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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/22/25 has been entered.
Claims 1,6,10,15 are amended and claims 5 and 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) and De Stefano ( EP 3 685 670).
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 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)
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 tothe 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 correspond 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lion and De Stefano 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 and De Stefano 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 and De Stefano 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 and De Stefano 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 8/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant comments that none of the references cites the specific diameter. A new reference is added to address the new limitation.
Conclusion
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.
March 2, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793