In re Raggio: Federal Circuit Remands Honeycomb Packaging Patent to USPTO
Inventor Douglas Paul Raggio challenged a USPTO rejection of his single-serve honeycomb packaging patent application before the Federal Circuit. The court granted the USPTO’s own unopposed motion to remand, after the agency conceded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on undesignated new grounds of rejection — a procedural concession that sends the case back to the agency within 197 days of filing.
USPTO concedes procedural error, Federal Circuit sends honeycomb patent back
This Federal Circuit appeal, filed December 5, 2024, arises from inventor Douglas Paul Raggio’s challenge to a USPTO rejection of patent application US16/044281, which covers a system and method for packaging a single-serve portion of honeycomb. The case was brought against the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO, Derrick Brent, making it a classic ex parte patent prosecution appeal on patentability grounds.
The case resolved on June 20, 2025, when the Federal Circuit granted the USPTO’s own unopposed motion to remand. The agency acknowledged that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had relied on undesignated new grounds of rejection in its analysis of secondary considerations evidence applicable to all rejected claims, and separately when taking official notice of the wrapping limitation in claim 17. The court ordered the case returned to the USPTO for further proceedings, with each party bearing its own costs.
The 197-day resolution is consistent with cases that end via agency-initiated remand rather than full briefing and argument — the USPTO’s self-correction before merits adjudication likely shortened the timeline considerably. The public record does not reveal the substance of the secondary considerations evidence Raggio advanced, nor the specific prior art or rationale underlying the PTAB’s original rejection, leaving open questions about patentability that the agency must now address on remand through proper procedural channels.
Filing to Case Remanded in 197 days
197 days from filing to Federal Circuit remand order — relatively swift resolution for an appellate patent proceeding
Federal Circuit remands: what the agency concession means for both parties
Undesignated new grounds: a procedural reset, not a merits win
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), the PTAB must formally designate any new ground of rejection so the applicant can respond. Here, the USPTO conceded the Board failed to do so when assessing secondary considerations evidence and when taking official notice of the claim 17 wrapping limitation. The Federal Circuit’s remand is procedural — it does not resolve whether the claims are patentable, only that the PTAB must redo its analysis through proper channels.
Procedural remandRaggio gets a second hearing — but patentability remains unresolved
The remand is a meaningful procedural victory for Raggio. On remand, the PTAB must re-examine the rejected claims using properly designated grounds, giving Raggio a full opportunity to respond to any new rejection rationale — a right he was denied in the original proceeding. However, the Federal Circuit has made no finding on the merits; the claims could still be rejected on proper grounds after reconsideration.
Applicant: remand securedUSPTO self-corrects, avoiding adverse appellate precedent
By filing its own unopposed motion to remand before merits briefing concluded, the USPTO avoided a Federal Circuit ruling that could have created binding precedent on the scope of undesignated new grounds. The agency retains full authority to reject the claims again on remand, provided it follows proper designation procedures. The cost-neutral order means the agency bears no financial penalty for the procedural error.
Agency: authority preservedSpecialty food packaging applicants should monitor PTAB procedural compliance
This case signals that applicants in niche food packaging technology — including honeycomb, artisanal, or single-serve formats — should scrutinize PTAB decisions for undesignated new grounds, particularly in secondary considerations analysis. The USPTO’s own concession here suggests systemic awareness of this procedural risk. Competitors monitoring this application should note that US16/044281 remains pending and unpatented; FTO risk is not yet crystallised.
Patent status: pendingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: DOUGLAS PAUL RAGGIO | Individual | Independent inventor — applicant for US16/044281 (single-serve honeycomb packaging system)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DERRICK BRENT, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office | Individual | Acting Director of the USPTO, representing the agency in ex parte patent prosecution appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Benjamin Esplin | Attorney | Counsel for In re: DOUGLAS PAUL RAGGIOSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Martin Bader | Attorney | Counsel for In re: DOUGLAS PAUL RAGGIOSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Esplin & Associates, PC | Law Firm | Representing In re: DOUGLAS PAUL RAGGIOSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | Law Firm | Representing In re: DOUGLAS PAUL RAGGIOSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is explicitly procedural: the court grants remand without addressing the merits of patentability. The USPTO’s candid acknowledgment that the PTAB ‘relied on undesignated new grounds of rejection’ in both the secondary considerations analysis and the claim 17 official notice effectively waives any merits defence at this stage. For Raggio, the order restores his due process right to respond to any new rejection rationale before it becomes final. The cost-bearing provision — each party pays its own appeal costs — is consistent with remand orders where the agency’s error, though significant, was self-identified and not contested.
US16/044281 — Single-Serve Honeycomb Packaging System and Method
Application US16/044281 (published as US20200031555A1) covers a system and method for packaging a single-serve portion of honeycomb — a niche but commercially differentiated product format in the specialty food sector. The application was filed July 24, 2018, placing it in a period of growing consumer interest in artisanal and natural food presentation formats. The invention’s claims — including the contested claim 17 with its wrapping limitation — appear directed at a novel packaging configuration specific to the physical and structural properties of honeycomb as a food product.
Honeycomb packaging presents genuinely distinct engineering challenges: the product is fragile, irregular, and prone to leakage, making single-serve portioning technically non-trivial. If granted, this patent could represent a proprietary position in specialty honey and natural food retail packaging — a market segment attracting increasing attention from artisan producers and premium grocery chains. Competitors in food packaging, particularly those developing single-serve or portion-controlled natural food formats, should track this application’s prosecution history carefully as the PTAB reconsiders the rejection on remand.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US16/044281?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or retailing single-serve honeycomb portions — or analogous single-serve natural food packaging systems — should treat US16/044281 as an active FTO risk. The application remains pending after remand, meaning claims can still be amended or broadened during prosecution. The scope of claim 17’s wrapping limitation, specifically flagged in the remand order, will be particularly important in defining the eventual patent boundary.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the current claim language of US16/044281 against your product design, flag relevant prior art that may inform the PTAB’s reconsidered rejection, and monitor prosecution status in real time. Given that the PTAB’s secondary considerations analysis is being redone, Eureka can also identify comparable commercial embodiments and market evidence that may affect the patent’s ultimate strength and enforceability if granted.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20200031555A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent prosecution appeals in food and packaging technology
Cases involving Federal Circuit remands of PTAB rejections in food technology and specialty packaging, with comparable procedural postures to In re Raggio.
What In re Raggio signals for food packaging IP prosecution
A procedural concession by the USPTO at the Federal Circuit level carries lessons beyond this single honeycomb packaging application.
PTAB new-grounds errors are a viable appellate lever for patent applicants
The USPTO’s concession here confirms that undesignated new grounds of rejection — particularly in secondary considerations analysis — represent a real and enforceable procedural right. Applicants facing adverse PTAB decisions should audit Board opinions for grounds not raised during examination, as this case shows the Federal Circuit will enforce those rights even when the agency itself moves to remand.
Remand without costs signals no bad faith — but PTAB must now get it right
The cost-neutral order suggests the Federal Circuit treated the USPTO’s self-correction as good faith compliance rather than sanctionable conduct. On remand, however, the PTAB’s analysis of secondary considerations and the claim 17 wrapping limitation will be closely scrutinised. A second procedural error could carry different consequences and would likely face a less sympathetic appellate panel.
RAGGIO v DERRICK — key questions answered
The remand means the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board must reconsider its rejection of US16/044281 using properly designated grounds. The Federal Circuit made no ruling on patentability — the application remains pending and the PTAB must redo its analysis, particularly of secondary considerations evidence and the claim 17 wrapping limitation.
Under USPTO rules, if the PTAB relies on a rejection rationale not raised during examination, it must formally designate it as a ‘new ground of rejection’ so the applicant can respond. In Raggio, the USPTO conceded the PTAB failed to do this for its secondary considerations analysis and its official notice of claim 17’s wrapping limitation — denying Raggio a full opportunity to contest those grounds.
As of the June 20, 2025 order, US16/044281 is remanded to the USPTO for further proceedings. It remains a pending application — no patent has been granted. The PTAB must reconsider the rejection; the applicant may amend claims or submit further evidence during that process.
The USPTO’s motion acknowledges the PTAB’s procedural error in relying on undesignated new grounds. Filing an unopposed remand motion before merits briefing avoids the risk of an adverse Federal Circuit precedent on the scope of new-grounds requirements, while preserving the agency’s ability to reject the claims again on proper procedural grounds.
Secondary considerations — such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, and industry praise — are objective evidence of non-obviousness under Graham v. John Deere. In Raggio, the PTAB’s improper handling of this evidence was central to the remand: the error applied to all rejected claims, suggesting it was substantively material to the obviousness analysis the PTAB must now redo.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.