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 amendment filed on 8/4/26. Claims 1 ,10,15 are amended and claims 5, 14 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-13,15-17 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,6-8,10,11,13,15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson ( 6077553) in view of Lion ( 2006/0000368) , De Stefano ( EP 3 685 670) and DE 202019005115.
For claims 1,10,13 Anderson discloses a method of making a pizza with the crust being in the center and ingredients on both sides of the crust. The method comprises the steps of providing a layer of dough having two sides, applying cheese and selection of meat on an exposed side of the layer of dough placing layers of cheese and selection of meat onto the dough, placing a pan having a mesh bottom surface on top of the layers of cheese and meat, turning the pan over with the mesh bottom surface of the pan being the bottom and the second side of the layer of dough not covered with any ingredients being exposed, applying layers of cheese and selection of meat and baking the pizza with the mesh bottom surface, the layer of douch and first and second layer of cheese and first and second layer of meat. The mesh surface has a plurality of openings. The baking causes the layer of at least one cheese of the first side of the layer of dough melts and essentially bonds the meats together on the bottom side of the pizza so that they won’t fall off as the pizza is removed from the pan. The plurality of opening on the mesh is the same as the claimed baking screen comprising plurality of air flow holes. Thus, whatever result obtained from the holes will also be present in the Anderson product. ( see col. 1 line 35 through col 2 line 50)
For claim 11, Anderson discloses a pizza which is a flatbread food item and has toppings on both sides. ( see col. 1 line 35 through col. 2 line 50)
Anderson differs from the claimed method of claims 1 and 10 in the sequence of the step and the mesh having non-uniformly distributed air flow holes with a larger number of air flow holes toward cent and smaller number of air flour holes toward edge. Anderson does not disclose the mesh is circular, an edge portion crispier than a central poriton and the size as in claims 1,10 ,concentric circles holes, circular shape hole and non-circular shape hole as in claims 6-8 and 15-17 and the property as in claim 13.
Lion disclose baking sheet. The sheet has silicone cooking surface including a plurality of openings adapted to allow heat flow through the openings during heating of the baking sheet. Lion discloses the size, shape and number of holes on the silicone cooking surface may differ. Also, the shape of the cooking surface with holes may be different. As shown in figure 9, there are more holes in the center than at the outer edge. Counting the holes from the outer toward the center shows that the number increases moving toward the center. There are 20 holes in the outer most circle and the number increases inward. It is clear that the number of holes is non-uniform because there are not the same numbers of holes in one rim. ( see paragraphs 0010, 0051, fig 9 )
De Stefano discloses a method for preparing gluten-free bakery food products. In example 2, De Stefano discloses baking pan for forming pizza base having a circular layer with a diameter of about 30cm. ( see example 2)
DE115 discloses pizza. DE115 shows that the edge of the pizza is essentially free of deposits. This has the advantage that this area remains crispy and hard when baked. Where there is topping such as sauce, can lose the crispy and hard structure during baking . ( see page 4)
Anderson places the cheese and topping first on the dough instead of on the baking screen. However, the difference is not patentably distinct because the same product is obtained. “Specifically regarding claimed sequence of adding the ingredients, Anderson teaches of substantially the same product produced by substantially the same method as instantly claimed by applicant; where the claimed and prior art products are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. To switch the order of performing process steps, i.e. the order of the addition of the ingredients, would be obvious absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary (MPEP 2144.04 [R-1]). “Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mesh to have a shape that corresponds to the pan or to the shape of the product. Pizza is typically round. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a circular mesh. Lion teaches holes on cooking surface can vary in shapes and be arranged in concentric circles as shown in figure 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the shape of the openings on the mesh and to have the configuration as taught in Lion as an obvious matter of preference as long as the heat can properly flow through the openings. Anderson in view of Lion discloses a mesh having the same configuration as claimed; thus, it is obvious the result of claim 13 is present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use baking mesh to have diameter that is typical for pizza as shown in De Stefano. Selecting a size for a well-known product would have been well within the determination of one in the art. As to the crispy edge portion, Lion shows that the openings or holes allows heat transfer to the product disposed on the surface. During baking, the edge of the pizza does not contain as much topping as the central portion; thus, the edge portion is crispier than the central portion. This is a natural occurrence during baking and is shown in DE115. It’s obvious that Anderson product possesses the same characteristic in view of the fact that it’s baked on the screen having holes as claimed.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lion , De Stefano and DE 115 as applied to claims ) 1,6-8,10,11,13,15-17 above, and further in view of Scott Wiener “ When Did we starch folding pizza” .
Anderson does not disclose folding after baking.
The blog by Scott Wiener shows pizza sold as folded slice to form pocket. ( see article)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fold the pizza after baking as shown in the blog as an obvious matter of choice depending on individual preference of way of eating the pizza.
Claim(s) 3,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lion , De Stefano and DE 115 as applied to claims 1,6-8,10,11,13,15-17 above, and further in view of Holden (20200267999) .
Anderson does not disclose the mesh comprising PTFE coating.
Holden discloses bakery food product. Holden teaches the surface of the baking tray may be lined with a suitable non-stick coating such as PTFE. ( see paragraph 0151)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the baking mesh of Anderson with a non-stick coating PTFE as taught in Holden to obtain non-sticking surface which facilitates the removal of the pizza from the mesh.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lion, De Stefano and DE 115 as applied to claims 1,6-8,10,11,13,15-17 above, and further in view of Schmidt ( 20210125326) .
Anderson does not disclose the glazed mesh as in claim 4.
Schmidt teaches baking pan is known to be coated with silicone glazes. ( see paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the baking mesh of Anderson with silicon glaze as taught by Schmidt to obtain non-sticking surface which facilitates the removal of the pizza from the mesh.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lion, De Stefano and DE 115 as applied to claims 1,6-8,10,11,13,15-17 above, and further in view of Samwell ( 20140373733).
Anderson does not disclose the mesh comprising one or more tabs.
Samwell discloses baking pan with tab to give improved grasping mechanism. ( see abstract, paragraph 0004)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a tab on the mesh as shown in Samwell to give a grasping surface to the mesh to help in holding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that Lion is entirely silent as to the arrangement or distribution of its holes and reliance on an unannotated schematic drawing is proper. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 9 in Lion is not unannotated. Paragraph 0051 describes figures 9 as baking sheet includes openings or holes disposed throughout the cooking surface to improve heat transfer to the food product or other items disposed on the cooking surface. The description states the “ holes are disposed throughout the cooking surface” meaning the holes are not just in 1 portion. The description fits exactly with the drawing of figure 9. Visual representation is just as clear as word detailing. It’s explicitly shows in the figure the number of holes increasing moving inward. Applicant urges that Lion affirmatively disclaims it by expressly stating that the size, shape and number of holes by differ from what figure 9 show. This disclosure is not a disclaimer as concluded by applicant. It just means that the other embodiment is allowed in which the size, shape and number can differ; the disclosure is not an affirmation that figure 9 does not exist. Applicant further argues that the rejection based on obvious matter of preference is not sustainable and conclusionary. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A selection of baking pan without showing of criticality of affecting the product baked on it is an obvious matter of choice. Selecting the baking sheet as disclosed in Lion is an obvious matter of selecting a known alternative to carry out the same function of providing a baking sheet for baking. In baking, selecting a particular baking sheet over another is not unknown. There are many different types of baking sheet. Applicant argues the claimed distribution solves the problem of controlling the relative crispness of different portions of the food item. This argument is not persuasive. What applicant terms as “ controlling by the distribution of holes” is a natural occurrence in the baking process. The edge of a product like pizza does not contain as much topping as the central portion. The toppings provide moisture. Thus, during baking the central portion will not be as crispy as the outer edge. This concept is described in the new reference DE 202019005115. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the knowledge is not gleamed from applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to the De Stefano, applicant argues that De Stefano disclosure of 30 cm dimension is thus the diameter of the poured layer of food mixture, not the diameter of any pan and certainly not the diameter of any baking screen. This argument is not persuasive. The De Stefano reference is used to show a typical diameter of a pizza base. It’s not used to teach baking screen because Anderson and Lion are already relied upon for disclosure of baking screen. Furthermore, the basis of applicant’s argument is unclear. If the batter is poured into a pan to give a 30 cm dimension food mixture, the pan has to be that dimension to form the food mixture in that dimension. For example, a 9 inch diameter cake is made by pouring a batter into a 9 inch baking pan. The mixture takes up the dimension of the pan. Furthermore, selecting an appropriate baking pan size in the process of making pizza is a parameter that is well within the determination of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the sequence of step, the examiner maintains her position as set forth in the rejection. Applicant has not established any criticality or unexpected result over Anderson. The same product is obtained from the Anderson sequence of steps as in the claimed sequence. As to claim 13, the examiner maintains her position on inherency as explained above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
October 1, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
