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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on December 6, 2023. The earliest effective filing date of the application is December 7, 2022.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 – 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 27, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 9, in the reply filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no undue burden to search the remaining claims. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are in two different classification categories, and their subject matter are sufficiently divergent that a search burden would be undue if the inventions were examined together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Application
The Response to Restriction Requirement filed on March 27, 2026 has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 13
Withdrawn claims: 10 – 13
Claims currently under examination: 1 – 9
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the time, “t 1-2 días” in the “Cooling” block of Figure 2 is in Spanish. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “(3) depositing the gelified shell composition and the filling composition…” Which should be rewritten as “(3) depositing the gelified shell composition in the filling composition…” to put the claim into proper English.
Claim 2 recites “wherein said gelified shell comprises 85% by weight of the filled gummy” which should be rewritten as “wherein the filled gummy comprises 85% by weight of said gelified shell” because the filled gummy comprises the gelified shell.
Claim 3 recites “wherein said filling composition comprises 15% by weight of the filled gummy” which should be rewritten as “wherein the filled gummy comprises 85% by weight of said filling composition” because the filled gummy comprises the filling composition.
Claim 4 recites “actives ingredients” which should be rewritten as “active ingredients” to put the claim into proper English.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 7, and 9 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 “paste cook water” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “paste cook water” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, “paste cook water” is interpreted to be any water.
Claim 5 recites the term “mixing water d.o.i.” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “d.o.i.” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, “mixing water d.o.i.” is interpreted to mean any amount of water is included in the filling composition.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said deposited gummy". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “said deposited gummy” is interpreted to refer to the “filled gummy”.
Claim 7 is rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verheye et al. (US 20230337695 A1) in view of Callebaut Chocolates (Screen captures from YouTube video clip entited “How to fill moulded chocolates” uploaded on November 21, 2016 by user “Callebaut Chocolates” Retrieved from Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRjIhguNkE (Retrieved on June 26, 2026)).
Regarding claim 1, Verheye teaches a method for producing a seamless centre filled gummy, said seamless centre filled gummy comprising a gelatinous shell and a filling encased inside said gelatinous shell; wherein the filling comprises at least one active ingredient; the method comprising the steps of:
1) preparing a gelatinous shell composition by:
1a) dissolving a first gelatine product in water to form a first gelatine solution;
1b) optionally adding at least one first sweetener and optionally one or more secondary ingredients to the first gelatine solution;
2) preparing a filling composition, wherein the filling composition comprises at least one bulking agent and one or more active ingredients dissolved or suspended in said filling composition;
3) depositing the gelatinous shell composition and the filling composition within the same timeframe; thereby fully encasing the filling composition with the gelatinous shell composition;
4) setting the deposited gelatinous shell composition; wherein the temperature Tinner of the filling composition upon deposition is at most 45 °C, and wherein the viscosity of the filling composition upon deposition ranges between 500 and 30,000 mPa.s (Cp – Claim 1).
Verheye teaches the Touter of the gelatinous shell composition upon deposition is at least 40 °C to at most 100 °C (Claim 3). Verheye teaches the viscosity of the gelatinous shell composition at Touter is at least 500 mPa.s (Cp) to at most 30,000 mPa.s (Cp – Claim 4).
The range of gelatinous shell composition temperatures upon deposition, at least 40 °C to at most 100 °C, as disclosed by Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 80 – 99 °C. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of filling composition temperatures upon deposition, at most 45 °C, as disclosed by Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 4 – 20 °C. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of gelatinous shell composition viscosities upon deposition, 500 mPa.s (Cp) to at most 30,000 mPa.s (Cp), as disclosed by Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 6000 – 8000 Cp. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
With respect to the limitation “the viscosity of the filling composition upon deposition ranges between 50000 - 120000 Cp”, Verheye teaches the term "centre filled gummy" refers to a gummy, which comprises an outer shell which encases a filling ([0095]). While Verheye does not explicitly teach the viscosity of the filling composition upon deposition ranges between 50000 - 120000 Cp, Verheye teaches the filling may be a liquid, pasty, or solid, or even a mixture ([0095]).
Callebaut Chocolate teaches a method of making center-filled chocolates, comprising depositing a liquid chocolate shell into a mold, then filling the shell with liquid chocolate filling. Callebaut Chocolate teaches if the filling is too stiff, it will not flow nice and flat in the mold, however if the filling is too fluid upon deposition, it will stay too liquid, and make closing the mold too difficult (p. 10 – 13).
Verheye and Callebaut Chocolate are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, making center-filled confectioneries by depositing into molds. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the viscosity of the filling composition in the method of Verheye during routine optimization to find the filling that provides the best balance of flow into the mold, and ability to close the mold upon deposition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Verheye suggests the center filling may be a liquid, pasty, or solid, indicating a wide range of viscosities are suitable for use in the above method. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed viscosity of the filling composition upon deposition, 50000 - 120000 Cp, would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Verheye teaches the seamless centre filled gummy comprises at least 60 wt% to at most 95 wt% gelatinous shell ([0212]).
The range of seamless centre filled gummy (i.e., filled gummy) gelatinous shell wt%, at least 60 wt% to at most 95 wt%, as disclosed by Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 85 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, Verheye teaches the seamless centre filled gummy comprises at least 5 wt% to at most 40 wt% filling ([0211]).
The range of seamless centre filled gummy (i.e., filled gummy) filling wt%, at least 5 wt% to at most 40 wt%, as disclosed by Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 15 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verheye et al. (US 20230337695 A1) in view of Callebaut Chocolates (Screen captures from YouTube video clip entited “How to fill moulded chocolates” uploaded on November 21, 2016 by user “Callebaut Chocolates” Retrieved from Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRjIhguNkE (Retrieved on June 26, 2026)), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yusuf et al. (US 20050260329).
Regarding claim 4, Verheye teaches a seamless centre filled gummy prepared by the method above wherein the gelatinous shell composition comprises 8 kg gelatine (i.e., gelatin), 15 kg hot water (i.e., paste cook water), 43.2 kg sucrose (i.e., organic sugar), 36 kg glucose syrup 60DE (i.e., organic sweetener syrup), 12kg water, 2.6 kg citric acid, and a sufficient quantity of color and flavor ([0224]). Verheye teaches the obtained gelatinous shell composition has a water content of 20 weight %, due to boiling ([0228]). Therefore, according to the ingredients list provided by Verheye for the gelatinous shell composition, the gelatinous shell composition comprises 7 wt% gelatine (i.e., gelatin), 20 wt% water (i.e., paste cook water), 38.0 wt% sucrose (i.e., organic sugar), 31.6 wt% glucose syrup 60DE (i.e., organic sweetener syrup), 2.3 wt% citric acid, and a sufficient quantity of color and flavor.
Regarding the presence of pectin in the gelatinous shell composition, Verheye teaches the gelatinous shell composition comprises at most 1.0 weight% pectin, compared to the total weight of the gelatinous shell composition ([0186]).
The range of pectin wt% in the gelatinous shell composition, at most 1.0 wt% pectin, as disclosed by Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 1 – 3 wt% pectin. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the presence of active ingredients in the gelatinous shell composition, Verheye teaches the gelatinous shell composition may comprise one or more active ingredients ([0179]). Verheye teaches the filling composition of the seamless centre filled gummy prepared by the method above comprises sodium ascorbate (i.e., vitamin C – [0229]).
Verheye does not teach the gelatinous shell composition comprises 0.1 – 20 wt% active ingredients.
Yusuf teaches a method of producing a liquid center filled confection comprising the steps of:
a. contacting a non-gelling liquid filling with a gellable liquid shell to form a partially enrobed liquid filling component;
b. depositing the partially enrobed liquid filling component in a cavity of a starch mold (i.e., a starch coated-mold);
c. completely enrobing the liquid filling component within the shell;
d. gelling or setting the shell component in the mold cavity (Claim 1).
Yusuf teaches the gellable liquid shell component or shell slurry may contain about 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of at least one vitamin, such as vitamin C ([0047]).
Verheye and Yusuf are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, methods of making center-filled gummies. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of vitamin C, as taught by Yusuf, as the active ingredient in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of vitamin C to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a gelled liquid shell for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of vitamin C as the active ingredient in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of vitamin C wt% in the gelatinous shell composition, 0 wt% to about 5 wt%, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% – 20 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the presence of sodium citrate in the gelatinous shell composition, Verheye teaches the gelatinous shell composition may comprise one or more a secondary ingredients ([0178]).
Verheye does not teach the gelatinous shell composition comprises sodium citrate.
Yusuf teaches the shell and filler components may include one or more edible buffering agents such as sodium citrate or potassium citrate ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sodium citrate, as taught by Yusuf, in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye as a buffering agent because Yusuf provides that it was known for sodium citrate to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a gelled liquid shell for center-filled gummies as a buffering agent, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to include sodium citrate as a buffering agent, as taught by Yusuf, in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Verheye does not teach the gelatinous shell composition comprises 0.3 – 0.6 wt% sodium citrate.
Yusuf teaches the gellable liquid shell component or shell slurry may contain about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of at least one buffering agent such as sodium citrate, and potassium citrate ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of sodium citrate, as taught by Yusuf, as a buffering agent in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of sodium citrate to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a gelled liquid shell for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of sodium citrate as a buffering agent in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of sodium citrate wt% in the gelatinous shell composition, 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt%, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 wt% – 0.6 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Verheye does not teach the gelatinous shell composition comprises 0.1 – 2 wt% flavors.
Yusuf teaches the gellable liquid shell component or shell slurry may contain about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of a flavoring agent or flavor ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of flavoring agent or flavor, as taught by Yusuf, in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of flavor to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a gelled liquid shell for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of flavor in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of flavoring agent or flavor wt% in the gelatinous shell composition, about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% – 2 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Verheye does not teach the gelatinous shell composition comprises 0.1 – 2 wt% colors.
Yusuf teaches the gellable liquid shell component or shell slurry may contain about 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of at least one coloring agent or color ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of coloring agent or color, as taught by Yusuf, in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of color to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a gelled liquid shell for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of color, as taught by Yusuf, as the active ingredient in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of color wt% in the gelatinous shell composition, 0 wt% to about 5 wt%, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% – 2 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
While the modified method of Verheye is silent with respect to whether the color is a natural color, MPEP § 2144.06.II states an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the generically recited color with a natural color before the effective filing date of the application because natural, like the generically recited colors, provide coloring to the gelatinous shell composition, and are equally suitable for the intended use of coloring.
Regarding claim 6, the active ingredient, vitamin C, is a vitamin.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verheye et al. (US 20230337695 A1) in view of Callebaut Chocolates (Screen captures from YouTube video clip entited “How to fill moulded chocolates” uploaded on November 21, 2016 by user “Callebaut Chocolates” Retrieved from Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRjIhguNkE (Retrieved on June 26, 2026)), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yusuf et al. (US 20050260329), as evidenced by Hartel et al. (Jellies, Gummies and Licorices. In: Confectionery Science and Technology. Springer, Cham. (2018)).
Regarding claim 5, Verheye teaches a seamless centre filled gummy prepared by the method above wherein the filling composition comprises 1.0 kg gelatine, 16.7 kg water, 15 kg sodium ascorbate, and 67.3 kg glucose syrup 40DE ([0229]). Therefore, according to the ingredients list provided by Verheye for the filling composition, the filling composition comprises 1.0 wt% gelatine (i.e., hydrocolloid), 16.7 wt% water, 15 wt% sodium ascorbate (i.e., vitamin C, which is an active ingredient), and 67.3 wt% glucose syrup 40DE (i.e., sweetener). Verheye teaches the filling composition may comprise one or more a secondary ingredients. Preferably the secondary ingredient may be selected from the list comprising a food acid, such as citric acid, a colorant, flavouring, a third gelatine product, a hydrocolloid, an emulsifier, a preservative, UV-absorbing agent and/or an opacifying agent ([0178]).
With respect to the gelatine in the filling composition being considered a hydrocolloid, gummies and jellies are a class of confections based on a hydrocolloid (sometimes called a stabilizer) that provides a network to hold relatively high moisture content sugar syrup, as evidenced by Hartel (p. 329, paragraph 1). As evidenced by Hartel, traditionally, the term gummy (sometimes written as gummi) is reserved for candies made with gelatin, although this practice is not strictly followed around the world (p. 329, paragraph 1). The most common hydrocolloids are gelatin, starch, and pectin, as evidenced by Hartel (p. 329, paragraph 1). Therefore, absent an alternative definition in the instant specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “hydrocolloid” is applied herein, which includes gelatin, starch, and pectin, which are known to be referred to as hydrocolloids in the context of making gummies.
Verheye does not teach the filling composition comprises 0.1 – 11 wt% sweeteners.
Yusuf teaches a method of producing a liquid center filled confection comprising the steps of:
a. contacting a non-gelling liquid filling with a gellable liquid shell to form a partially enrobed liquid filling component;
b. depositing the partially enrobed liquid filling component in a cavity of a starch mold (i.e., a starch coated-mold);
c. completely enrobing the liquid filling component within the shell;
d. gelling or setting the shell component in the mold cavity (Claim 1).
Yusuf teaches the non-gelling liquid filling component or filling slurry may contain from 0% by weight to about 95% by weight one or more corn syrups (i.e., organic glucose syrup, which is a sweetener – [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected about 0% by weight to about 95% by weight of glucose syrup, as taught by Yusuf, in the filling composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of glucose syrup to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a filling for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select about 0% by weight to about 95% by weight of glucose syrup in the gelatinous shell composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of glucose syrup (i.e., sweetener) wt% in the filling composition, about 0% by weight to about 95% by weight, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% – 11 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Verheye does not teach the filling composition comprises 0.1 – 2 wt% flavors.
Yusuf teaches the non-gelling liquid filling component or filling slurry may contain from about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of a flavoring agent or flavor ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of flavoring agent or flavor, as taught by Yusuf, in the filling composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of flavor to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a filling for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of flavor in the filling composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of flavoring agent or flavor wt% in the filling composition, about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% – 2 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Verheye does not teach the filling composition comprises 0.1 – 2 wt% citric acid, lactic acid, or malic acid.
Yusuf teaches the non-gelling liquid filling component or filling slurry may contain from about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of at least one acidic agent such as citric acid, malic acid, and tartaric acid ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of at least one acidic agent such as citric acid, malic acid, and tartaric acid, as taught by Yusuf, in the filling composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of flavor to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a filling for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight of at least one acidic agent such as citric acid, malic acid, and tartaric acid in the filling composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of at least one acidic agent such as citric acid, malic acid, and tartaric acid wt% in the filling composition, about 0.01% by weight to about 5% by weight, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% – 2 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Verheye does not teach the filling composition comprises 0.1 – 2 wt% natural colors.
Yusuf teaches the non-gelling liquid filling component or filling slurry may contain from about 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of at least one coloring agent or color ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of coloring agent or color, as taught by Yusuf, in the filling composition of the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for such an amount of color to have been to be successfully used and published at the time of filing in a filling for center-filled gummies, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 0% by weight to about 5% by weight of color, as taught by Yusuf, as the active ingredient in the filling composition of the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07. Furthermore, the range of color wt% in the filling composition, 0 wt% to about 5 wt%, as disclosed by the modified method of Verheye, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% – 2 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
While the modified method of Verheye is silent with respect to whether the color is a natural color, MPEP § 2144.06.II states an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the generically recited color with a natural color before the effective filing date of the application because natural, like the generically recited colors, provide coloring to the filling, and are equally suitable for the intended use of coloring.
Regarding claim 7, the sweetener is glucose syrup.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verheye et al. (US 20230337695 A1) in view of Callebaut Chocolates (Screen captures from YouTube video clip entited “How to fill moulded chocolates” uploaded on November 21, 2016 by user “Callebaut Chocolates” Retrieved from Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRjIhguNkE (Retrieved on June 26, 2026)), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yusuf et al. (US 20050260329).
Regarding claim 8, Verheye teaches the depositing is done onto a mold ([0043]). While Verheye teaches the above method is suitable for non-starch molds ([0149]); Verheye also teaches starch molds are used in gummy making ([0149]; [0161]).
Verheye does not teach the depositing is done onto a starch-coated mold.
Yusuf teaches a method of producing a liquid center filled confection comprising the steps of:
a. contacting a non-gelling liquid filling with a gellable liquid shell to form a partially enrobed liquid filling component;
b. depositing the partially enrobed liquid filling component in a cavity of a starch mold (i.e., a starch coated-mold);
c. completely enrobing the liquid filling component within the shell;
d. gelling or setting the shell component in the mold cavity (Claim 1).
Verheye and Yusuf are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, methods of making center-filled gummies. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the starch mold (i.e., starch coated-mold) of Yusuf as the mold in the method of Verheye because Yusuf provides that it was known for starch molds (i.e., starch-coated molds) to be successfully used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the claimed starch-coated mold as the mold in the method of Verheye because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Verheye does not teach curing the gummy after depositing.
Yusuf teaches a method of producing a liquid center filled confection comprising the steps of:
a. contacting a non-gelling liquid filling with a gellable liquid shell to form a partially enrobed liquid filling component;
b. depositing the partially enrobed liquid filling component in a cavity of a starch mold;
c. completely enrobing the liquid filling component within the shell;
d. gelling or setting the shell component in the mold cavity (Claim 1).
Yusuf teaches after co-deposition into the cavities of the starch trays (i.e., step (b)), the starch trays with product may be cured, for example for about 20 hours to about 30 hours ([0070]).
Verheye and Yusuf are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, methods of making center-filled gummies. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the seamless centre filled gummies of Verheye after depositing into a mold, as taught by Yusuf because Yusuf provides that it was known for curing center-filled gummies after depositing to be successfully used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to cure the center-filled gummies after depositing because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 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, 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.
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights