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 of Group I: Claims 5-7 in the reply filed on April 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected Claims 5-7 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on May 13, 2024, May 16, 2024, and May 16, 2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “A method/process of industrial production and packaging of cotton candy/spun sugar comprising” in lines 1-2. It appears the claim should recite “A method/process of industrial production and packaging of cotton candy/spun sugar, the method/process comprising” in order to directly refer to the term that the transitional phrase “comprising” modifies.
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 5-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “A method/process of industrial production and packaging” in line 1. The term “industrial” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “industrial” 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. It is unclear what amount(s) constitutes an “industrial” production and packaging.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the room temperature” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the room” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “25-35” in line 5. It is unknown what units are associated with “25-35.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “cotton candy/spun sugar” in line 6. It is unclear if this refers to “cotton candy/spun sugar” recited in Claim 5, lines 1-2 or to an entirely different cotton candy/spun sugar. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same cotton candy/spun sugar.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “sugar” in line 6. It is unclear if this refers to “spun sugar” recited in Claim 5, line 2 or to an entirely different sugar.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “heating sugar at a temperature of 126-140°C” in lines 6-7. Claim 5 also recites the limitation “in which all the steps are carried out within experimentally derived numeral ranges of 15-25°C and 25-35 respectively” in lines 4-5. It is unclear what heating temperatures are required since all the steps are carried out within experimentally derived numeral ranges of 15-25°C and 25-35 respectively, which temperature is different from the heating temperature of 126-140°C.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “instantly cooling the liquefied sugar” in line 8. The term “instantly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “instantly” 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. It is unclear what cooling time durations are required to read on the claimed “instantly” cooling limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the top” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what structure “the top” is associated with.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the individual units” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the inside” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what structure “the inside” is associated with.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the outside” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what structure “the outside” is associated with.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “material having experimentally derived uniform thickness in the range of 190-220 microns” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “experimentally derived.” For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to require the PP material having uniform thickness in the range of 190-220 microns.
Clarification is required.
Claim 6 rejected as being 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans US 2002/0127304 in view of JP 2001/333696 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed May 13, 2024), Spun Paradise “How to Make Cotton Candy” <https://www.spunparadise.com/blog/how-to-make-cotton-candy> (published October 8, 2018) (herein referred to as “Spun Paradise”),
Grefenstein et al. US 2019/0091981, Dhariwal et al. US 2021/0086480, Tuszkiewicz et al. US 2019/0039778, Hu et al. US 2022/0081181, Flynn et al. US 2020/0283959, and Elam US 2021/0259277.
It is noted that a machine translation of JP 2001/333696 has been attached herein. All citations with respect to JP 2001/333696 are with respect to the machine translation of JP 2001/333696.
Regarding Claim 5, Evans discloses a cotton candy (fluffy wad 10 of cotton candy) comprising sugar wherein the cotton candy is disposed in a sealed cup/container (rigid container body 20) (‘304, Paragraphs [0028] and [0046]) covered with a lid (lid 30) (‘304, Paragraph [0055]) wherein a plurality of sealed cup/containers (rigid container body 20) are repackaged into a box (rectangular structure 40 of a box) (‘304, FIG. 2) (‘304, Paragraph [0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Evans discloses cotton candy is generally made by heating sugar granules into molten sugar that casts or spins the molten sugar into long, delicate fibers or strands using centrifugal forces (‘304, Paragraph [0002]), i.e. to obtain liquefied sugar, in the floss head of a cotton candy machine and thereafter “instantly” cooling the liquefied sugar to collect sugar threads (‘304, Paragraph [0003]). However, Evans is silent regarding the temperature at which the sugar is heated to be 126-140°C.
JP 2001/333696 discloses a method of making cotton candy comprising the steps of heating and melting a sugar raw material and shaping it into threads by centrifugal force (‘696 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0005]) wherein the raw materials for candy consist of sugar, starch syrup, moisture, acidulant, and flavoring which raw material is then crushed and fed into a rotating machine with a mesh that has been preheated to a temperature of approximately 130°C and turned into a thread like cotton candy (‘696 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0012]), which falls within the claimed heated sugar temperature of 126-140°C.
Both Evans and JP 2001/333696 are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making cotton candy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Evans that teaches generically heating sugar granules into molten sugar and spinning the molten sugar into long delicate fibers or strands using centrifugal forces and conduct the heating step at the claimed heated sugar temperature range as taught by JP 2001/333696 since where the claimed sugar heating temperature encompasses sugar heating temperature ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the sugar heating temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such sugar heating temperature is critical. 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Spun Paradise discloses a method of making cotton candy comprising the step of adjusting the heat wherein lower heat results in a stronger flavor and color and too high heat results in the cotton candy spinning out dense and heavy wherein if the heat is too low you will not get any cotton candy spinning out at all. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the sugar heating temperature of the process of Evans such that the sugar is melted and would also adjust the sugar heating temperature using low heat for a desired stronger flavor intensity but not too high heat that makes heavy and dense cotton candy as suggested by Spun Paradise.
Further regarding Claim 5, Evans modified with JP 2001/333696 and Spun Paradise is silent regarding the cotton candy having a weight ratio of spun sugar to volume of 1:14.70588 g/ml, the cover of the sealed cup/container being a laminated paper poly lid consisting of at least three layers of one layer of laminated paper of thickness of minimum 110 gsm, a second layer of aluminum foil, and a third layer of poly LD or lacquered material, the box being a minimum 3 ply corrugated box filled with commercially available food grade moisture absorbers on the inside and full shrink wrap on the outside.
Grefenstein et al. discloses a food packaging lid (‘981, Paragraph [0082]) comprising three layers comprising a layer of LDPE (‘981, Paragraph [0045]), a layer of aluminum and a layer of paper (‘981, Paragraph [0077]). Dhariwal et al. discloses a polymeric composition suitable as a packaging material for food products (‘480, Paragraph [0077]) comprising a paper layer having a thickness of 30 gsm to 120 gsm (‘480, Paragraph [0026]), which overlaps the claimed layer of paper having a thickness of a minimum of 110 gsm.
Modified Evans, Grefenstein et al., and Dhariwal et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of food packages made from a multilayered laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lid closing the container/cup of modified Evans and incorporate a lid made of the claimed materials of three layers containing a first layer of paper, a second layer of aluminum foil, and a third layer of LDPE as taught by Grefenstein et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Grefenstein et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food packaging art to make a food lid out of the claimed layers of materials. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the container/cup of Evans and construct the food lid out of a layer of paper having the claimed weight as taught by Dhariwal et al. since where the claimed paper layer thickness ranges overlaps paper layer thickness ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claim 5, Evans modified with JP 2001/333696, Spun Paradise, Grefenstein et al., and Dhariwal et al. is silent regarding the cotton candy having a weight ratio of spun sugar to volume of 1:14.70588 g/ml and the box being a minimum 3 ply corrugated box filled with commercially available food grade moisture absorbers on the inside and full shrink wrap on the outside.
Tuszkiewicz et al. discloses a corrugated shipping box comprising a plurality of stacked cartons employing shrink wrap for shipping purposes wherein the cartons are made from standard paperboard stock (‘778, FIG. 7) (‘778, Paragraph [0026]) wherein food products are packaged in the cartons (‘778, Paragraph [0001]). Hu et al. discloses a packaging box comprising a box body and a desiccant placed in a desiccant groove in a sidewall of the box body to absorb moisture in the box body (‘181, Paragraphs [0007] and [0022]).
Modified Evans, Tuskiewicz et al., and Hu et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food container of modified Evans and apply shrink wrap over the box of the food containers as taught by Tuskiewicz et al. for shipping purposes. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food container of modified Evans and fill the box with food grade moisture absorbers on the inside as taught by Hu et al. in order to absorb moisture in the box body.
Further regarding Claim 5, Evans modified with JP 2001/333696, Spun Paradise, Grefenstein et al., Dhariwal et al., Tuszkiewicz et al., and Hu et al. is silent regarding the cotton candy having a weight ratio of spun sugar to volume of 1:14.70588 g/ml and the box being a minimum 3 ply corrugated box.
Flynn et al. discloses a food container (‘959, Paragraph [0007]) comprising a corrugated box (‘959, Paragraphs [0010]-[0011]) made of three plies (‘959, Claim 82).
Both modified Evans and Flynn et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food boxes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food container of modified Evans and construct the box from a 3 ply corrugated box as taught by Flynn et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Flynn et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food packaging art to make a food box out of a 3 ply of corrugated box.
Further regarding Claim 5, Evans modified with JP 2001/333696, Spun Paradise, Grefenstein et al., Dhariwal et al., Tuszkiewicz et al., Hu et al., and Flynn et al. is silent regarding the ratio of weight of spun sugar to the volume of the cup/container to be 1:14.70588 or above. However, differences in the ratio of weight of spun sugar to the volume of the cup/container will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ratio of weight of spun sugar to the volume of the cup/container is critical. 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.).
Further regarding Claim 5, Evans modified with JP 2001/333696, Spun Paradise, Grefenstein et al., Dhariwal et al., Tuszkiewicz et al., Hu et al., and Flynn et al. is silent regarding maintaining a controlled environment by keeping the room temperature and relative humidity of the room at 15-25°C and 25-35 respectively.
Elam discloses a method of making cotton candy comprising the step of maintaining a controlled environment by keeping the room temperature at 19-20°C (‘277, Paragraph [0022]), which falls within the claimed controlled environment room temperature of 15-25°C. Elam also discloses the controlled environment relative humidity being ambient humidity wherein if ambient humidity levels are not high enough the cotton candy may be exposed to a higher level of moisture and the level of moisture should not be so high that the sugar begins to dissolve in bulk (‘277, Paragraph [0022]).
Both modified Evans and Elam are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making cotton candy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cotton candy making method of modified Evans and maintain a controlled environment at the claimed ambient room temperature range as taught by Elam since where the claimed controlled environment room temperature range encompasses controlled environment room temperature ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the temperature and relative humidity of the controlled environment in which the cotton candy is made since differences in the controlled environment temperature and relative humidity will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such controlled environment temperature and relative humidity is critical. 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the controlled environment temperature and relative humidity of the process of Evans to temperature and relative humidity levels such that the outer surface of the formed cotton candy absorbs moisture (‘277, Claim 8).
Further regarding Claim 5, although modified Evans does not explicitly state that the method of making cotton candy is used for industrial sizes of production and packaging, the mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled in view of In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.). The claim does not specify any particular industrial sizes of the production method and/or packaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would scale up the cotton candy production process of modified Evans to the desired amount of cotton candy to be manufactured.
Regarding Claim 6, Evans discloses the cotton candy being inserted into cups/containers (container body 20) made of polypropylene plastic material (‘304, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans US 2002/0127304 in view of JP 2001/333696 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed May 13, 2024), Spun Paradise “How to Make Cotton Candy” <https://www.spunparadise.com/blog/how-to-make-cotton-candy> (published October 8, 2018),
Grefenstein et al. US 2019/0091981, Dhariwal et al. US 2021/0086480, Tuszkiewicz et al. US 2019/0039778, Hu et al. US 2022/0081181, Flynn et al. US 2020/0283959, and Elam US 2021/0259277 as applied to claim 5 above in further view of Mussumeci et al. US 2010/0196550.
It is noted that a machine translation of JP 2001/333696 has been attached herein. All citations with respect to JP 2001/333696 are with respect to the machine translation of JP 2001/333696.
Regarding Claim 7, Evans discloses the cotton candy being inserted into cups/containers (container body 20) made of polypropylene plastic material (‘304, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]). However, modified Evans is silent regarding the cups/containers having a uniform thickness in the range of 190-220 microns.
Mussumeci et al. discloses a container for confections (‘550, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the container is made of polypropylene (‘550, Paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) and the container has a sidewall thickness that depends on the specific product application as well as the size of the final container wherein the container has sidewalls that are about 75 to about 300 microns (‘550, Paragraph [0023]), which encompasses the claimed thickness of the polypropylene cup/container of 190-220 microns.
Both modified Evans and Mussumeci et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of cups/containers holding confections. Both cups/containers of modified Evans and Mussumeci et al. are made of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Evans and construct the cups/containers to have the claimed uniform thickness range as taught by Mussumeci et al. since where the claimed polypropylene container/cup thickness range overlaps polypropylene container/cup thickness ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the polypropylene cup/container thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such polypropylene cup/container thickness is critical. 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the polypropylene cup/container thickness of the process of Evans based upon the specific product application as well as the size of the final container (‘550, Paragraph [0023]).
Conclusion
The foreign prior art made of record and furnished by applicant in an IDS and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RU 2267940 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed May 16, 2024) discloses a method for the production of cotton candy comprising the step of preparing sugar and heating it to a temperature of 180-200°C and applying centrifugal forces to the melted sugar to form sugar threads and subsequent cooling (‘940 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the sugar is prepared to have a homogeneous free flowing fraction at a temperature not exceeding 24°C and a relative air humidity of 35-47% (‘940 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0020]).
KR 101638400 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed May 16, 2024) discloses a cotton candy container and storage method wherein the container is made using a container body from a laminate of paper and aluminum and making a lid from a laminate of PET and aluminum (‘400 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0001]).
FR 2784963 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed May 13, 2024) discloses a packaged cotton candy using coextruded polypropylene bag evacuated of air and injected with nitrogen (‘963 Machine Translation, Paragraphs [0006]-[0007]).
Haider GB 2 396 343 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed May 16, 2024) discloses a confectionery container for storing and transporting confectionery such as candy floss and the like (‘343, Page 1, lines 3-5).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boriani et al. US 2009/0211203 discloses a confectionary packet (‘203, Paragraph [0037]) having heat shrink overwrappings (‘203, Paragraph [0006]).
Alosi et al. US 2003/0200725 discloses food packaging films wrapped air tight around single or multiple items of confectionery or boxed products (‘725, Paragraph [0016]).
Goode US 3,892,057 discloses a method of providing shrink wrappers of plastic films heat sealed for overwrapping small articles such as boxes of confectionery or for wrapping large articles such as shrink wrapped loaded pallets.
Real Angulo US 2021/0120840 discloses a sugar free cotton candy made using an industrial or domestic machine (‘840, Paragraph [0055]).
Peart US 2020/0077675 discloses an apparatus for making chopped candy floss comprising the steps of heating a composition comprising sugar to a temperature of about 300°F to about 340°F (‘675, Paragraph [0005]).
Paley US 4,063,960 disclose a method of treating sugar cane comprising the step of spinning molasses from sucrose in a centrifuge to produce white sugar sold in large industrial users in tank car lots.
Shoaf et al. US 3,615,671 discloses a dry food product in spun filaments and methods of making the same.
Hawthorne US 2011/0159161 discloses an apparatus for making candy floss
Kassabian US 4,360,328 discloses a cotton candy manufacturing apparatus.
Salvi US 3,856,443 discloses an apparatus for producing candy floss.
Bowe et al. US 3,203,365 discloses a cotton candy spinning machine.
Bowe 3,070,045 discloses a machine for spinning sugar.
Tremblay et al. US 2022/0248706 discloses a method for making cotton candy (‘706, Paragraph [0002]) comprising the steps of heating a composition comprising at least one food grade sugar to melt the same into a liquid phase wherein the liquid phase is obtained at a temperature varying from 155°C to 170°C.
Lingel US 2018/0343886 discloses a method of making cotton candy or fairy floss comprising any combination of sugars and sugar alcohols including sucrose wherein the combinations are heated to a melting point and extruded into floss like threads and cooled to the edible substance crystallization point temperature to form floss like crystalline structures (‘886, Paragraph [0008]) wherein the floss machine operates at a temperature of about 320 to 340 degrees Fahrenheit (‘886, Paragraph [0018]).
Ryan et al. US 2008/0121114 discloses a method of making cotton candy comprising the steps of heating a solution containing sugar to a range hot enough to melt the sugar but not so hot as to burn the sugar (‘114, Paragraph [0003]).
Ryan US 2005/0118314 discloses a method of making cotton candy comprising the steps of melting sugar using a heater element in a spinner head so that filaments are spun from the spinner head and then the heater element is deenergized while the spinner head is rotated until the heater element is cooled substantially below a temperature sufficient to burn or melt sugar (‘314, Paragraph [0010]).
Weiss US 6,284,164 discloses a cotton candy machine wherein a temperature should be hot enough to melt raw sugar contained within the spinner head so that it is melted as it moves outwardly by centrifugal force against the spinner band from within the spinner head and is spun into elongated strands or fibers to form cotton candy for accumulation in a tub.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights