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 .
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.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,7,8,10-12,14,15,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miladinov(US 2013/0216661).
Regarding claims 1-5, Miladinov teaches an adhesive composite film for a multi-region confectionery. The composition comprises layers of confectionery material and soft candy material, with an edible adhesive in between the confectionery and soft candy layers(para 195). Therefore, the confectionery can be considered the “edible backbone” and the edible adhesive as the adhesive layer. The adhesive layer adheres to the soft candy layer(para 195). Miladinov teaches that the backbone(confectionery composition) can comprise a polymer in the form of psyllium(dietary fiber)(para 11) and a plasticizer in the form of xylitol and/or sorbitol(para 82).
Regarding claims 7-8, Miladinov teaches that the adhesive layer comprises a sugar, which would become sticky after addition of water(para 196).
Regarding claim 10, Miladinov teaches that the edible adhesive is applied between each confectionery and soft candy layer, and that the composition can have multiple soft candy and confectionery layers(para 195). Therefore, the edible adhesive would be applied on each side of the confectionery layer(edible backbone) to adhere the multiple layers together.
Regarding claim 11, Miladinov teaches that the composite film can comprise flavor in the edible backbone(para 42).
Regarding claims 12,14,15,18 Miladinov teaches that the composite film(adhesive and confectionery) adheres to a soft candy food substrate material(para195). The soft candy can be considered the external barrier material, to which the adhesive composite film is adhered.
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.
Claim(s) 6,16,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miladinov(US 2013/0216661).
Regarding claim 6, Miladinov is silent on the volume ratio of the dietary to plasticizer. However, Miladinov teaches a weight ratio of about 70 to 98 weight percent sugar alcohols(xylitol and sorbitol) and about 0.2 to about 20 weight percent diffusion controller such as psyllium(dietary fiber)(para 195). Therefore, the weight ratio of dietary to plasticizer is 98:0.1 to 70:20(2.5:1), would is broad enough to reasonably encompass the volume ratio as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Miladinov teaches that the edible backbone(confectionery material) has height of at least 0.2mm(para 163) but is silent on the height of the edible adhesive. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the height of the adhesive layer depending on the nature of the confectionery and soft candy layers, in order to properly adhere the layers together.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Miladinov teaches that the composite film(adhesive and confectionery) adheres to a soft candy food substrate material(para195). The soft candy can be considered the external barrier material, to which the adhesive composite film is adhered.
Miladinov teaches that the confectionary composition can have a variety of shapes including a twist shape, interlocking shapes, swirl shape, etc(para 111). Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply the adhesive composite film to two portions of the external barrier in order to twist the confection material and join two portions of the external barrier material(soft candy outer layer).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miladinov(US 2013/0216661) in view of The Cake Creator(What is Tylose Powder).
Miladinov teaches the use of various gums as a diffusion controller in the adhesive layer including gum Arabic and CMC(carboxymethyl cellulose)(para 36) but does not specifically teach the adhesive layer comprises tylose powders. However, Cake Creator teaches that tylose powder is an effective equivalent to CMC and gum Arabic in confection compositions. It would have been obvious to use tylose powder as an equivalent to gum Arabic and cmc as taught in The Cake Creator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Miladinov does not teach an adhesive composite film comprising a layer of edible backbone and a layer of edible adhesive placed on the edible backbone, the adhesive configured to adhere to an item of food. The applicant argues that the confection cannot be considered the edible backbone and the edible adhesive cannot be considered the layer of edible adhesive. However, nothing in the claims precludes the “edible backbone” from being a confection.
The applicant argues that the Miladinov does not teach that the adhesive layer is water-activated. However, the claims do not recite that that the film is “water activated”, only that it becomes adhesive after exposure with water. In other words, the claims do not say that the film only is adhesive after exposure with water. As such, sugar components as taught in the adhesive layer of Miladinov are known to become sticky upon exposure contact with water.
The applicant argues that the instant spec shows that tylose powder provides superior adhesiveness compared to CMC. However, the applicant has not shown that any of the results are unexpected or compared the closest prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, 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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791