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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 3 of the Remarks that Shannon is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the instant claims are directed to a flexile nozzle for a micro puree (a soft, dispensable food stuff) machine. Davis discloses a dispensing nozzle (31) for a micro puree (a soft, dispensable food stuff) machine but does not specify that the nozzle is flexible. Shannon is analogous since it discloses a dispensing nozzle (40) for use in dispensing a processed cheese product (a soft, dispensable food stuff), wherein the nozzle of Shannon being flexible. Shannon provides motivation to combine by teaching a decorative effect added to the food product by the flexible nozzle. (col. 5, line 20)
In response to Applicant's argument on page 3 of the Remarks that the nozzle of Shannon could not be incorporated into the apparatus of Davis, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Shannon teaches that the benefits of manufacturing a dispensing nozzle out of a flexible material is that a decorative effect is added to the food product. (col. 5, line 20) Therefore, by modifying Davis’s nozzle with the teaching of Shannon’s flexibility and flap (“petals”) the suggestion of a decorative effect is realized.
The Applicant argues on page 3 that Shannon’s decorator tip is not a nozzle; however this argument is not persuasive. Shannon’s tip is a terminal dispensing part which shapes and directs the flow of the product. Per Merriam-Webster: nozzle (noun): short tube with a taper or constriction used (as on a hose) to speed up or direct a flow of fluid.
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(s) 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, et al. (“Davis”) (U.S. Pub. 2014/0374519) in view of Shannon (U.S. Pat. 6,153,238)/
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses a nozzle (31) for a micro puree machine but does not specify that the nozzle is flexible.
Shannon discloses a flexible nozzle (40) for dispensing a food product, the flexible nozzle comprising:
a body having a top surface (42); and
an opening (44) extending through a width of the body, the opening having a central region and at least two arms (43) extending radially from the central region, each of the at least two arms having two sidewalls extending from the central region and converging to a point such that a flap is formed between the at least two arm regions;
wherein the flap is configured to bend away from the top surface of the body along a fold line extending between the two arm regions when a force is exerted on the flap from the top surface (col. 3, lines 12-13: “the tip having flexible petals”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow Shannon’s flexible nozzle with arms to add a decorative effect to the food product. (col. 5, line 20)
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combination discloses that the flap is configured to return to an unbent state when the force is no longer exerted on the flap. (col. 3, lines 12-13: “the tip having flexible petals”)
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combination discloses the at least two arm regions is six arm regions. (seen in Fig. 4 of Shannon)
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination discloses the sidewalls of each of the at least two arm regions are sloped between the top surface of the body and a bottom surface of the body. (seen in Fig. 4 of Shannon)
Regarding claims 6, 7, 14 and 15, the combination discloses the body has outer circumference defining a circular shape of the body. (Shannon: Fig. 2: circumference of 42)
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination discloses a shape of the opening is one of a star, a flower and a sun. (col. 5, lines 20-26: “open star”, “drop flower”, “closed star”)
Regarding claim 9, Davis discloses a nozzle system (31) for a micro puree machine, the nozzle system comprising: an outlet (31a) in communication with an opening (40a) in a processing bowl (20) of the micro puree machine. Davis does not specify that the nozzle is flexible.
Shannon discloses a flexible nozzle (40) for dispensing a food product, the flexible nozzle comprising:
a body having a top surface (42); and
an opening (44) extending through a width of the body, the opening having a central region and at least two arms (43) extending radially from the central region, each of the at least two arms having two sidewalls extending from the central region and converging to a point such that a flap is formed between the at least two arm regions;
wherein the flap is configured to bend away from the top surface of the body along a fold line extending between the two arm regions when a force is exerted on the flap from the top surface (col. 3, lines 12-13: “the tip having flexible petals”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination, as modified by Shannon, discloses a plug (80) for selectively covering and uncovering an opening in the outlet.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Shannon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grimes, et al. (“Grimes”) (U.S. Pub. 2013/0017297).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination discloses that the nozzle is flexible but does not specify its material of manufacture. Grimes discloses a similar nozzle made from silicone rubber (¶ [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow Grimes’ teaching of silicone rubber to manufacture Shannon’s nozzle since that material “enable the user to clear clogs”. (¶ [0114])
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 MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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.
/MJM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 March 18, 2026