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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/18/2025 has been entered.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 7-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willoughby (RE 18,426) in view of Domingues et al. (WO 2018/013643), and further in view of Ono et al. (JP 2003-164252), made of record by Applicant.
A machine translation of the JP document has been cited in the following rejection and has been provided on the record.
Regarding amended Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, and new Claim 16, Willoughby teaches a packed dough assembly comprising a rigid packaging with an open top end and a packed dough product stored in the rigid packaging (Page 2, Column 1, lines 30-50 and Figures 5-6), wherein the packed dough product comprises at least 5 ready to use, fresh dough pieces, barrier interfaces and a flexible packaging, where the dough pieces are vertically stacked on top of each other and separated by barrier interfaces, wherein the stacked dough pieces are packaged together in the flexible packaging, and where the stack of rolls thus wrapped is inserted into an inflexible container or cylindrical cardboard tube (Page 1, Column 2, lines 50-80 and Figure 3, with reference 8 being the fresh dough pieces separated by reference 9/9a showing the barrier interfaces, referred to as separators, between each piece of dough as shown in Figures 2-6, Page 2, Column 1, lines 32-35). Willoughby teaches where the rigid packaging comprises the dimensions that match a diameter of the fresh dough pieces and a total height of the vertically stacked fresh dough pieces as set forth above and as seen in the Figures 2-6.
Willoughby teaches 10 pieces of dough packaged together (Figure 7), therefore teaching at least 5, from 8-12 and 10 dough pieces as claimed, and also teaches the dough stack wrapped in a flexible packaging as Willoughby teaches the stack of rolls, also described as raw or unbaked leavened dough formulations such as rolls or biscuits or the like, is then unitarily enveloped or wrapped in a sheet 10 in this instance of the same material as the separators, with a crimping or folding close over the aforesaid lowermost roll and a mere gathering or loose folding over the upper-most roll, where Willoughby describes the separators as being of thin, flexible and non-adhering material such as paper foil (Page 1, Column 1, lines 9-11 and Column 2, lines 60-65 and 83-90).
Willoughby is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 1 and teaches leavening agent in the dough, as set forth above, and teaches live leavening agent as Willoughby teaches the dough will tend to expand or rise with gas generation by its leavening ingredient (Page 2, Column 2, lines 75-80), but is silent as to the dough specifically comprising the claimed combination of flour, live leavening agent and water, or where the dough is a pizza dough.
Domingues teaches packaged and refrigerated dough compositions comprising live yeast, flour and water that is enclosed in a package (Paragraphs 3, 4, 53, 58, 63), where the dough is mixed, shaped and packaged (Paragraph 17), and teaches where the dough can be for bread or pizza, as an example (Paragraph 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the leavened dough of Willoughby to have comprised the claimed ingredients of flour, water and leavening living agent in light of the teachings of Domingues and the well-known use of such components to make a leavened dough that is mixed, shaped and packaged for refrigerator storage that is used to make bread and similar baked products. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the dough compositions of Domingues when looking for dough compositions to use for preparing raw shaped dough that is packaged and stored in the refrigerator until baking by consumers. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the dough of Willoughby which is taught to be used for bread or rolls to have also been used for pizza in light of the similarity of compositions for their use.
Regarding amended Claims 1,13 and 14 and the claimed particulars of the at least two leavening live agents, Willoughby in view of Domingues in combination render obvious the dough composition comprising flour, yeast and water, but fails to teach a mixture of at least two leavening living agents comprising a cold-sensitive yeast and a conventional baker’s yeast, where the two yeasts are in the claimed ratio range, or where the cold-sensitive yeast has a reduced fermentation performance at a positive cold temperature, as claimed.
Ono teaches a yeast composition used for making bread, comprising a mixture of at least two different yeast strains that have different functionality (Machine translation, Paragraphs 1, 11-13), where the different functionality can include one yeast strain having low-temperature sensitivity and one yeast strain having low- temperature insensitivity (Paragraphs 12, 13 and 17 and Example 3). Ono is seen to teach the claimed limitation of a mixture of at least two leavening living yeasts comprising a cold-sensitive yeast and a conventional baker’s yeast in light of the teaching of a yeast strain having low-temperature insensitivity, which is understood to mean conventionally functioning yeast. Ono teaches the ratio of the two yeast is not limited, but can between at least 10% or more of one of the strains, which would leave 90% for the second strain, where such a ratio is within the claimed ratio range of Claim 13. Ono’s teaching of a cold sensitive yeast is understood to mean reduced fermentation at cold or low temperatures, as claimed. Ono teaches the benefit of having a mixture of yeasts of different functionality can include reduced overfermentation of a dough during refrigeration and storage (Paragraph 28). Therefore, where it was desired to prepare a bread dough having increased flexibility surrounding reduction in over fermentation during refrigeration/storage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a combination of live leavening yeasts, each having a different functionality such as low-temperature sensitivity and low-temperature insensitivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a reasonable degree of success in using the yeast mixture taught by Ono in a bread dough of Willoughby in view of Domingues given the cited art all teach using live leavening yeasts for production of bread doughs and refrigerating the doughs after preparation, and Willoughby teaches the method of packaging limits leavening of the dough as such action beginning too soon may result in a spoiled product and that package may be indefinitely preserved soft, unspoiled and wholly sanitary (Page 2, Columns 1-2, lines 60-65 and 1-5).
Since the prior art teaches and motivates the combination of the claimed cold-sensitive yeast and conventional baker’s yeast in a fresh dough composition and teaches the known benefits of using such a combination, namely the benefits of using yeasts of different functionality can include reduced overfermentation of a dough during refrigeration and storage (Ono, Paragraph 28). Therefore, where it was desired to prepare a bread dough having increased flexibility surrounding reduction in over fermentation during refrigeration/storage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a combination of live leavening yeasts, each having a different functionality such as low-temperature sensitivity and low-temperature insensitivity. Since the prior art acknowledges that the claimed combination of yeast can limit yeast fermentation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also expected the other claimed effects to also be present, namely the preservation of organoleptic properties and the prolongation of the life time of the fresh dough pieces as claimed.
Applicant appears to be recognizing latent properties or additional advantages ofusing the claimed combination of yeasts in a refrigerator stored fresh dough assembly and it has been found that a patent cannot be granted for the mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art, and such recognition does not render obvious an otherwise known invention. "The fact that applicant 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 Exparte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) and MPEP 2145 Part II. Applicant’ appears to be using conventionally known ingredients and a conventionally known packaging assembly of flexible and rigid packaging in a packed dough assembly and achieving expected results, based on the teachings and guidelines of the prior art.
Regarding amended Claims 3 and 10, Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono at least teaches the dough pieces are biscuit dough, as set forth above and teaches the dough pieces can be bread dough pieces as well (Willoughby, Page 3, Column 1, lines 5-10).
Regarding amended Claims 5 and 12, as set forth above, Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono teaches the separators or barrier interface is made of paper foil, therefore reading on cooking paper.
Regarding amended Claim 7, Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono teach and render obvious the method for preparing the dough assembly of amended Claim 1, comprising the steps of:
Providing a rigid packaging, as set forth above,
Preparing a dough product according to Claim 1, wherein preparing the dough product comprises: providing a dough composition and preparing fresh dough pieces, providing barrier interfaces, placing a first dough piece on a first barrier interface, placing another barrier interface on top of the first dough piece, sequentially and alternatively placing additional fresh dough pieces and barrier interfaces in a vertical stack and wrapping the stacked dough pieces with flexible packaging and fitting the flexible packaging into the rigid packaging, as set forth above, as Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono teaches the desired number of rolls or other moldings of dough are freshly mixed with leavening ingredient and are placed together in stack relation as seen in Figure 1, and between these stacked formations a separating material is placed, and then wrapping the stacked dough pieces with flexible packaging and then fitting the flexible packaging into the rigid or inflexible packaging or cardboard tube, as set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 (Willoughby, Page 1, Column 2, lines 50-85). Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono teaches a separator at the bottom of the stack, therefore teaching placing a first dough piece on a first barrier interface and then continuing the stacking of dough pieces alternating with separator papers (Figure 5 with reference 12a being the bottommost separator paper corner sticking out to be visible under the first dough piece).
Regarding amended Claim 8, Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono teaches a method for storing ready to use fresh dough pieces comprising the steps of providing a dough assembly according to claim 1 and refrigerating the dough assembly, as Willoughby teaches the packaged product may be prolonged by keeping it in a cool place and better still by refrigeration (Willoughby, Page 2, Column 2, lines 125-130). The limitation of “optionally storing the dough assembly up to 14 days” is seen as an optional limitation and therefore not required. However, it is noted that Willoughby does teach keeping the article in a cool compartment when shipping and retailing to the trade (Pages 2-3, Column 2 into Column 1, lines 125-30 and 1-5), therefore teaching some amount of storing time.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willoughby (RE 18,426) in view of Domingues et al. (WO 2018/013643) and Ono et al. (JP 2003-164252), made of record by Applicant, and further in view of Wadoux (USPN 6,190,707), previously made of record.
Regarding amended Claim 15, Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono are taken as cited above and teach or render obvious the claimed package dough assembly comprising the mixture of live leavening agents where one of the yeasts is a cold-sensitive yeast, as set forth above, but fail to specifically teach the parameters of the cold-sensitive yeast as claimed. It is noted that Ono teaches the low-temperature sensitive yeast means a yeast with fermenting ability equal to or higher than 240ml at 30̊C (Paragraph 26).
Wadoux teaches of cold-sensitive yeasts used to prepare bread doughs, where the cold-sensitive yeasts give at least 100ml CO2 in 2 hours at 30̊C and where the ratio of release of CO2 in 48 hours at 8̊C to release of CO2 in 2 hours at 30̊C is less than 45 (Column 2, lines 25-40). Wadoux teaches of various benefits of using such cold-sensitive yeasts including providing a controlled rise/controlled rate of fermentation during storage, wherein such doughs can be stored for several days if necessary and then transported (Column 7, lines 1-65). Therefore, since the low-temperature sensitive yeasts discussed by both Ono and Wadoux appear to be functionally similar, both providing improved flexibility regarding storage/reduced fermentation and increased flexibility of timing of processing following storage, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have used the low-temperature sensitive yeast as discussed by Wadoux in the yeast mixture discussed by Ono. Given the similarities between the two low-temperature sensitive yeasts, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a reasonable degree of success in using the low-sensitive yeast of Wadoux in the bread dough taught by Willoughby in view of Domingues and Ono in order to prepare bread doughs that are to be refrigerated and can have a more controlled rise or rate of fermentation during refrigerated storage.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection previously set forth has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. The prior art rejections have been amended in light of Applicant’s claim amendments made, although the same prior art references are used to reject the amended claims. For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner maintains the position that given the teachings of the prior art, Applicant’s claimed packed dough assembly and related claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention and any benefits achieved by the claimed packaged dough assembly would have been reasonably expected based on the teachings of the prior art, as set forth above. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded as to the patentability of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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 Dees can be reached at 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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 10/9/2025