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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu JP 3200307U (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses a method for making self-supporting filled food product, wherein at least one food item (14) is wrapped in a layer of dough (10), after which the layer of dough is cooked so that the layer of dough gains a firmness such that the self-supporting filled food product is obtained (Espacenet Translation [0023], [0024]) in which a first dough portion (dough body portion of fish) of the layer of cooked dough substantially fully covers the at least one food item (14) (See Figs. 6, 7, 10-14), wherein a second dough portion (dough fish tail portion) of the layer of cooked dough extends from the first dough portion away from the at least one food item (14) so as to form a handle for holding the self-supporting filled food product (dough fish tail portion of the product is capable of being used as a handle) (see Figs. 10-14) (Espacenet Translation [0021]-[0023], [0004]). Shimizu discloses that the product can be eaten with one hand like a hotdog therefore it is obvious that the product can be considered self-supporting and has been cooked so that the layer of dough gains a firmness such that the self-supporting filled food product is obtained (Espacenet Translation [0004]). Shimizu discloses that the cooking is performed by baking with a baking mold (Fig. 1, [0023], [0024]), wherein the baking mold comprises a first baking mold part (fish body mold part) and a second baking mold part (fish tail mold part) for receiving, shaping and cooking the first and second dough portion (Fig. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu obviously discloses that substantially an entirety of the layer of dough is cooked (Espacenet Translation [0023], [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu discloses that a figurative shape is applied to the first dough portion (body is shaped as fish) (Figs.1, 6, [0017], [0018]).
Regarding claim 16, the second baking mold part (fish tail mold part) obviously is provided with at least one ridge in order to form the tail design (see Figs. 1-14).
Regarding claim 17, the ridge obviously extends longitudinally away from the first baking mold part (fish body mold part) (see Figs. 1-14).
Regarding claim 18, Shimizu discloses that a baking mold is arranged for being in contact along substantially an entirety of the layer of dough, since the dough is obviously in contact with the entirety of the baking mold surface as shown in Figs. 10-14 of Shimizu.
Regarding claim 19, Shimizu discloses that the first baking mold part (fish body mold part) comprises a figurative baking mold (see Figs. 1-14).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu JP 3200307U (Espacenet Translation) in view of Brabbs US 4,596,714.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, claim 2 and 15 differs from Shimizu in the recitation that the first and second dough portions are made from a single continuous layer of still uncooked dough. However, is it noted that the end product of Shimizu is a single continuous layer of dough (Fig. 7). Regarding claim 15, Shimizu discloses that the first dough portion (dough body portion of fish) and second dough portion (dough fish tail portion) are made from a single continuous layer of dough by cooking (Figs 1-14, [0023], [0024]).
Brabbs discloses that a filled dough product can be made by multiple methods including in a first method, a single layer of dough is used, the filling is placed on the single layer of dough and the edges of the dough are sealed together so as to enclose the filling to form a raw snack product which is subsequently baked. In the second method two layers of dough are used, the filling is placed on the first layer of dough and a second layer of dough is placed on top of the first layer of dough, the second layer of dough is then compressed around the filling and sealed against the first layer of dough to enclose the filling so as to form the raw snack product, which is subsequently baked (col. 7, lines 4-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimizu such that the first and second dough portions are made from a single continuous layer of still uncooked dough as suggested by Brabbs, thereby using a known technique of forming a filled dough product to yield the predictable result of obtaining a filled dough product made from a single continuous layer. It has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2144.I.D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 6 of the remarks Applicant argues that Shimizu employs a pourable batter rather than a layer of dough as recited in the claims.
This argument has not been found persuasive, Shimizu generically discloses that dough is supplied to each of the baking molds ([0018]-[0022]), and it is further clear from the drawings that the dough applied to the baking molds can be considered dough layers (Figs. 8-14).
On. Pg. 7 of the remarks Applicant argues that Shimizu does not teach "a second dough portion of the layer of dough extends from the first dough portion away from the at least one food item wo as to form a handle for holding the cooked filled food product."
On Pg. 8-9 of the remarks Applicant argues that the statement that Shimizu’ product can be eaten with one hand does not establish that cooking causes its dough layer to gain the claimed firmness or handle.
This argument has not been found persuasive. First as discussed above, Shimizu does teach a second dough portion (dough fish tail portion) of the layer of cooked dough extends from the first dough portion away from the at least one food item (14) so as to form a handle for holding the self-supporting filled food product (dough fish tail portion of the product is capable of being used as a handle) (see Figs. 10-14). Second Shimizu discloses that the product can be eaten with one hand like a hotdog therefore it is obvious that the product can be considered self-supporting and has been cooked so that the layer of dough gains a firmness such that the self-supporting filled food product is obtained (Espacenet Translation [0004]). It is noted that Tomey US 2005/0042361 discloses that hot dogs are formed by a meat mixture that when cooked will form a cohesive self-supporting processed meat product ([0010]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Giovanneti US 1596652 discloses making a mold having a first mold part and a second mold part and using a single layer of dough to form a stuffed dough food product
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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 at 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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights