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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/28/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-5,7-10,13-21 are amended and claims 6,11-12 are cancelled. Claims 22 and 23 are added. Claims 1-5,7-10 and 13-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5,7-10 and 13-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willoughby ( Re 18 426) in view of Ono et al ( Jp 2003164252) and El-Afandi ( 2004/0241290)
For claims 1, 13 Willoughby discloses a packed dough product and a method of preparing the packed dough. The packed dough comprising at least two ready to use fresh dough pieces, a mold having a top end and at least one barrier interface in the form of separators. The dough pieces are stacked on top of each other within the mold and separated by barrier interfaces. Willoughby discloses the stack of dough pieces in the mold is unitarily enveloped or wrapped in sheet. The mold physically restrains the dough pieces in vertical direction with the pieces being one on top of the other. Willoughy also discloses that the completed packet or package in addition be given a protective moisture-proof wrapping. Both of the features are considered further secondary packaging that does not physically constrain the dough pieces. Willoughby discloses a mold which is a first packaging. Willoughby discloses dough pieces which inherently comprises flour and water. Willoughby discloses inclusion of leavening agent. Willoughby discloses storing the packaged dough in a cool place by refrigeration. Thus, the temperature is within the range in claim 13 because refrigerator temperature is typically between 1-4 degrees C.
( see col. 1 lines 9-13, col. 2 lines 52-65, 53-63, 58-64, col. 3 lines 32-37, col. 4 lines 125-130 and the drawing)
For claim 3, Willoughby discloses the dough include biscuit dough. ( col. 1 lines 10-12)
For claim 4, Willoughby discloses that dough pieces are not flattened and not folded as shown in figure 1.
For claim 7, Willoughby shows in figure 5 the stacked dough pieces are inserted into a cylindrical tube and the stacked pieces are fitted into the tube. Thus, the tube and the stacked pieces are substantially identical in overall shape and dimensions.
For claim 8, Willoughby discloses cylindrical tube which is the same as the claimed and figure 5 shows a tubular shape. ( see col. 3 lines 33-35)
For claim 10, Willoughby discloses the separating material which is the same as the claimed barrier interface is a paper foil which is a cooking paper. ( see col. 2 lines 58-63)
For claim 14, Willoughby discloses a method for storing ready to use fresh dough pieces comprising providing a packed dough and refrigerating the packed dough. ( see col. 4 lines 125-130, col. 1 lines 9-13, col. 2 lines 52-65, col. 3 lines 32-37 and the drawing)
For claim 15, Willoughby discloses refrigerating the packed dough. Thus, it’s inherent the dough is not frozen below 0 degrees C. ( see col. 4 lines 125-130)
For claim 18, Willoughby discloses the stack of dough pieces is unitarily enveloped or wrapped in sheet. ( see col. 2 lines 53-63). Willoughy also discloses that the completed packet or package in addition be given a protective moisture-proof wrapping. ( see col. 3 lines 58-64). Both of the features are considered further packaging and are sealed because they are wrapped. The wrapping is moisture-proof. Thus, it’s airtight and waterproof.
The disclosure of Willoughby is described above. The forming of the packed dough as described above inherently comprises the steps as recited in claim 13.
For claim 20, Willoughby discloses storing the packaged dough in a cool place by refrigeration. Thus, the temperature is within the range in claim 13 because refrigerator temperature is typically between 1-4 degrees C. ( see col. 4 lines 125-130)
For claim 22, Willoughby discloses the stack of rolls is inserted into an inflexible container or cylindrical cardboard tube which is the same as the claimed mold. The tube has an attachable closure at one end by a cap. Thus, the tube has an open bottom end which is closed by an attachable cap. ( see col 3 lines 32-40)
For claim 23, Willoughby discloses the tube is an inflexible container which will give a fixed tubular wall of the mold. ( see col. 3 lines 32-35)
Willoughby does not disclose the dough comprising a mixture of a cold sensitive yeast and a conventional baker’s yeast, at least one tray and at least two packed dough products on the at least one tray as in claim 1, 2-5 dough pieces as in claim 2, the diameter, thickness and weight as in claims 5,16, the diameter and height as in claims 9,17, the providing of at least one tray and placing at least two packed dough products onto the tray as in claim 13 and the ratio as in claim 21.
Ono discloses a bread yeast comprising two or more kinds of yeast strains. The yeast strains contained in baker’s yeast has different functions in one or more quality items. The quality item is one or more of the group including low temperature sensitivity and low temperature insensitivity. One yeast strain is 10% by weight or more in at least baker’s yeast. A yeast can include low temperature sensitive yeast strain and a low temperature insensitive yeast strain. ( see sections 0011,0014)
El-Afandi discloses packaged dough products. Figure 3 shows packaged dough product that contains multiple packaged portions of dough. All of the packaged portions being contained in a larger package for individual sale. The number of sub-unit portions within the larger packaging can vary and may be 2,4,8,10 or any other number. A divider such as plastic tray can be used to maintain the separation between the sub-units ( see paragraphs 0028,0076)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place any number of dough pieces in the tube as an obvious matter of preference depending on the quantity desired. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dough pieces to have any desirable diameter, thickness and weight and to form the tube to have dimension that would hold the dough pieces as an obvious matter of choice. Such parameter would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Willoughby discloses dough comprising leavening. Dough is well known to be made of flour and water. Such ingredients would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any known leavening agent depending on the type of dough and the quality desired. For instance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the baker’s yeast comprising two different strains of yeast, one being low temperature sensitive yeast and one being low temperature insensitive yeast as taught in Ono to affect different quality of the dough. The low temperature insensitive yeast in Ono is considered the conventional yeast versus the low temperature sensitive yeast. It would have been obvious to follow the guideline of Ono for the ratio. Ono discloses 1 strain is at least 10% so the other is 90% which give a ratio of .1 which is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the packed dough in trays within larger packaging as shown in El-Afandi when desiring to package the packed dough for commercial sale. The number of packed dough can vary and would have been an obvious matter of preference. Willoughby discloses the same configuration of stacking dough pieces in vertical direction in a mold as in the claimed dough assembly. Thus, it’s obviously inherent that the properties of limiting yeast fermentation and preserved organoleptic are present in Willoughby.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues Willoughby fails to teach or suggest a dough assembly comprising at least one tray and at least two packed dough products on the at least one tray and each packed dough comprising the features as in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. It’s already acknowledged in the rejection that Willoughby does not disclose placing the packed dough product on a tray. However, the rejection is not based on Willoughby alone. El-Afandi is used in the rejection to show the packaging of multiple packed dough on a tray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pack multiple packed dough product on a tray when desiring to pack dough product for commercial sale so that many packed dough products can be transported. Applicant does not argue why such modification would not have been obvious. As to the packed dough product, Willoughby discloses all the features of first packaging comprising a mold to physically restrain the dough pieces wherein the mold has an open top end and secondary packaging that does not physically constrain the fresh dough pieces. The missing feature of the Willoughby dough pieces is the mixture of cold sensitive yeast and a conventional yeast. The Ono reference is used to provide the teaching of the mixture of yeast. Applicant does not present any analysis or argument on why using the yeast taught in Ono would not have been obvious. As to the properties of limited yeast fermentation and preserved organoleptic properties, Willoughby discloses the same configuration of stacking dough pieces in vertical direction in a mold as in the claimed dough assembly. Thus, it’s obviously inherent that the properties of limiting yeast fermentation and preserved organoleptic are present in Willoughby. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA1977), in re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant further argues that Ono does not teach dough assembly having the features recited in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive because Ono is only relied upon for the teaching of the use of mixture of yeast in dough. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to El-Afandi, applicant argues that the packaged portions of dough composition of El-Afandi are not equivalent to the packed dough products of claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. It’s not stated in the rejection that the El-Afandi packaged portion is equivalent to the claimed packed dough products. El-Afandi is only relied upon to teach the concept to packing multiple portions of packaged dough in a larger tray.
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.
September 5, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793