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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 50-64 and 69 in the reply filed on December 29th, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 65-68 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 50, 51, 53, 57-64 and 69 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 50:
line 4, “a plurality of moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
lines 6-7 and 9, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
line 8, “the cavities” should say “the mould cavities”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 51, line 2, “the prodder” should say “the non-manual prodder” for claim language consistency.
Claim 53, line 2, “the prodder” should say “the non-manual prodder” for claim language consistency.
Claim 57:
line 2, “the prodder” should say “the contact prodder”
lines 2-3, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 58:
line 2, “the prodder” should say “the non-manual prodder”
line 2, “a plurality of moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 59:
line 2, “the prodder” should say “the non-manual prodder”
lines 2-3, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
line 3, “its original shape” should say “their original shape”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 60:
lines 2-4, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
lines 3-4, “the prodder” should say “the non-manual prodder”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 61:
lines 2-3, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
lines 3, “the prodder” should say “the non-manual prodder”
lines 4-5, “the vertical” should say “from the centreline vertical axis”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 62:
lines 1-3, “the demoulding apparatus” should say “the dislodging apparatus”
lines 4 and 6, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
line 4, “the cavities” should say “the mould cavities”
line 6, “the mould cavity” should say “the mould cavities”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 63:
line 1, “the demoulding apparatus” should say “the dislodging apparatus”
lines 2 and 4, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
lines 2 and 4, “the cavity” should say “the mould cavities”
lines 2 and 4, “the mould” should say “the moulds”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 64:
lines 1-2, “the demoulding apparatus” should say “the dislodging apparatus”
line 3, “mould cavities” should say “the mould cavities”
line 3, “the moulded products” should say “the plurality of moulded products”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim 69:
line 5, “the prodder” should say “the non-manual prodder”
line 9, “the cavity” should say “the mould cavity”
Should all be corrected for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
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 50-64 and 69 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 50 recites the limitation “a soft and elastic consistency” in line 2. The term “soft” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” 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. The use of the term “soft” renders the consistency of the moulded product indefinite. Furthermore, the term “consistency” is not defined by the claim or the specification, and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 52 recites the limitation “moulded products” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a plurality of moulded products” from claim 50, lines 1-2, or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read at “the plurality of moulded products”. This interpretation is supported by Figures 7, 8 and page 4, paragraph 4.
Claim 54 recites the limitation “moulded products” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a plurality of moulded products” from claim 50, lines 1-2, or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read at “the plurality of moulded products”. This interpretation is supported by Figures 8, 9 and page 4, paragraph 4.
Claim 55 recites the limitation “moulded products” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a plurality of moulded products” from claim 50, lines 1-2, or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read at “the plurality of moulded products”. This interpretation is supported by Figures 8, 9 and page 4, paragraph 4.
Claim 56 recites the limitation “the mechanical prodding device is a mechanical rotary prodder” in line 2. It is unclear how the mechanical prodding device can be a mechanical rotary prodder when in claim 55, the claim upon which claim 56 depends, the contact prodder is a mechanical linear prodder. As stated on page 20, lines 32-33, a rotary prodder has no linear actuations, so the mechanical prodding device cannot be both a rotary prodder and a linear prodder. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 56 depends on claim 54.
Claim 56 recites the limitation “moulded products” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a plurality of moulded products” from claim 50, lines 1-2, or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read at “the plurality of moulded products”. This interpretation is supported by Figures 8, 9 and page 4, paragraph 4.
Claim 59 recites the limitation “the prodding” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 69 recites the limitation “a soft and elastic consistency” in line 2. The term “soft” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” 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. The use of the term “soft” renders the consistency of the moulded product indefinite.
Claim 69 recites the limitation “the periphery of the mould cavity” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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 50-55, 57-60 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fabre et al. (US 20080107771 A1; hereafter Fabre).
Regarding claim 50, Fabre discloses an automated dislodging apparatus ([0010, 0012]; confectionery product forming apparatus with ejection operating in cycles) for deforming a plurality of moulded products with a soft and elastic consistency ([0187]; confectionery material may be soft candy) within mould cavities ([0193]; first forming members 36) in an automated production process ([0229]; continuous formation and release), the dislodging apparatus comprising:
a non-manual prodder ([0230]; non-contact ejection device or plungers) which is capable of deforming the plurality of moulded products held within the mould cavities in a mould (Fig. 6, 12; [0013, 0025, 0230]; non-contact ejection device or plungers push against at least a portion of the confectionery product in first forming members 36 of first wheel 34);
wherein on deformation the plurality of moulded products are deformed such that adhesion of the plurality of moulded products to the mould cavities is removed or substantially removed (Fig. 6, 12; [0014, 0025]; non-contact ejection device or plungers push the confectionery product away from the first forming members 36 to disengage the confectionery product from the first forming members 36), the plurality of moulded products remaining substantially within the mould cavities after deformation (Fig. 6, 12);
thereby preparing the plurality of moulded products to be ejected and/or removed from the mould ([0021]; the disengaged confectionery product can be released from the first forming members by the force of gravity).
Regarding claim 51, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is a non-contact prodder ([0230]; non-contact ejection device).
Regarding claim 52, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 51, wherein the non-contact prodder is a pneumatic flow jet of gas and/or air ([0232, 0237]; flow of pressurized fluid, such as a jet of air or a similar gas) which deforms the plurality of moulded products.
Regarding claim 53, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is a contact prodder (Fig. 5, 6; [0025, 0204]; plunger members 66).
Regarding claim 54, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 53, wherein the contact prodder is a mechanical prodding device (Fig. 5, 6; [0025, 0204]; plunger members 66) which deforms the plurality of moulded products.
Regarding claim 55, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 54, wherein the contact prodder is a mechanical linear prodder which moves in a linear fashion (Fig. 5; [0205]) to deform the plurality of moulded products.
Regarding claim 57, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 54, wherein a tip of the contact prodder which is intended to contact the moulded products is generally blunt (Fig. 5, 6; ends of plungers 66 contacting the confectionery product in first forming members 36 are flat and blunt), to avoid damaging the plurality of moulded products during contact.
Regarding claim 58, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is capable of deforming the plurality of moulded products simultaneously ([0206]) or sequentially ([0209]).
Regarding claim 59, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is capable of deforming and disturbing the plurality of moulded products in an elastic manner, thereby allowing the plurality of moulded products to return to their original shape after a prodding ([0237]; pressure of the pressurized fluid ejected may be adjusted to not change or otherwise alter the shape of the confectionery product).
Regarding claim 60, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the plurality of moulded products comprise a centreline vertical axis, running substantially vertically through the plurality of moulded products (Fig. 5, 6), and wherein the non-manual prodder prods the plurality of moulded products at a location substantially in line with the centreline vertical axis (Fig. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 69, Fabre discloses an automated dislodging apparatus ([0010, 0012]; confectionery product forming apparatus with ejection operating in cycles) for deforming a moulded product with a soft and elastic consistency ([0187]; confectionery material may be soft candy) within a mould cavity ([0193]; first forming members 36) in a production process ([0229]; continuous formation and release), the dislodging apparatus comprising:
a non-manual prodder ([0230]; non-contact ejection device) which is capable of deforming the moulded product which is held within the mould cavity in a mould (Fig. 12; [0230]; non-contact ejection device push against at least a portion of the confectionery product in first forming members 36 of first wheel 34), in which the non-manual prodder prods the moulded product at a location away from a periphery of the mould cavity (Fig. 12; [0237]; the non-contact ejection device of nozzle 212 pushes the confectionery product in the middle, which is a location away from a periphery of the first forming members 36);
wherein on deformation the moulded product is deformed such that adhesion of the moulded product to the mould cavity is removed or substantially removed (Fig. 12; [0014, 0230]; non-contact ejection device push the confectionery product away from the first forming members 36 to disengage the confectionery product from the first forming members 36), the moulded product remaining substantially within the mould cavity after deformation (Fig. 12);
thereby preparing the moulded product to be ejected and/or removed from the mould ([0021]; the disengaged confectionery product can be released from the first forming members by the force of gravity).
Claims 50, 53-55 and 57-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verzicht (DE 4027522 C2).
Regarding claim 50, Verzicht discloses an automated dislodging apparatus (Fig. 1; [0012]; automatically demoulding from trays) for deforming a plurality of moulded products with a soft and elastic consistency ([0006]; baked goods with a high proportion of adhesive components) within mould cavities ([0020]; depressions 2) in an automated production process ([0012]), the dislodging apparatus comprising:
a non-manual prodder (Fig. 9-10; [0020]; sliders 7) which is capable of deforming the plurality of moulded products held within the mould cavities in a mould (Fig. 9-10; [0020]; sliders 7 deform baked goods 1 from depressions 2 in baking tray 3);
wherein on deformation the plurality of moulded products are deformed such that adhesion of the plurality of moulded products to the mould cavities is removed or substantially removed (Fig. 9-10; [0020]), the plurality of moulded products remaining substantially within the mould cavities after deformation (Fig. 10);
thereby preparing the plurality of moulded products to be ejected and/or removed from the mould (Fig. 1, 9-10; [0020]).
Regarding claim 53, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is a contact prodder (Fig. 9-10; [0020]).
Regarding claim 54, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 53, wherein the contact prodder is a mechanical prodding device (Fig. 9-10; [0020]) which deforms the plurality of moulded products.
Regarding claim 55, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 54, wherein the contact prodder is a mechanical linear prodder which moves in a linear fashion (Fig. 9-10) to deform the plurality of moulded products.
Regarding claim 57, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 54, wherein a tip of the contact prodder which is intended to contact the moulded products is generally blunt (Fig. 4, 6, 7; [0022]), to avoid damaging the plurality of moulded products during contact.
Regarding claim 58, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is capable of deforming the plurality of moulded products simultaneously (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 59, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is capable of deforming and disturbing the plurality of moulded products in an elastic manner, thereby allowing the plurality of moulded products to return to their original shape after a prodding (Fig. 9-10; deformation by slider 7 does not disturb the shape of the baked good 1).
Regarding claim 60, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the plurality of moulded products comprise a centreline vertical axis, running substantially vertically through the plurality of moulded products (Fig. 9-10; baked good 1 has a centreline vertical axis), and wherein the non-manual prodder prods the plurality of moulded products at a location offset from the centreline vertical axis (Fig. 9-10; slider 7 prods from the side of the baked good).
Regarding claim 61, Verzicht discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the plurality of moulded products comprise a centreline vertical axis, running substantially vertically through the plurality of moulded products (Fig. 9-10; baked good 1 has a centreline vertical axis), and wherein the non-manual prodder prods the plurality of moulded products at a direction according to any of the following: about 20 - 80 degrees from the centreline vertical axis (Fig. 1, 9-10; [0023]; sliders 7 prod at 20 to 30 degrees to the wall plane, which is 60 to 70 degrees from the centreline vertical axis of the baked good 1) or about 30 - 70 degrees from the centreline vertical axis (Fig. 1, 9-10; [0023]; sliders 7 prod at 20 to 30 degrees to the wall plane, which is 60 to 70 degrees from the centreline vertical axis of the baked good 1).
Claims 50, 53, 54, 56, 62 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winkler et al. (GB 1496388 A; hereafter Winkler).
Regarding claim 50, Winkler discloses an automated dislodging apparatus (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 1, 3rd ¶; proposed device for automatic removal of confectionery from mould boxes) for deforming a plurality of moulded products with a soft and elastic consistency within mould cavities (Col. 1, 3rd ¶; confectionery articles from mould boxes) in an automated production process (Col. 1, 3rd ¶ and Col. 2, 4th ¶; automatic filling and removal), the dislodging apparatus comprising:
a non-manual prodder (Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5) which is capable of deforming the plurality of moulded products held within the mould cavities in a mould (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5 contact confectionery articles 13 in mould boxes);
wherein on deformation the plurality of moulded products are deformed such that adhesion of the plurality of moulded products to the mould cavities is removed or substantially removed (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5 contact and pick up the confectionery articles 13 from the mould boxes), the plurality of moulded products remaining substantially within the mould cavities after deformation (Fig. 1; confectionery articles 13 remain substantially within the mould box when first contacted by suction nozzle 5);
thereby preparing the plurality of moulded products to be ejected and/or removed from the mould (Fig. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 53, Winkler discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, wherein the non-manual prodder is a contact prodder (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5 contact confectionery articles 13 in mould boxes).
Regarding claim 54, Winkler discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 53, wherein the contact prodder is a mechanical prodding device (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5 mechanically contacts confectionery articles 13 in mould boxes) which deforms the plurality of moulded products.
Regarding claim 56, Winkler discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 54, wherein the mechanical prodding device is a mechanical rotary prodder (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5 rotate to mechanically contact confectionery articles 13 in mould boxes) which moves in a rotary fashion to deform the plurality of moulded products.
Regarding claim 62, Winkler discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50, the dislodging apparatus comprising:
a conveyor system (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 1, 4th ¶) for moving moulds along the dislodging apparatus;
wherein the plurality of moulded products remain substantially within the mould cavities after deformation (Fig. 1; confectionery articles 13 remain substantially within the mould box when first contacted by suction nozzle 5);
and an ejection device (Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5) capable of removing the plurality of moulded products from the mould cavities in the moulds (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5 contact and pick up the confectionery articles 13 from the mould boxes).
Regarding claim 63, Winkler discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 62, wherein the ejection device is a vacuum device (Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5), which removes the plurality of moulded products from the mould cavity of the moulds via suction (Fig. 1, 4; Col. 3, 1st ¶; suction nozzles 5 contact and pick up the confectionery articles 13 from the mould boxes).
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.
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.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabre et al. (US 20080107771 A1; hereafter Fabre), in view of Stanley (US 3318263 A).
Regarding claim 64, Fabre discloses the dislodging apparatus according to claim 50.
Fabre does not explicitly disclose a depositing device which deposits and/or applies a lubricating fluid to the mould cavities prior to formation of the plurality of moulded products.
However, in the analogous art Stanley teaches a device for forming and ejecting soft confectionery products (Col. 1, 4th ¶) comprising a depositing device (Col. 2, last ¶; spray head 22) which deposits and/or applies a lubricating fluid (Col. 2, last ¶; liquid release agent) to mould cavities prior to formation of the soft confectionery products (Col. 2, last ¶; spray head 22 sprays liquid release agent into the moulds before the moulds are filled with confectionery material).
Fabre and Stanley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of forming and dislodging molded products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fabre with the teachings of Stanley to provide a depositing device which deposits and/or applies a lubricating fluid to the mould cavities prior to formation of the plurality of moulded products. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). It is well-known in the art of molding food products to spray lubricating/release agents onto molds before filling in order to facilitate easier release of the shaped food products from the molds by reducing sticking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujishima (US 5154937 A) discloses a device comprising a pusher member and vacuum rod for demolding a confectionery product from a mold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights