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 Amendment
The amendment filed 26 January 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the Specification objections. The Specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have voided interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). The Claim interpretation section has been removed from the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. However, one the previously identified prior-art references teaches the amended potions of claim 1. Therefore, as a result of the Applicant’s amendments, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 are provided in the current Office action.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 26 January 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-4 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 12-16 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rettey et al. (US-20150147435-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rettey teaches an apparatus (dough press assembly 32, fig. 6) for forming a dough strip (strip of dough 24 that is cut in fig. 10) comprising:
a dough cutting housing (dye 36, fig. 6; the dye 36 can have a rectangular shape, fig. 12) comprising first and second longitudinal walls and third and fourth lateral walls (annotated in fig. 12 below), the first, second, third, and fourth walls each comprising a dough cutting blade (angle portion 43, fig. 6; the angled portion 43 is construed as being a blade because it cuts the dough, para 0067) on a bottom of each of the first, second, third, and fourth walls, the first, second, third, and fourth walls (the bottom surfaces for the four sides of the dye 36a in fig. 12 are construed as each having an angled portion 43 as shown in fig. 6) forming a dough strip forming space (space that the dough 24 occupies between the dye 36 elements in fig. 8), the dough cutting housing configured to cut (fig. 8, para 0078) and hold (figs. 9-10) a dough strip (strip of dough 24 between the dye elements 34 in fig. 8) from a sheet of dough (dough 24, fig. 7); and
a handle press (pressure plate 34, fig. 6) comprising a dough-contacting surface (pressing surface 45, fig. 6), wherein the dough- contacting surface is configured to fit fully within the dough strip forming space (the bottom surface of the pressure plate is configured to fit fully into the space occupied by the dough 24 that is cut due to the gaps G between the pressure plate 34 and the dye 36, fig. 10; paras 0073-0076), the dough-contacting surface configured to push the dough strip formed within the dough strip forming space out of the dough strip forming space (the dough 24 that is cut is pushed upwards into the gaps G out of the space that was formerly occupied, fig. 10; the gap causes the dough to have a crust with a thickness depending on the gap width, para 0073).
Rettey, fig. 6 and fig. 12 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
484
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
587
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rettey teaches wherein the dough-contacting surface (pressing surface 45, fig. 6) of the handle press comprises a forming surface (second zone 44, fig. 6; para 0072) for forming a shape into the dough strip (the second zone causes the height H to be have a variable shape, fig. 10 and para 0082) when the dough-contacting surface of the handle press pushes the dough strip out of the dough strip forming space (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Rettey teaches wherein the dough-contacting surface (pressing surface 45, fig. 6) of the handle press is configured to press a depression into the dough strip (the first zone 42 in fig. 6 forms a depression in the middle of the dough where smallest height H is located, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Rettey teaches wherein the dough-contacting surface (pressing surface 45, fig. 6) of the handle press is configured to press a depression (the first zone 42 forms a depression in the dough 24, fig. 10) longitudinally into the dough strip from a first end of the dough strip to the second end of the dough strip (annotated in fig. 12 below).
Rettey, fig. 12 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
592
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettey et al. (US-20150147435-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above and further in view of Atwater et al. (US-20060272162-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Rettey teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the handle press is attached to the dough cutting housing (although Rettey teaches that the press assemblies can be mounted together into a platform, para 0077, Rettey does not explicitly disclose attaching the pressure plate 34 to the dye 36).
However, in the same field of endeavor of apparatuses for producing baked goods, Atwater teaches wherein the handle press (handles 81, fig. 22) is attached to the dough cutting housing (attached to the blades 60 by a push-button structure 23, fig. 22).
Atwater, figs. 20 and 22
PNG
media_image4.png
584
679
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
720
722
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Rettey, in view of the teachings of Atwater, by using handles 81, as taught by Atwater, to press the dye 36, as taught by Rettey, in order to use force-imparting handles that can be attached or detached, enhancing the user’s ability to collapse and stow the dye and handles at separate locations when not in use (Atwater, para 0064; in the construction above, the handles 81 taught by Atwater are construed as being part of the “handle press,” which also includes the pressure plate 34 taught by Rettey).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rettey in view of Atwater as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Atwater teaches wherein the handle press (handles 81, fig. 22) is attached to at least one of the first, second, third, or fourth walls of the dough cutting housing (attached to the blades 60 by a push-button structure 23, fig. 22; construed as the first and second walls taught by Rettey).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rettey in view of Atwater as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Atwater teaches Atwater teaches wherein the handle press (handles 81, fig. 22) is attached to the dough cutting housing via a flexible material (push-button structure 23, fig. 22; a push-button is construed as a “flexible material”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rettey in view of Atwater as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Atwater teaches Atwater teaches wherein the handle press is spring-loaded (spring state 27 as a result of spring-actuating means 24, fig. 24b) within the dough cutting housing (the button structure 23 is located within the blades 50 and 60, fig. 22).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettey et al. (US-20150147435-A1) in view of Atwater et al. (US-20060272162-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above and further in view of Muenich et al. (US-20180338505-A1).
Rettey/Atwater teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the handle press is attached to the dough cutting housing via a living hinge.
However, in the same field of endeavor of apparatuses for producing baked goods, Muenich teaches wherein the handle press (handle 4, fig. 1e) is attached to the dough cutting housing (plate 2, fig. 1e; used to cut dough, para 0034) via a living hinge (living hinge 6, fig. 1e, para 0035).
Muenich, fig. 1e
PNG
media_image6.png
208
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Rettey/Atwater, in view of the teachings of Muenich, by using a living hinge, as taught by Muenich, to attach the handles 81 to the blades 60 instead of using a push-button 23, as taught by Atwater, in order to simplify the construction of the pressure plate 34, for the benefit of using a hinge the ensures the handle is captively mounted and that saves costs (Muenich, para 0008).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rettey et al. (US-20150147435-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Brown et al. (US-20150033924-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rettey teaches a pizza (para 0008). Rettey does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a first arm extending from a first end of the dough cutting housing; and a second arm extending from a second end of the dough cutting housing, wherein the length of the first arm, the dough cutting housing, and the second arm roughly corresponds to a width of a pizza.
However, in the same field of endeavor of apparatuses for producing baked goods, Brown teaches further comprising: a first arm (arm 163a, fig. 17) extending from a first end of the dough cutting housing (left end of cutter 153, fig. 17); and a second arm (arm 163b, fig. 17) extending from a second end of the dough cutting housing (right end of cutter 153, fig. 17), wherein the length of the first arm, the dough cutting housing, and the second arm roughly corresponds to a width of a pizza (combined length of the arms of 163 and cutter 153 corresponds to the width of the dough in the pan 151, fig. 16; construed as being the width of a pizza).
Brown, figs. 16-17
PNG
media_image7.png
881
650
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
626
829
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Rettey, in view of the teachings of Brown, by using the pan 151 with the arms 163 and alignment grooves 169, as taught by Brown, to hold the dough 24 that is cut using the dough press assembly 32, as taught by Rettey, in order to use a pan that provides versatility, enabling use of an additional cutter that uses arms, which adjust for different size baking pans and pizzas, permitting slicing of the pizza in a very controlled and precise manner, because the size of a pizza can vary, causing changes in the size of the baking pans (Brown, paras 0032 and 0040).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rettey in view Brown as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Brown teaches wherein the first arm (arm 163a, fig. 17) and the second arm (arm 163b, fig. 17) telescope relative to each other (“telescopic,” para 0042; fig. 17) so that the length of the first arm, the dough cutting housing, and the second arm is changeable to correspond to pizzas having different widths (the length of the arms 163 and cutter 153 can adjust to the width of the pan 151, fig. 16; different widths are taught in para 0032).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered.
The examiner agrees with most of the Applicant’s arguments (pages 6-7) regarding the Atwater and Slaughter references. However, the arguments state that “a handle is used to press the grid into the food product…” Respectfully submit that this limitation is no longer present in the claim as being attributed to the handle. Instead, this limitation is now attributed to the “dough-contacting surface” such that this surface pushes the dough strip “out of the dough strip forming space.” That is, the handle press no longer has to be “configured to push the dough strip formed within the dough strip forming space.” Rather, the claim now requires that the dough-contacting surface of the handle is “configured to push the dough strip formed within the sough strip forming space out of the dough strip forming space.”
As a result, respectfully submit that the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the actual scope of claim 1 because the claim does not have a limitation for using the handle to press the grid into the food product.
Although the Applicant’s arguments address the Atwater and Slaughter references, the Applicant’s arguments do not address the Rettey reference, which was used in the rejections of claims 2-4 in the Office action filed 25 July 2025. Therefore, the Applicant' s arguments are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections based on Rettey.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/31/2026