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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 4-7 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 4 recites the limitation “generally vertical” since the term is not clearly defined within the disclosure the meets and bounds of the claim terms are not definite. As such the claim has been rendered indefinite. Claims 5-7 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “generally vertical” since the term is not clearly defined within the disclosure the meets and bounds of the claim terms are not definite. As such the claim has been rendered indefinite. Claim 6 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “closely matching” since the term is not clearly defined within the disclosure the meets and bounds of the claim terms are not definite. As such the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “substantially vertically” since the term is not clearly defined within the disclosure the meets and bounds of the claim terms are not definite. As such the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “closely matching” since the term is not clearly defined within the disclosure the meets and bounds of the claim terms are not definite. As such the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “substantially vertically” since the term is not clearly defined within the disclosure the meets and bounds of the claim terms are not definite. As such the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With regard to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to show or fairly render obvious the combined limitations of the invention specifically, a method for providing suet for feeding birds wherein the molten suet poured into said molding pan prior to submerging the suet cage, excluding the handle structure.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details of why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth. See MPEP 1302.14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 3,848,570 A which disclose a suet molding device with a handle above the level of hot suet. U.S. Patent No. 5,606,933 A which discloses molding suet with a handle portion exterior to the suet. U.S. Patent No. 5,826,541 A which discloses a wire cage for molding a suet black including a molding pan. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0028843 A1 which discloses a cage-type bird feeder including a tubular handle extending in a vertical direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642