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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 8 of the Remarks that Shannon’s petals don’t have a fold line. This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, Shannon’s petals can fold up to the line created from one vertex to the next vertex, as shown in the annotated figure, below. Secondly, as seen in Figure 6D of the instant application, the flaps (188) of the instant invention flex in a curved manner, not just along a fold-line.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant also argues on page 8 that Shannon never discloses that the petals “are designed to function flexibly during extrusion.” This argument is not persuasive. Shannon explicitly states “the tip having flexible petals” in col. 3, lines 12-13. Depending on the viscosity and pressure of the product being dispensed, the petals may inherently flex during extrusion.
The Applicant also argues on pages 8 and 9 of the Reply that Shannon’s petals are not designed to have a spring-back behavior, since, as the Applicant argues, Shannon’s skirt member (82) is needed to force the petals to return to their original shape. This argument is also not persuasive. Firstly, Shannon’s bulb end (89) “is forced into the opening (44) of the decorator tip (40)” (col. 7, lines 25-28), suggesting resilient resistance. Secondly, Shannon discloses in col. 10, lines 10-15: “The preferred cap can close the decorator tip by the bulb member being held in by the petals 43”, suggesting that the resiliency of the petals flexing back to their original position is pulling the bulb end (89) in holding it closed.
The Applicant cites Shannon col. 10, lines 12-14: “the skirt member 82 reshapes the petals and keeps them from deforming during storage” as proof of lack of resiliency or “spring back”; however, nothing in Shannon alludes to such an allegation. To the contrary, Shannon is clear for the reason of possible unwelcomed deformation: storage.
The Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that Davis does not teach the need to shape a dispensed product or cut off dispensed product. Even though Davis is not used in this Rejection, Shannon provides motivation to combine: to add a decorative effect to the food product. (col. 5, line 20)
The Applicant continues to argue on page 10 of the Remarks that Shannon fails to disclose a nozzle which includes a cutting function; however, such a limitation was not presented in the previous claims.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 10 of the Remark that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the instant claims are directed to a flexible 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)
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, 4-9 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verkler (U.S. Pat. 4,693,611) in view of Shannon (U.S. Pat. 6,153,238).
Regarding claim 1, Verkler discloses a nozzle (96) for a micro puree machine, the nozzle comprising a body having a top surface which faces an opening in a processing bowl (14) of the 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 arm regions (between arms 43) extending radially from the central region, each of the at least two arm regions 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 at least one flap is configured to transition from a first position to a second position by bending away from the top surface of the body along a fold line extending between the two arm regions when an extruding force is exerted on the flap from the top surface and wherein the at least one flap is configured to transition from the second position toward the first position when the extruding force is no longer exerted on the at least one flap. (col. 3, lines 12-13: “the tip having flexible petals”) (see Response to Arguments, above.)
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 substitute Verkler’s nozzle with Shannon’s nozzle, with its top surface facing an opening in the processing bowl of Verkler, which also adds a decorative effect to the food product as it is extruded (Shannon: col. 5, line 20), since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known decorative extrusion nozzle for another known decorative extrusion nozzle with the expected results that the substituted nozzle would impart a decorative affect to the extruded product. (see MPEP 2143 I B).
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 of the flexible nozzle, as modified by Shannon, is one of a star, a flower and a sun. (col. 5, lines 20-26: “open star”, “drop flower”, “closed star”)
Regarding claim 9, Verkler discloses a nozzle system (96) for a micro puree machine, the nozzle system comprising: an outlet (98) in communication with an opening (in a processing bowl (14) of the micro puree machine. Verkler 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 of the flexible nozzle having a central region and at least two arm regions (between arms 43) extending radially from the central region, each of the at least two arm regions 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 at least one flap is configured to transition from a first position to a second position by bending away from the top surface of the body along a fold line extending between the two arm regions when an extruding force is exerted on the flap from the top surface and wherein the at least one flap is configured to transition from the second position toward the first position when the extruding force is no longer exerted on the at least one flap. (col. 3, lines 12-13: “the tip having flexible petals”) (see Response to Arguments, above.)
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 Verkler and Shannon as applied to claims 1 and 9, above respectively, 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])
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veckler and Shannon as applied to claims 1 and 9, above respectively, and further in view of Taylor (U.S. Pat. 3,258,175).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, the combination, discloses that Shannon’s at least one flap comprises a plurality of flaps (seen in Fig. 4 and others), and that the flaps, in the first position form a blunt point (seen in Fig. 4 and others) at an end of the extruded frozen ingredients (Veckler’s invention concerns ice cream) but is silent in regards to a sharp cut-off point separating the extruded frozen ingredients from remaining frozen ingredients in the processing bowl.
Taylor discloses a flexible resilient nozzle (27) which forms a point (seen in Fig. 6) and “may comprise a hollow, conical, pyramidal, or wedge shaped member of rubber or resilient plastics material or the like with a slit (or two or more slits)” (col. 1, lines 30-33) which has “efficient cut-off and nonreturn characteristics in regard to the flow of pastes and the like fluent materials.” (col. 1, lines 36-38).
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 the Taylor’s teaching of a point valve which resiliently and positively closes, cutting off the flow of any pasty fluent materials to prevent over extruding or drippage of product and thus eliminating waste.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 requires the plug to be biased toward an open position and is configured to be lockable in a closed position. Prior art Shannon discloses a plug (80) but does not mention that it is biased toward an opening position and it would not have been obvious to modify Shannon as required, barring improper hindsight analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights