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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/25 has been entered.
Claims 1,3,9 are amended and claims 2,13,16-19, 26 are cancelled. Claims 1,3,5-12,20-25 are pending.
The previous 112 first paragraph rejection is withdrawn because of the amendment.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/15/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The insertion of figure 12 and the paragraph added to describe the figure 12 on pages 11 and 15.
The description added on page 15 is not supported by the original disclosure. Original claim 4 and pages 4 and 8 disclose that the nozzles in the second nozzle group are angled with respect to an axis of nozzle in the first nozzle group. There is no disclosure of 4-5 degree. The description of just angled with respect to an axis does not support the description. Without further description, it is not known what angled intends to be. The original drawings do not show any angle.
The description will not be entered. The deletion of the figure but retaining of the description does not obviate the objection because the description is not supported.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,3,5-8,12,20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustav ( EP 2543259) in view of Teissier ( 2017/0334589).
For claim 1, Gustav discloses a method of manufacturing confectionery product. The method comprises the steps of depositing one or more inclusions into a mold cavity and depositing a food product into the mold cavity through a depositor plate. Gustav discloses the inclusions can be deposited in the mould cavity before or after the edible liquid is deposited. Gustav discloses that changing the thickness of the confectionery shell also enable the user to vary the extent to which the inclusion are visible to the consumer. Thus, Gustav disclose confectionery product containing externally visible inclusions. The food product is deposited into the mold cavity using conventional depositor such as multi-nozzle depositor.( see paragraphs 0011,0029, 0079, 0081)
For claim 5, Gustav discloses multi-nozzle depositor which deposits into multiple cavities simultaneously. ( see paragraph 0029)
For claim 6, Gustav discloses once the first edible liquid has been deposited into the mold cavity, it is pressed using a stamp. The liquid is pressed against the wall of the mold cavity using a stamp and solidified to form a shell. As shown in figure 2a, the stamp has a first portion with shape generally complementary to the shape of the mold cavity and a second portion that does not penetrate the mold cavity.( see paragraphs 0011, 0013,0018,0031)
For claim 8, as shown in figure 2A, the second portion of the stamp abuts a rim of the mold cavity.
For claim 12, Gustav discloses the additional step of vibrating the mold cavity after depositing the food product into the mold cavity. ( see paragraph 0029)
For claim 20, Gustav discloses the food product comprises chocolate. ( see paragraph 0025)
Gustav does not disclose nozzle configured to direct at least a portion of the food product towards a wall and nozzle group configured to direct first volume towards a central portion and the axes of nozzle are angled as in claim 1, the nozzles configuration as in claims 3, 21-26,the distance as in claim 6 and stamp having chamfer as in claim 7.
Teissier discloses a method for packaging high textured dairy product. Teissier discloses the step of filling a container with dairy product by means of a dispenser equipped with a nozzle plate comprising at least one opening. Advantageously, the nozzle plate comprises between 2-30 openings. The openings are homogenously distributed at the end of the nozzle plate; for example, they can be arranged in circle. Figure 1 shows nozzle plate with opening group located in the outer edge of the plate and second group of opening located in the center of the plate. The dispenser in Teissier dispenses dairy product filling up the wall and the entire region of the cup. The limitation of plurality of recesses does not define over Teissier. The recesses as defined in the instant specification are shown as indentation from top surface 302 as shown in figures 3B and 3A. The nozzles in Teissier are openings as shown in figure 1. They are indentation from the surface and can be considered recesses. ( see paragraphs 0008,0094-0096)
Gustav teaches any conventional depositor can be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any known depositor such as the one disclosed in Teissier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the depositor in Teissier for ease of depositing the fluid material against the mold cavity wall and central region. It is obvious that when the Teissier dispenser is used with the mold in Gustav, the outside group of openings will be against the wall and the central openings will be directed at the center region of the mold. Teissier discloses plurality of openings. Thus, it would have been obvious to have more openings in the center. The nozzle plate with openings disclosed in Teissier has the same configuration as shown in figure 4A of the instant application; thus, it obviously will have the angle configuration as in claim 1 depending on the angle it’s looked at and the first group nozzles are perpendicular to a bottom surface. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to angle the nozzle for aiming purpose. For instance, it would have been obvious to angle the nozzles radially outwards toward the wall of the mold when it’s desired to deposit against the mold. Manipulation of nozzles is a processing parameter that would have been within the routine experimentation of one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the distance between the stamp and the mold cavity containing inclusion depending on the thickness desired for the shell. This parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to change the angle of the stamp to include a chamfer which is an angled surface as an obvious matter of design choice without affecting the processing step.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustav in view of Akutagawa as applied to claims 1,3,5-8,12,20-25 above, and further in view of Johanson ( WO 2009/029790).
Gustav does not disclose depositing inclusion using an inclusion depositor having the configuration as in claims 9-11.
For claim 9, Johanson discloses a dispenser for dispensing varying portions of granular or powdered material. The dispenser comprises an upper plate with one or more holes, a lower plate with one or more holes and a middle plate with one or more holes. The middle plate is between the upper plate and lower plate and is slideable in a plane both forward and backward between the upper plate and lower plate. The middle plate can be moved to different position. When the dispenser is in the charging position, the holes in the middle plate are aligned with holes of the upper plate. In the dispensing position, the holes in the middle plate are substantially aligned with holes in the lower plate. During dispensing, the material falls through holes in the upper plate through the holes in the middle plate and through the holes in the lower plate. ( see paragraphs 0037-0040). For claim 11, figure 2 shows the holes of the upper plate are to the side versus the holes in the lower plate which are more central. Thus, the holes are laterally offset.
Gustav discloses depositing inclusion into mold cavity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the dispenser disclosed in Johanson for ease to depositing the inclusions. Johanson does not disclose the diameter and shape as in claim 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size and shape of the holes depending on the type of sizes of the inclusion. This parameter can be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that Gustav in view of Teissier fails to disclose recesses. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of plurality of recesses does not define over Teissier. The recesses as defined in the instant specification are shown as indentation from top surface 302 as shown in figures 3B and 3A. The nozzles in Teissier are openings as shown in figure 1. They are indentation from the surface and can be considered recesses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
December 19, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights