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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/6/26 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 4 are amended and claims 3,8-9 are cancelled. Claims 1-2,4-7, 10-15 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph and 102 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7,10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp3717469.
For claim 1, Jp469 discloses a dough for baked food comprising water, fat and oil, starch, cyclodextrin, stabilizer selected from tamarind gum, guar gum, xanthan gum etc… The dough does not need to include protein; thus, it’s substantially free of protein. Jp469 discloses the cyclodextrin includes alpha cyclodextrin. Jp469 discloses the fats and oil is present in amount of 2-10% by weight in the dough. ( see the claim, paragraphs 0001,0009,0013,0014,0056,0078)
For claim 2, Jp469 discloses the fat and oil is selected from soybean oil, sesame oil, rapeseed oil, peanut oil etc.. ( see paragraph 0041)
For claim 4, Jp469 discloses the starch includes potato starch, sweet potato starch, corn starch etc.. ( see paragraphs 0067-0068)
For claim 5, Jp469 discloses baked products obtained from the dough. ( see paragraph 0007)
For claim 6, Jp469 discloses baked products including edible container, wafer,manaca peel etc... ( see paragraphs 0007,0022, 0107)
For claim 7, Jp469 discloses a process for producing a baked food by baking the dough ( see paragraph 0106).
For claim 10, Jp469 discloses the water is present in about of 5-70% by weight in the dough. ( see paragraph 0091)
For claim 11, Jp469 discloses starch in the range 30-90% by weight in the dough. ( see paragraph 0061
For claim 12, Jp469 discloses the cyclodextrin in the range of .15-5% by weight in the dough. ( see paragraph 0088)
Jp 469 does not specifically discloses the dough being free of emulsifier, the amount of water-soluble gelling agent as in claims 13-15.
Jp469 discloses the emulsifier can be in amount of about .001 to about 2%, even more preferably about 0. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to omit the emulsifier. Furthermore, even if the emulsifier is included, the amount can be very minimal, even below .001 because Jp discloses “ about .001%”. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.") Applicant has not established difference or criticality in the absence of emulsifier versus very little emulsifier in the dough as the instant specification clearly provides for inclusion of emulsifier. Jp 469 discloses stabilizer including gums such as locust bean gum, agar, xanthan gum etc.. These are equivalent to the claimed water-soluble gelling agent. Jp 469 discloses in paragraph 0059 the amount of raw material other than water, fats, oil and emulsifier is preferably about .02-30%. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the amount of stabilizer within the range allowed for in Jp460 depending on the degree of stabilization and consistency desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues the new limitation in claim 1. The limitation of “ free of emulsifier” does not define over Jp 469 as explained in the rejection above. Applicant points to comparative examples 4,5 which contains emulsifier. But, the emulsifier included in the examples is .1 which is much higher than the amount disclosed in Jp 469. claim is not considered because the amendment is not entered. Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there is a significant amount of emulsifier required to achieve emulsification. This argument is not supported by factual evidence. Jp 469 discloses the emulsifier may be within a range that satisfies the purpose of emulsification. The emulsifier is preferably about .001 to about 2%". Thus, the amount of .001% supports emulsification because it's specifically disclosed. Applicant argues different processing but the claims are not directed to a method of preparing dough. How the dough is prepared does not affect the determination of patentability of the dough. Applicant further argues gum arabic and pectin cannot be used in the present invention. The claims do not exclude gum arabic and pectin. Furthermore, Jp469 discloses in paragraph 0056 that the stabilizer can be selected from ingredients other than gum arabic and pectin. The paragraph discloses other gums including tamarin, locust bean gum, carrageenan etc..
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.
May 16, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights