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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, following claimed subject matter must be shown of the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“at least two clamp plates”, “a fitment”, and “the spout is mechanically coupled to the fitment” in claims 1 and 7;
“a pass-through tube” in claim 5;
“a fitment” and “the spout is mechanically coupled to the fitment” in claim 13;
“multiple form factor” in claim 17;
“clamp plates” in claim 18;
“a pass-through director” in claim 19; and
“an opening hold” in claim 20.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant argued that no new drawings are required since label 107 shoes two clamp plates as part of extrusion mechanism 106 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art should know the general structure of the extrusion device. However, such arguments do not overcome the drawings objection since the drawings merely show schematics of the extrusion process without showing actual claimed structures. Therefore, the drawings are still objected and applicant is advised to either provided amended drawing sheets or canceled the claimed limitations in question.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “the spout of the first container comprises a pass-through tube”. It is not clear from the drawings and the specifications what is a pass-through tube. The specification repeats the same language and the drawings do not show any details of the pass-through tube. Such disclosure does not reasonably convey the subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of examination, the limitations of the claim will be interpreted as “the spout of the first container comprises a tube”.
Claim 17 recites “the extruder apparatus comprises multiple form factors’. It is not clear what this means and such recitation does not reasonably convey the subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification also does not provide sufficient support for such limitation besides repeating the same language that is present in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the limitations of the claim will be interpreted as “the extruder apparatus comprises different sized components”.
Claim 19 recites “the fitment includes a pass-through director for evacuating contents of the first container”. It is not clear from the drawings and the specifications what is a pass-through director. The specification repeats the same language and the drawings do not show any details of the pass-through tube. Such disclosure does not reasonably convey the subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of examination, the limitations of the claim will be interpreted as “the fitment includes a tube for evacuating contents of the first container”.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krcma et al. (“Krcma” hereinafter) (US PG PUB 2012/0294667).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, 18, and 20, Krcma discloses an extruder apparatus (item 30, figure 5) comprising:
at least two clamp plates (plates 30 and 32, figures 5-8), the at least two clamp plates being configured to accept a first container (item 60, figure 11);
the first container for holding a viscous material (dispensable foodstuffs, paragraphs [0012], [0031]), the viscous material is to be extruded through a spout (item 10, figure 11) of the first container by compressing the first container with the at least two clamp plates (see figure 12);
the spout of the first container passing portions of the viscous material to a specific location exterior to the first container when compressed by the at least two clamp plates (paragraph [0039]);
a fitment (opening 48 of flange 46, figure 5) for coupling to the first container via the spout of the first container; and
wherein the spout is mechanically coupled to the fitment such that the portions of the viscous material may pass through the fitment to the specific location by means of an extrusion process (see figure 11, the spout 10 of tube 60 passes through opening 48 of flange 46 to dispense foodstuffs to a desired location, paragraphs [0039-0043]).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 8-12, Krcma discloses that the extruder apparatus is capable of dispensing material from first container which can hold any viscous and flowable material (paragraphs [0004], [0012], [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Krcma discloses that the spout of the first container comprises a pass-through tube (figures 4, 10, 11, and 12).
Regarding claims 14-16, Krcma’s device is handheld and is capable of dispensing the viscous material to any precise location as mentioned in the claims or any other suitable location (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Krcma discloses that the extruder apparatus comprises multiple components (figures 5-12).
Regarding claim 19, Krcma discloses that the fitment includes a pass-through director (opening 48, figure 11) for evacuating contents of the first container.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krcma.
Regarding claim 6, Krcma teaches that the first container is a conventional icing bag comprising a spout nozzle (paragraphs [0006-0007], [0031-0033]) but is silent to such nozzle being metallic.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the pass-through nozzle of the first container of Krcma metallic since it is old and well-known in the art that frosting or icing tips for bags are either made of plastic or metal materials. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (See MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2025 regarding rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Krcma have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argued that 112(a) rejections of claims 5, 17, and 19 should be withdrawn because the specification provides sufficient support and a person of ordinary skill in the art is familiar with known extrusion techniques and terms. Examiner disagrees and would like to reiterate that the specification merely recites the same language that is present in the claims without providing any additional support. Furthermore, regardless of the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art regarding form factors, the claims still should have sufficient support in the specification that regarding the structure and point out its novelty in the claim language. none of these are present in the disclosure nor the claims. Therefore, claims 5, 17, and 19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed in detail above.
Applicant further argued, regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, that Krcma does not teach clamp plates as recited in the independent claims and that the clap plates are configured to accept a first container. Applicant asserted that for these reasons, the prior arts does not anticipate the claimed invention.
Examiner disagrees and would like to direct applicant’s attention to figures 5-12, where plate-like structures 34 and 32 of the decorating pent 30 are clearly shown to accept a container 2 or container 50 which is squeezed between the two plates to extrude a decorating material such as food icing. Thus, the prior art clearly teaches all of the limitations of the claims as recited. Therefore, claims 1-20 remain rejected under Krcma as discussed in detail above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 pm).
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights