DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated May 28, 2026 (amendment) amending claim 1-3, 6, 12, 14, 16 and 18 and canceling claims 7-8, 10 and 19 has been entered. Claims 1-6,9 and 11-18 as filed with the amendment have been examined. In view of the cancelation of claims 7-8, 10 and 19 all outstanding rejections of those claims have been withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 depends from canceled claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The term “native wheat flour” in claim 12 is not disclosed or clearly included in the instant specification, including at page 4 of the instant specification.
The Office interprets the term “native wheat flour” as referring to a flour of native wheat starch.
Claims 13-18 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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 1-6, 9 and 11-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the wt% of each of flour, fat, sweetener and one or more acids is indefinite for lacking a basis or denominator. Is the recited amount of each of flour, fat, sweetener and one or more acids, independently, based on the weight of a dough, the weight of the biscuit, the weight of dry ingredients, the weight of wet ingredients or some other basis?
The Office interprets all such wt%s as being based on the total weight of the biscuit.
In claim 2, the wt% of starch is indefinite for lacking a basis or denominator. Is the recited amount of starch based on the weight of a dough, the weight of the biscuit, the weight of dry ingredients, the weight of wet ingredients or some other basis?
The Office interprets the starch wt% as being based on the total weight of the biscuit.
In claim 6, the wt% of each of flour, fat and sweetener is indefinite for lacking a basis or denominator. Is the recited amount of each of flour, fat and sweetener, independently, based on the weight of a dough, the weight of the biscuit, the weight of dry ingredients, the weight of wet ingredients or some other basis?
The Office interprets all such wt%s as being based on the total weight of the biscuit.
In claim 12, the wt% of sugar is indefinite for lacking a basis or denominator; and, further is indefinite for failing to recite units for the percentage (%). Is the recited amount of sugar based on the weight of a dough, the weight of a solution, the weight of dry ingredients, the weight of wet ingredients or some other basis? And is the recited % a weight % (wt%), a volume % or a % in some other unit of measure?
The Office interprets the % of sugar as being a wt%, based on the total weight of the recited solution.
In claim 13, the wt% of each of flour, fat, sweetener and acidic solution is indefinite for lacking a basis or denominator. Is the recited amount of each of flour, fat, sweetener and acidic solution, independently, based on the weight of a dough, the weight of the biscuit, the weight of dry ingredients, the weight of wet ingredients or some other basis?
The Office interprets all such wt%s as being based on the total weight of the dough.
Claims 3-5, 9, 11 and 14-18 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The recited inclusions comprising sweetener, colorant and acidulant are broader than any inclusions that are recited in any claim from which claim 11 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 3-6, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6919098 B2 to Ratka et al. (Ratka) in view of US 2011/0104338 A1 to Coleman et al. (Coleman), US 2008/0280003 A1 to Coyle (Coyle), and US 2014/0220198 A1 to Konuklar (Konuklar), all of record.
Unless otherwise stated, the Office interprets all wt% amounts as being a weight %, based on the total weight of a biscuit.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 6, Ratka at Abstract discloses a dough and biscuits made therefrom comprising an organic acid. At Table 1 on col. 10, lines 33-40, Ratka discloses the biscuit dough comprising 30 to 51 wt% flour (claim 6), 5 to 28 wt% shortening, from 2 to 15 wt % of humectant, such as (at col. 7, lines 16-17) a sugar, and from 1 to 5 wt % of a leavening system comprising from 0.65 to 1.5 wt % acidic leavening agent which, at col. 8, lines is monocalcium phosphate hydrate or its anhydride (MCP or AMCP), and from 0.65 to 1. Ratka at col. 3, lines 52-64 discloses wheat flours having a coarser texture and a basic leavening agent which, at col. 8, lines 10-15, is one or more bicarbonates. varied textures as well as combinations of wheat flours. Further, Ratka at col. 10, lines 1-8 discloses a dough comprising an organic acid to preserve color, including citric acid and malic acid and tartaric acid as in claim 6 in an amount effective to provide a pH in a range of between about 5 and about 8.5.
Further, Ratka at Table 1 discloses an amount of the acidic leavening agent per 100 g flour is 0.65 g to 51 g or about 1.4 g/100 g flour to 1.5 g/100g to 30 g or 5 g/100 g flour, which the claimed 0.5 to 4 g/100 g flour of acidic leavening agent overlaps; further, Ratka at Table 1 discloses an amount of the basic leavening agent per 100 g flour is 0.65 g to 51 g or about 1.4 g/100 g flour to 1.5 g/100g to 30 g or 5 g/100 g flour, which the claimed 2 to 4 g/100 g flour of basic leavening agent lies within. Further, Ratka discloses a dough comprising (i) from 5 to 28 wt % of shortening which the claimed 15 to 30 wt % of fat in claim 1 overlaps and the claimed 20 to 25 wt% fat in claim 6 lies within; (ii) from 2 to 15 wt % of sugar, which overlaps the claimed 10 to 30 wt% of sweetener in claim 1 and which the claimed 15 to 25 wt% of sweetener in claim 6 overlaps; and, (iii) as its basic and acidic leavening agents from 1.25 to 3 g/30 to 51 g or about 2.5 g to about 10 g/ 100 g flour of bicarbonate ion and dihydrogen phosphate ion concentration, which the claimed total bicarbonate ion and dihydrogen phosphate ion concentration ranging from 4 g/100 g of flour to 6.5g/100g flour lies within. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Ratka would have found it obvious to include in its biscuit the claimed amounts of fat, sweetener, one or more acids and total bicarbonate ion leavening agent and dihydrogen phosphate ion leavening agent because Ratka discloses that it is desirable to use those amounts of flour, fat, sweetener, acidic leavening agent and basic leavening agent make a biscuit.
Ratka does not disclose an example of a dough or biscuit from a dough comprising a dihydrogen phosphate. However, the ordinary skilled artisan in Ratka would desire to use any of the acidic leavening agents disclosed at col. 8, lines 17-25 to trigger the release of carbon dioxide in the dough of Ratka. The Office considers a dihydrogen phosphate as claimed to include each of the monocalcium phosphate hydrate or its anhydride as disclosed in Ratka.
Further, Ratka does not disclose an example of a dough comprising 0.25 to 2.0 wt % of material derived from one or more acids or salts selected from citric acid, malic acid and salts thereof. However, each of the citric acid, ascorbic acid, malic acid and tartaric acid and the pH range of 5 to 8.5 disclosed at col. 10, lines 1-8 of Ratka appear to comprise substantially the same things as the claimed acids in substantially the same amounts in the dough as claimed. Absent a clear showing as to how the amount of the citric and malic acids or salts thereof in the dough the Ratka having a pH of 5 to 8.5 differs from their amount in the dough as claimed, the Office considers the biscuit dough in Table 1 and col. 10, lines 1-8 of Ratka to include an acid or salt thereof having a pKa of less than 6.5 in the amount of from 0.25 to 2.0 wt % of the dough as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Still further and regarding instant claims 9 and 11, Ratka does not disclose a biscuit comprising from 20 to 30 wt% of gelatinous inclusions comprising sweetener, gelling agent, colorant and acidulant as in claims 1 and 11; Ratka does not disclose a dough comprising a flour that comprises a combination of graham flour and wheat flour having a weight ratio of 40:60 to 60:40 graham flour to wheat flour; and, Ratka does not disclose a biscuit further comprising native wheat starch as in claim 9. However, Ratka discloses at col. 3, lines 39-42 its dough for use in making biscuits and crackers.
The Office considers claim 11 as depending from claim 1.
Coleman at [0031] and Table 1 accompanying discloses crackers from a dough comprising wheat flour, oil or fat, sweetener, water and leavening agent, wherein at [0032] Coleman discloses a combination of wheat flour with other flours, and, further, wherein at [0030] Coleman discloses the crackers having improved shelf-stability and organoleptic properties. Further, at Example 1 Coleman discloses crackers comprising fat, sugar as sweetener, water, 25.8 kg of flour and 19.5 kg graham flour, as well as calcium phosphate monobasic, which is a dihydrogen phosphate. The disclosed combination of graham flour and wheat flour in Coleman comprises a proportion of 19.5 kg/(19.5 + 25.8 kg) graham flour, or a weight ratio of about 43:57 of graham flour to wheat flour.
Coyle discloses at Abstract baked goods and at [0146] discloses baked good with inclusions, including fruit pieces in the amount of about 1 to about 15 wt % of the dough composition which comprises water and wet ingredients not found in the baked product that amount (at [0176]) to at least 5 to 40 wt% of the dough. In a baked product that comprises relatively little moisture, the wt% of inclusions rises to more than about 1 to about 25 wt% of the baked good which the claimed 20 to 30 wt% of inclusions overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Coyle to use the claimed amount of inclusions in its baked goods to control viscosity because Coyle discloses that it is desirable to use the claimed amount of inclusions to make a baked product.
In addition, Coyle discloses at Abstract batter-like compositions for making baked goods and comprising (at [0005]) flour, sweetener, fat, a leavening system and water. Coyle at [0079] discloses compositions comprising a flour replacement to limit enzymatic and oxidative reactions, including (at [0080)] native wheat starch.
Konuklar at [0066] discloses gelled inclusions (“comprising a gelling agent”), an acidulant, (at [0068]) a sweetener and other ingredients including at [0075] a colorant. At [0073] Konuklar discloses strawberry and apple cinnamon fruit pieces which would desirably include all of a sweetener, a colorant. The Office considers the fruit in inclusions to include pectin, another gelling agent.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Coyle for Ratka to include the claimed 20 to 30 wt% of inclusions in its biscuits to enhance the range of flavors of the biscuits. Both references disclose baked goods with inclusions like the cheese pieces at Table 2 of Ratka. The ordinary skilled artisan in Ratka would have desired to include the claimed amount of inclusions as in Coyle to add flavor and chew. Because Ratka at Tables 3 and 4 on col. 15-16 discloses doughs comprising from about 20 to about 40 wt% of water, the amount of inclusions as in Coyle in a biscuit made from a wet dough comprising 1 to 15 wt% of inclusions would range from about 1.2 to about 25 wt% of the biscuit, which the claimed 20 to 30 wt% of inclusions based on the total weight of the biscuit overlaps. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Coleman for Ratka to make its dough to comprise as flour a combination of graham flour and wheat flour having a weight ratio of 40:60 to 60:40 graham flour to wheat flour. Both references disclose dough comprising a combination of wheat flours, fat, sweetener and water as well as dihydrogen phosphates. The ordinary skilled artisan working in Ratka would have desired to use a combination of graham flour and wheat flour having a weight ratio of 40:60 to 60:40 graham flour to wheat flour as in Coleman to provide a desirable texture in a cracker as in Ratka which provides improved shelf-stability and organoleptic properties as in Coleman.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Konuklar for Ratka as modified by Coleman and Coyle to include as its inclusions an inclusion comprising sweetener, gelling agent colorant and acidulant. All references disclosed sweetened baked goods made from dough comprising water, sweetener, flour, fat and leavening agents, including biscuits and baked goods. The ordinary skilled artisan in Ratka as modified by Coleman would have desired to include all of a sweetener, colorant and acidulant in the inclusions of Ratka as modified by Coleman so as to include as the inclusion of Coyle a sour or tangy fruit piece like that of Konuklar.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Coyle for Ratka as modified by Coleman
to include native wheat starch as in claim 9 in its dough to make baked goods. All references are drawn to chemically leavened doughs for making baked goods comprising flour, fat and sweeteners. The ordinary skilled artisan working with Ratka would have desired in to include a native wheat starch in its dough as in Coyle to control oxidative and enzymatic side reactions.
Regarding instant claim 3, the biscuit of Ratka as modified by Coleman as disclosed at Table 1 of Ratka does not disclose any ingredient that contains inulin.
Regarding instant claims 4-5, the citric acid and malic acid disclosed at col. 10, lines 1-8 of Ratka appear to comprise substantially the same things as the claimed acids. Absent a clear showing as to how the organic acids in the dough the Ratka differs from the claimed acids or salts thereof, the Office considers the biscuit dough in Table 1 and col. 10, lines 1-8 of Ratka to include an acid or salt thereof having a solubility in water of at least 1 gram per gram of water at 20 °C as in claim 4, and a thermal decomposition temperature of at least 170 °C as in claim 5. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6919098 B2 to Ratka et al. (Ratka) in view of US 2011/0104338 A1 to Coleman et al. (Coleman), US 2008/0280003 A1 to Coyle (Coyle), and US 2014/0220198 A1 to Konuklar (Konuklar), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4668519 to Dartey et al. (Dartey).
Unless otherwise stated, the Office interprets all wt% amounts as being a weight %, based on the total weight of a biscuit.
As applied to claim 1, Ratka at Table 1 on col. 10 and at col. 10, lines 1-8 as modified by Coleman at [0030]-[0032] and Table 1, Coyle at [0146] and [0176], and Konuklar at [0066] and [0068] discloses a biscuit made from a dough comprising 20-30 wt%, based on the total weight of the biscuit of inclusions comprising a gelling agent, sweetener, colorant and acidulant, 30 to 60 wt % of flour, based on the total weight of the biscuit, fat, a sweetener, one or more acidic leavening agent, one or more carbonate salt, one or more acids selected from the group consisting of citric acid, malic acid or salts thereof and a total bicarbonate ion and dihydrogen phosphate ion concentration ranging from 4 g/100 g of flour to 6.5g/100g flour, wherein the flour comprises a combination of graham flour and wheat flour having a weight ratio of 40:60 to 60:40 graham flour to wheat flour.
Ratka does not disclose a biscuit comprising 4-5 wt% starch, based on the total weight of the biscuit.
Dartey at Abstract discloses reduced calorie baked goods made from a dough comprising bulking agents and polydextrose as a replacement for fat and sugar. At col. 13, lines 5-25, Dartey discloses a system of phosphate acidic leavening agents and bicarbonate leavening agents. At col. 15, lines 42-63, Dartey discloses inclusions of many kinds as flavorings and disclose starch in the amount of from about 2 to about 15 wt% of the weight of the dough, which the claimed 4-5 wt% lies within to reduce the stickiness of the dough. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Dartey to use the claimed amount of starch because Dartey discloses that doughs containing the claimed amount of starch provide for a desirable biscuit.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Dartey for Ratka as modified by Coleman, Coyle and Konuklar to include 4-5 wt% of starch in its dough and to combine the dough with inclusions to make baked goods. All references are drawn to doughs for making baked goods comprising flour, fat, sweeteners and leavening. The ordinary skilled artisan working with Ratka would have desired in to include claimed amount of starch in its dough as in Dartey to reduce the stickiness of the dough.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the art of record, taken alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method of making a dough, the method comprising: combining water and one or more sugars to form a sugar solution comprising 60- 67.6 wt% sugar, combining the sugar solution with one or more oils and one or more acids or salts thereof in the water one or more acids selected from the group consisting of citric acid, malic acid, and salts thereof to form an acidic solution; and combining the acidic solution with flour to form a dough, wherein the flour comprises a combination of graham flour and native wheat flour having a weight ratio of 40:60 to 60:40 graham flour to native wheat flour.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated May 28, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 3, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, regarding the term “substantially free of inulin”;
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6919098 B2 to Ratka et al. in view of US 2011/0104338 A1 to Coleman;
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6919098 B2 to Ratka et al. in view of US 2011/0104338 A1 to Coleman et al. and US 2008/0280003 A1 to Coyle et al.;
The rejections of claims 12-13 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6919098 B2 to Ratka et al. in view of US 2011/0104338 A1 to Coleman et al. and RU 2622722 C1 to Ivanova; and,
The rejections of claims 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6919098 B2 to Ratka et al. in view of RU 2622722 C1 to Ivanova and US 2011/0104338 A1 to Coleman et al., US 2008/0280003 A1 to Coyle and US 2014/0220198 A1 to Konuklar.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply and Ivanova, the current grounds of rejection do not rely on Ivanova.
The positions taken in the Remarks accompanying amendment dated May 28, 2026 (Reply), with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the positions taken in the Reply at pages 6-7 alleging that the rejection of Ratka should be withdrawn because Ratka does not disclose everything claimed, respectfully Ratka is not asserted as anticipating the claims. However, when properly read as a whole Ratka at col.8, lines 10-30 and Table 1 discloses the claimed carbonate leavening agent and acidic leavening agent as desirably used in the claimed amounts; and at col. 10, lines 1-10 discloses the claimed malic and citric acids in what appear to be the claimed amounts.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 7 that Coleman and Ratka are improperly combined, respectfully the characterization of ground as one “sentence identifying graham flour” is incorrect. Even the position taken acknowledges the overlap in ingredients at Table 1 of Ratka and Table 1 of Coleman. Further, at Example 1 Coleman discloses crackers comprising fat, sugar as sweetener, water, 25.8 kg of flour and 19.5 kg graham flour while Ratka at col. 3, lines 39-41 discloses crackers like those of Coleman and at col. 3, lines 52-62 generally discloses blends of soft and hard or coarse wheat flours. The Office considers a graham flour to be a desirable form of coarse wheat flour.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply alleging specific advantages not otherwise demonstrated as at [0013] of the instant specification by including bran flour is not evidence. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, one is asked to take the same harder flour cited in each reference and use it in a dough in the same way to make the same baked product.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 8 and Coyle that Coyle teaches way from doughs, respectfully when reading Coyle and Ratka as a whole the distinction between batters and doughs in those references vanishes. Ratka at col. 2, lines 39-42 makes clear that its “dough” has a consistency between a dough and a batter. Meanwhile, Coyle repeatedly discloses overlaps between its “batter” and a dough: At [0008] disclosing non-pourable batters (more like a dough) that 9at [0007]) retain their shape; at [0106] equating the chemical leavening systems in batters and doughs; at [0148] equating preservatives in batters and doughs; and, not least, admitting at [0154] that its composition has desirable characteristics of a dough. In addition, all ingredients in Ratka and Coyle are the same and appear in overlapping proportions to make something between a batter and a dough. It is routine in the art to include more or less flour or liquid in a dough or batter to make it more or less fluid.
Regarding the positions taken in the Reply at pages 8-9 and Konuklar, respectfully, the art of Ratka and Coyle already disclose inclusions as flavoring agents. It is routine for the ordinary skilled artisan, as in baking, to add inclusions to a dough; and is routine to use gelling formulations to enable making of inclusions having various flavors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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, Nikki H Dees can be reached on (571) 270-3435. 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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights