]) Upsdell further discloses that the use of a flavouring agent would be optional or only present in and amount of 1% (paragraph [0045]) which is to say that Upsdell is disclosing the food grade acid in the dried matrix lining would be less than 20 weight percent of the dried matrix lining.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons given above in the rejections of claims 1, 5, and 7.
Claims 2, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upsdell et al. US 2022/0186063 in view of Ohkuma et al. US 5,620,873.
Claims 2 and 11 differ from Upsdell in the dextrin being fibrous water soluble dextrin.
Claim 8 differs from Upsdell in the fibrous water soluble dextrin comprising a hydrolyzed starch derived from corn, potato or tapioca.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 11, Ohkuma discloses that it was well established and conventional in the art to provide dextrin as a fibrous water soluble dextrin (col. 1, ln 10 – 16) produced from starches commercially available for food uses such as corn, potato (col. 2, ln 10 – 18), and tapioca (col. 7, ln 20 – 25). Ohkuma further discloses that a deficiency of fibers in the diet of adults is one of the causes of diseases of adults and is therefore providing a fibrous water soluble dextrin to increase the intake of dietary fibers which are called the sixth nutrient (col. 1, ln 17 – 23). To therefore modify Upsdell and provide the dextrin as a fibrous water soluble dextrin as taught by Ohkuma to increase dietary fiber intake would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upsdell et al. US 2022/0186063 in view of Davis US 3,168,982.
Claim 13 differs from Upsdell in the hollow tube comprises an elongated tubular body made of multiple layers of paper.
Davis discloses a drinking straw, i.e., a hollow tube that comprises an elongated tubular body made of multiple layers of paper. Davis is providing an elongated tubular body made of multiple layers of paper for the art recognized function of providing a drinking straw that is economical, of pleasing appearance and convenient to use due to the flexibility of the body without kinking that will spring open to its original cross sectional shape if inadvertently collapsed (col. 1, ln 18 – 25) To therefore modify Upsdell to provide a drinking straw that is economical, of pleasing appearance and convenient to use due to the flexibility of the body without kinking that will spring open to its original cross sectional shape if inadvertently collapsed as taught by Davis would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Conclusion
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 21 August 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights