Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/791,003

Soft Baked Snack and Methods of Making

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 06, 2022
Priority
Jan 08, 2020 — provisional 62/958,375 +1 more
Examiner
ZILBERING, ASSAF
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
General Mills Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
2-3
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
61%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allowance Rate
211 granted / 627 resolved
-31.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
706
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
93.9%
+53.9% vs TC avg
§102
3.1%
-36.9% vs TC avg
§112
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 627 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-9 are pending in the current application. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from consideration (see discussion, below). Claims 1-6 are examined in the current application. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on April 1st 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 1st 2025. 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 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. 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (JP 2019187366 A – machine translated). Regarding claims 1 and 5: Shinoda discloses baked good dough comprising protein comprising collagen, hydrolyzed dairy protein, structural protein, structure setting protein, dry sugar and a liquid carbohydrate syrup (e.g., glycerin) at contents that overlap the contents recited in claims 1 and 5 (see Shinoda pages 1-2). Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05). Regarding claim 2: Shinoda discloses the baked good comprises up to 12% soy protein and up to 8% calcium caseinate (see Shinoda page 2, bottom two paragraphs). Regarding claim 3: Shinoda discloses the baked good comprises egg whites (see Shinoda page 3, paragraph 5). Regarding claim 4: Shinoda discloses the baked good comprises fiber (page 3, 4th paragraph). Regarding claim 6: Shinoda discloses the baked good comprises shortening (see Shinoda page 3, 5th paragraph from the bottom). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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 on (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. /ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 06, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Sep 30, 2025
Response Filed
May 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12635704
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CHEESE-LIKE FERMENTED FOOD, AND CHEESE-LIKE FERMENTED FOOD
3y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12628844
FAT SPREAD PRODUCT, PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME, AND ITS USE AS TABLE SPREAD OR IN BAKERY
5y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12628845
OIL AND FAT COMPOSITION FOR HEAT COOKING
4y 11m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12616221
LIPID-MODIFIED STARCHES
4y 4m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12616222
Method for Manufacturing Refined Edible Oil and/or Fat, Method for Improving Light Exposure Odor of Edible Oil and/or Fat, and Refined Edible Oil and/or Fat
4y 3m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
61%
With Interview (+27.0%)
4y 2m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 627 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month