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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 8, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 17-19 and 21-25 are pending examination. Claims 1-12 were previously withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s remarks filed June 8, 2026 and amendment filed October 29, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 17, step (ii) the recitation “wherein a weight percentage of the flour is about 13 wt% to about 30 wt% of the flour relative to a total weight of the first dough” should be amended to read “wherein a weight percentage of the flour is about 13 wt% to about 30 wt% relative to a total weight of the first dough.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 17-19 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roussel et al. (2017/0094982) as evidenced by Pontoh et al. (“Glucose syrup production from Indonesian palm and cassava starch”, Food Research International, Vol. 28, No. 4, (1995), pp. 379-385).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Roussel et al. disclose a method of making a multi-texture cookie, the method comprising the steps of: (a) forming an external dough by (i) mixing fat, sugars (i.e., particle sugar), and salt; (ii) adding and mixing in liquid whole egg, glucose syrup, flavor and water to mixture; (iii) subsequently adding the flour and baking powder; and (iv) blending until a homogeneous dough having a water activity of approximately 0.78 is obtained (i.e., external dough); (b) forming an internal dough (i.e., first dough) by (i) mixing fats, sugar (i.e., particle sugar), flour and salt; (ii) adding and mixing in liquid whole egg, glucose syrup (i.e., sugar syrup), glycerol (i.e., sugar alcohol), flavor, and water to the mixture, (iii)subsequently adding the starch, fiber and baking powder; and (iv) blending until a homogeneous dough having a water activity of approximately 0.73 is obtained (i.e. dough precursor); (c) coextruding dough one and dough two to form a cookie multi-component dough; and (d) baking the multi-component dough to form a multi-texture cookie ([0064]-[0071]).
Roussel et al. disclose the internal dough (i.e., first dough) comprises 10% wt% flour (Abstract, [0030]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP §2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed amount of flour of about 13 wt% is considered to encompass a value of 10 wt%.
In the alternative, while Roussel et al. disclose a low flour content is desired for a soft inner dough, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the flour content of the internal dough in order to create a cookie precursor having a harder dough.
While Roussel et al. disclose a method of making an external dough (i.e., first dough) wherein the baking powder is added after the glucose syrup and glycerol are mixed in, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the contrary (MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 18, Roussel et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roussel et al. disclose the external and internal (i.e., cookie precursor) are mixed using a conventional mixer type ([0114], [0116]). Here, any conventional mixer would be considered to produce shear to some extent (i.e., shear mixer).
Regarding claim 21, Roussel et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Roussel et al. disclose sugars including sucrose (i.e., particle sugar), the reference is silent with respect to particle size. However, as evidenced by Krűger, crystallized sugar, i.e., sucrose, is known to have grain sizes ranging from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm (i.e., 100 to 2500 µm).
Regarding claim 22, Roussel et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roussel et al. disclose an embodiment wherein the ratio of sugar (i.e. particle sugar) to glycerol (i.e., sugar alcohol) is about 1.5 (15.56% sugar and 10.69% glycerol – [0107]/Example 1, internal dough).
Regarding claim 23, Roussel et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roussel et al. disclose mixing in a conventional mixer. Here, a conventional mixer is considered to include horizontal mixers. While Roussel et al. is silent with respect mixing for 1 to 3 minutes at each step, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have adjusted, in routine process, the mixing time to obtain a homogenous mixture.
Regarding claim 24, Roussel et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roussel et al. disclose glucose syrup (). As evidenced by Pontoh et al., glucose syrup is also referred to as dextrose syrup (p. 379/Introduction).
Regarding claim 25, Roussel et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Roussel et al. disclose the first dough mix comprises at least 20 wt% flour (i.e., cookie precursor-Abstract). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roussel et al. (2017/0094982) as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Krűger (“Sugar”, Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use, S.T. Beckett (ed.), Springer Science-Business media Dordrecht, (1994), pp. 25-42).
Regarding claim 21, Roussel et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Roussel et al. disclose sugars including sucrose (i.e., particle sugar), the reference is silent with respect to particle size.
Krűger, teaches crystallized sugar, i.e., sucrose, is known to have grain sizes ranging from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm (i.e., 100 to 2500 µm-p. 28/3.2 Sugar qualities).
Given Roussel et al. disclose sucrose, since Krűger, teaches crystallized sugar, i.e., sucrose, is known to have grain sizes ranging from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm, it would have been obvious to have used any known size of sucrose sugar (e.g., course, medium or fine), and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, as amended, claim 17 is “novel, nonobvious and distinguished over Rousell.”
Applicant is directed to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights