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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections that are not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 18, 23, 39, 40 and 44-49 are currently pending and rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the gelling agent is selected from among.” On lines 10-11. For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “the gelling agent is selected from the group consisting of.”
Claim 1 recites, “subsequently adding a flour in an amount of 45% to 65% by weight of the dough to the first mixture and mixing in a second mixing step in a mixing to form the dough in the mixer.” (see lines 17-19). For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “subsequently adding a flour in an amount of 45% to 65% by weight of the dough to the first mixture and mixing the first mixture and the flour in a second mixing step in a mixing to form the dough in the mixer.”
Claim 1 also recites on line 21, “23.4°C.” The period after “°C” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 12, 18, 23, 39, 40 and 44-49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the dough being at a temperature of between 12 and 23.4°C.” (see line 21). The entirety of this range is not seen to be supported by Applicant’s original disclosure. Claim 37 (now canceled) disclosed a dough temperature of “12°C to 23°C.” Paragraphs 219-221 as published disclose that “dough was prepared at 23.4°C.” Together, these limitations do not support the range between 23°C and 23.4°C and therefore raises an issue of new matter. It is additionally noted that the disclosure at paragraphs 219-221 discloses that “The dough was prepared at 23.4°C” however it is not clear if this means that the dough is at this temperature or whether this is simply the temperature during preparation of the dough. This is in contrast to paragraphs 216-217 which disclose “producing a dough at 15.3°C” and “at 17.2°C.”
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 11, 12, 18, 23, 39, 40 and 44-49 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 12, 18, 23, 39, 40 and 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “forming a first mixture comprising mixing a gelling agent and a sugar in a first mixing step in a mixer to substantially dissolve the sugar.” This limitation is not clear as to how a gelling agent that can be any fat, for example, and which fat can be present at 15% while the sugar can be present at 30% would have allowed for substantial dissolution of the sugar.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation, “the gelling agent is selected from among a fat,…a vegetable oil and a combination thereof, wherein when the gelling agent is…a vegetable oil water is also added…” This limitation is not clear because a vegetable oil is a fat however the claim does not require addition of water if the gelling agent is a fat therefore making the scope of the claim unclear.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 11, 12, 18, 23, 39, 40 and 44-49 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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 1-5, 11, 12, 23, 39, 40 and 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muollo (WO 0243498) in view of Sophie (“The Science of Cookies”) and Robbins (“Creaming butter and sugar: Hot to get it right”) and in further view of Brown (US 20030165605) and in further view of Syrakvasha (US 20200100508) and in further view of Huxel (US 20060292276) and in further view of Schoonman (US 20170354172) and Dupart (US 20100196584).
Hull (Glucose Syrups: Technology and Applications) has been relied on as evidence.
Regarding claim 1, Muollo teaches a method for forming a three dimensional, edible foodstuff (See page 1, lines 27-28) from a dough (page 2, line 2) comprising,
Forming a first mixture comprising mixing a gelling agent and a sugar in a first mixing step (see page 3, line 28 to page 4, line 8), and where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that combining of the fat, sugar and syrup would have required some degree of mixing in a mixer. This is further supported on page 7, lines 29-32 which discloses mixing of the syrup, sugar and fat. Because Muollo teaches that that there is a combination of 15% fat and 15% sugar and up to 25% of a syrup such as glucose syrup, there would have been a reasonable expectation of the sugar being “substantially” dissolved in the first mixture. Dissolution of the sugar would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing homogeneity to the dough. Further regarding dissolution, Sophie (“The Science of Cookies”) further teaches that the step of creaming has been recognized to also dissolve sugar and help to allow for easier blending of other ingredients(see page 3, lines 13-18, “By creaming the butter with the sugar….”). Robbins (“Creaming butter and sugar: How to get it right”) also teaches that when creaming fat with sugar that the sugar can be nearly dissolved so as to provide a smooth texture to the first mixture (see page 6” Your well-creamed mix will be moist and light and the sugar will be nearly dissolved…”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substantially dissolve the sugar of Muollo in order to allow for creating the desired amount of air bubbles and to allow for easier blending of other ingredients after the creaming.
As discussed above, Muollo teaches that the sugar can be used at 15% and the fat (i.e. shortener such as vegetable shortening (see page 4, line 2) can be used at 15% (see page 4, lines 6-8). Since vegetable shortening is construed to read on the gelling agent being a fat, the step of adding water is not required. Nonetheless, since Muollo also teaches that the first mixture comprises a syrup such as glucose syrup (see page 6, lines 5-6) this suggests the addition of water because as evidenced by Hull (see page 314, section B.8 below the table: “…both HFGS and 42 DE Glucose syrup container water…”).
Muollo teaches that to the first mixture is added 60% wheat flour (see page 4, lines 9-12) to produce dough, which would obviously have required a second mixing step in a mixer to form the dough.
In order to place Muollo’s dough into the mold (see page 3, line 13) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have removed the dough from a mixer (see page 8, lines 7-8 disclosing that the formed dough is molded).
Because the claimed temperature of the dough encompasses room temperature, and since Muollo teaches that refrigerating to cool the dough is only preferred (see page 8, lines 5-6), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Muollo is encompassing the dough being at a standard room temperature such as 20°C. It is additionally noted that the claim does not exclude steps between the second mixing and the removing, provided that such additional steps are performed within the mixer of the second mixing. Nonetheless, it is further noted that Brown teaches flour based dough products that also comprise fat and sugar (paragraph 25, 30 and 43) that it has been desirable to ensure dough remained at temperatures such as 55-60°F (i.e. 12.7-15.5°C) so as to allow for molding (see paragraph 46) and for the purpose of controlling the dough volume (see paragraph 49)
To therefore modify Muollo and to keep the dough at temperatures such as 12.7-15.5°C would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because Brown teaches that such temperature are suitable for molding of the produced dough, which Muollo desired, and for the purpose of controlling the volume of the dough.
It is also noted that the claim limitation does not provide specificity as to when the dough is at between 12-23.4°C. That is, the claim does not specify if this temperature is after removing and prior to placing into the mold, for example.
As shown in figure 7, Muollo teaches that the mould comprises a female mould (figure 7, item 62) and a male ram whose exterior shape mirrors that of the desired internal shape of the biodegradable and/or edible container (see figure 7, item 61).
While Muollo teaches a three-dimensional food, the claim differs in specifically reciting that the three-dimensional shape is that of a cup or mug.
Syrakvasha teaches forming a dough which is then moulded into edible tableware including spoons as well as cups (see figure 1A-1 and paragraph 23 and 28). Syrakvasha thus teaches that the dough used for making edible tableware such as spoons can be equally used for making edible cups both of which are eaten after use (see the abstract).
Since Muollo is also generic in the particular three-dimensional edible utensil (see page 1, lines 27-33; page 2, line 31) and teaches eating the utensil after using the utensil (see page 5, line 32 to page 6, line 2), to modify Muollo and to use a mold that shapes the dough into a cup would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of providing other known forms of edible utensils that can provide the desired food handling utility and can subsequently be eaten.
Muollo further teaches subjecting the dough to both heat and pressure to shape the utensil (see figure 7 and the abstract), where the edible utensil is first shaped using heat and pressure in the mold (see at least, page 11, line 26 to page 12, line 10) using molding temperatures such as 160-180 degrees Celsius (see page 12, lines 29-33 – while this specific citation does not discuss the units as Celsius, it is noted that the reference refers to all temperatures using Celsius and therefore is reasonable to conclude that the molding temperatures are also in degrees Celsius), which would obviously have partially cooked the dough into the three-dimensional shape (see page 12, lines 1-6). Muollo teaches removal of the male ram (see page 12, lines 9-10) and full baking after the partial baking (see page 12, lines 1-6). The combination in view of Syrakvasha suggests using a cup shaped mold and therefore is suggesting an edible cup and/or mug.
Claim 1 differs from the above combination in specifically reciting,
placing an internal insert inside the partially cooked biodegradable and/or edible cup or mug, the insert having a shape that corresponds to an internal surface of the biodegradable edible cup or mug; and
placing the partially cooked biodegradable and/or edible cup or mug in an oven and baking to produce the biodegradable and/or edible cup or mug having a three-dimensional shape, the biodegradable and/or edible cup or mug having a water activity of less than 0.54 and a moisture content of less than 6.5g/100g”
Regarding the placing of an insert, Huxel (US 20060292276) teaches edible containers that can be construed to have a shape of a cup (see figure 9) made from a dough (see figure 4, item 33) that is placed into a mould having a female mould (see figure 2, item 34a, 34b) and a male ram (see figure 2, item 26a, 26b), which male ram is heated (see at least, paragraph 13, “heated conical mandrel”; paragraph 25). Huxel teaches that the male ram applies heat and pressure to set the shape of the dough to partially cook the dough, using a time such as four seconds at 350°F (i.e. 176°C) (see paragraph 28-30). Huxel further teaches removing the male ram from contact with the partially cooked biodegradable and/or edible cup and then placing an internal insert inside the partially cooked edible cup, which has a shape corresponding to an internal surface of the edible cup (see figure 6, item 44 and paragraph 33). Huxel teaches at paragraph 33 that the insert provides a guide for the expansion of the dough during the baking process and to direct the rising and expansion of the dough for creating the desired final product and further teaches that the partial cooking using the heated male mandrel and female mould allows for a clean release of the dough from the heated mandrel while allowing for subsequent baking for further cooking and crisping the edible container (see paragraph 30, 35 and 37).
To thus modify Muollo’s baking process and to place an internal insert inside the partially cooked edible cup which insert has a shape corresponding to the internal surface of the edible cup and then to further bake in an oven, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of making it easier to extract the cooked cup or mug from the mold while preventing distortion or destroying the shape of the product.
Regarding the claim 45 limitation of, “the male ram applies heat and pressure to cook the dough in the female mould for about 1 sec to 30 seconds” Huxel also teaches that the male ram can apply heat and pressure to cook the dough for approximately four seconds (see paragraph 30). It is also it is that Muollo teaches that the particular moulding times and temperatures can be any desired temperatures and time periods and that if a shorter time period is desired a higher temperature can be set (see page 14, line 31 to page 15, line 7).
It is also noted that the above prior art teaches that the purpose of heating within the mould is for heat setting the dough while partially cooking the dough, which also appears to be the purpose of Applicant’s heated moulding step (see paragraph 129 of Applicant’s specification as filed). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the particular period of time for heating within the mold, for the purpose of achieving the desired heat set shape to the edible cup or mug, while also making it easier to remove the shaped edible cup or mug from the mould as taught by Huxel and Muollo.
Regarding the claimed water activity of less than 0.54 and a moisture content of less than 6.5g/100g, the claim differs from Muollo in this regard.
However, as Muollo teaches that the dough can have about 2% by weight of water, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the fully baked product would have had a moisture content of less than 6.5g/100g.
Nonetheless, Schoonman teaches a moulded, baked, edible container (see figure 1, top left image, “Cereal biscuit”; paragraph 9) which is first shaped and partially cooked at a temperature of 120-180°C (paragraph 34) and then further heated at temperatures such as 150°C (see Table 2, Recipe 3 Oats and dryer temperature) to have a water activity below 0.5 (see paragraph 19) and a moisture content of less than 3% (see paragraph 35 and table 2). The particular moisture content and water activity has been taught by Schoonman to be useful to allow the shaped edible product to serve as an edible container (see paragraph 9).
Dupart teaches molded foods where a water content of the molded food being less than 5% and a water activity of the molded food being between 0.05-0.40 have been advantageous for the food product having a good shelf life and a crispy texture when the product is consumed (paragraph 24).
Since Muollo does not provide any specificity as to a water activity or moisture content, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Muollo to use the techniques as taught by Huxel and Muollo to bake the edible container to a moisture content of less than 6.5g/100g and with a water activity of less than 0.54 for the purpose of having good shelf life and a crispy texture when the product is consumed.
Regarding claim 2, since Muollo teaches a composition similar to that claimed and the combination further teaches similar processing conditions, it would have been reasonable to expect that the cup as taught by the prior art would also have had the capability of retaining a liquid without leaking the liquid for at least 2 hours.
Further in this regard, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the ability to retain a liquid without leaking would also have been affected by the amount and type of liquid present in the edible cup or mug. In any case, it is further noted that Syrakvasha suggests that the container can be leakproof for “at least 60 minutes,” (see paragraph 41), thus overlapping with the claimed range of “at least two hours.” It is noted that Syrakvasha also teaches the use of a glaze to further extend the liquid resistance (see paragraph 29) thus further teaching and suggesting that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Muollo’s container to be able to retain a liquid for at least 2 hours based on design preference for how long it would have been desirable to retain liquid in the edible container prior to leaking.
Regarding claim 3, the claim differs from Muollo in specifically reciting that the cup or mug has a wall thickness of 3-5mm or a density of 0.45-0.65 relative to water, a protein content of 8-16g/100g or any combination of these three.
However, Syrakvasha teaches that “a wall” can have a thickness of less than 6 millimeters or can have a thickness of less than 3 millimeters (see paragraph 35), which thus encompasses the claimed thickness of 3-5mm. At paragraph 43, Syrakvasha suggests that the base wall thickness is less than 6 millimeters but greater than 3 millimeters, thus suggesting a thickness within the claimed range of 3-5mm.
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been routinely led to modify the thickness of a wall of the edible cup taught by the combination to have a thickness within the range of 3-5mm because the prior art teaches thicknesses of edible cup or mug that are within the claimed range and close to the claimed range, such that the claimed thickness would have been prima facie obvious as a matter of engineering and/or design based on known thicknesses for a wall of an edible container.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of, “if the flour comprises a gluten free flour, then the dough comprises an additional source of flour, that is not a wheat flour, and a source of fibre,” it is noted that this is a contingent limitation. In this regard, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP 2111.04). It is noted however, Muollo’s teaches of wheat flour comprising gluten (See page 6, lines 18-21) and therefore is not a gluten free flour.
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that the combination suggests flour with gluten and does not suggest the flour comprising gluten free flour. Therefore, the claim 5 limitation of, wherein the additional source of flour is selected from coconut flour, white rice flour, brown rice flour, chia seeds, flaxseeds, almond, hazelnut, or a combination thereof, is not seen to be required by the claimed dough composition because the claims do not require gluten free flour. (see the discussion above with respect to claim 4 and the contingent limitation of, “if the flour comprises a gluten free flour”).
Regarding claim 23, the claim differs in specifically adding a flavoring agent at greater than 0 up to 10% by weight to the first mixture.
However, Syrakvasha teaches 1-2% of salt as part of the first mixing step of combining eggs, sugar and water and other additives such as flavoring (see paragraph 30 and 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Muollo and to include 2% of salt as well as some amount of other additives such as flavoring, which can be greater than 0% and less than 10% by weight for providing the requisite taste or flavor to the first mixture.
Regarding claims 39-40, in view of Muollo, the combination suggests baking at 150-220°C for about 15 minutes (see page 13, lines 4-16). Huxel teaches baking at approximately 450°F (232°C) for 14-20 minutes but where the temperature can vary (see paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 44, Huxel teaches and suggests that only the male ram is heated (see paragraph 25 which specifically recites that the mandrel is the heated portion and does not recite that the female mould is heated) and therefore can be construed as comprising a heating mechanism.
Regarding claim 46, in view of Huxel, the combination teaches that the partially cooked edible cup is sandwiched between the female mould and the internal insert.
Regarding claim 47, in view of Muollo, the combination teaches a female mould that comprises a removable insert into which the dough is placed for moulding and which removability can be useful for maintenance or when cleaning is required (see figure 1, item 17, 19 and 23 and page 9, lines 2-8 and 18-29). To therefore modify the combination and provide a removable insert as part of the female mould would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of making it easier to clean the moulding assembly.
Regarding claims 48-49 in view of Muollo’s teachings as discussed above regarding claim 47 and in light of Huxel’s teachings for placing an insert into the partially cooked cup after removal of a male ram, the combination teaches that the partially cooked edible cup is retained in the removable insert, and is between the removable insert and the internal insert when placed into an oven.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Muollo as the primary reference, and in further view of any of Thiele (US 6153239), Dembecki (US 4313964), Dzhalazov (WO 2020178356) or Zapryanov (US 20190183132).
Regarding claims 7-8, it is noted that it would appear that the use of an insert after removal of the male ram as applied to claim 1 above, can read on an open mould adapted to allow generated steam to be released from the dough, which mould is an open mould.
If it could have been construed that the claim differs from the combination in specifically reciting that the mould is adapted to allow any generated steam to be released (claim 7) and where the mould is an open mould (claim 8), then it is noted that:
Thiele teaches moulding of edible containers in heated molds (see at least, column 6, lines 20-42 where flavoring substances are added to a flour based dough used to make the container). Thiele teaches that the vents in the mould are advantageous for allowing steam to escape, where this can be advantageous for controlling the surface structure of the container (see column 4, lines 49-57; figure 3 and 4, item 7) and thus teaches an open mould as recited in claim 8. Dembecki teaches the use of an open mould (see figure 1 and 2, item 22) which allows for steam to escape from the molded dough during heating while in the mould for providing pressure relief and thus allowing steam and gas to escape during heating (see column 3, lines 14-16, 57-63). Dzhalazov teaches edible containers, where the moulding can provide a vent between the molding elements, via a gap (see page 3, lines 4-10) to allow gas to escape during the moulding (see page 13, lines 20-23) so as to prevent a build-up of pressure within the mould (see page 13, lines 23-25) so as to avoid unduly high pressure resistance and for preventing explosion (see page 13, lines 13-17). Zapryanov teaches moulds that have grooves and openings for preventing explosion by allowing steam to escape during the baking of the dough based product in the moulds (see paragraph 82). By teaching a gap between the mound and apertures in the moulds, the prior art is teaching an open mould that allows for steam to be released from the dough. The prior art teaches that this can be advantageous for providing a desired texture to the edible container and for providing pressure relief to the moulding step.
To therefore modify the combination and to use an open mould that allows for steam to be released from the dough would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of controlling the texture of the edible cup or mug as well as for preventing an undue amount of pressure buildup within the mould.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Muollo as the primary reference, and in further view of Besse (US 20110111105).
Regarding claim 18, the claim differs from the combination, as applied to claim 1, in specifically reciting that the dough comprises 0.5-7.5% by weight corn starch.
Besse teaches moulded food articles (see figure 1c; paragraph 42) which can comprise wheat flour, as well as fat and sugar (see the abstract) and where the dough composition an comprise 4% native starch and 1% pre-gelatinised starch (see paragraphs 18-31) and where the pre-gelatinised starch can be cornstarch (see paragraph 71, 86 – “maize”;). Besse teaches that the use of such starch can be advantageous for providing a thin, smooth product with a desired texture (see paragraph 71). To therefore modify Muollo and to use 4% corn starch as suggested by Besse, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of achieving the desired texture to the molded dough product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-13 with respect to Syrakvasha have been considered and in view of the amendment to the claims, the rejections relying on Syrakvasha as the primary reference have been withdrawn.
On page 13 of the response, Applicant urges that Huxel does not cure the defects in Syrakvasha because the reference does not describe a specific method of making a dough.
It is noted however, that as presented in this Office Action, Huxel has not been relied on for specifically teaching how the dough has been made, but rather, has been relied on to teach and suggest advantages when molding dough into an edible container, to use an insert to help fully cook the dough.
On pages 13-14 of the response, Applicant urges that Muollo uses an entirely different recipe and does not describe substantially dissolving a sugar in a gelling agent.
These arguments have been considered but are not sufficient in view of the rejection as presented in this Office Action. It is further noted that the claim recites combining a gelling agent and sugar and to substantially dissolve the sugar and to add flour to this mixture to make dough and then to mold the dough. In this regard, Muollo teaches a similar composition as claimed using a similar process.
On pages 14-15 of the response, Applicant urges that Schoonman and Dupart do not cure the deficiencies of Syrakvasha, Huxel and Muollo.
It is noted however, that the references have only been relied on to teach and suggest a known and desirable moisture content and water activity for edible, dough based containers for a specific advantage. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
On pages 15-18 of the response, regarding Theile, Dembecki, Dzhalazov and Zapryanov, Applicant urges that Thiele and Dembecki do not describe the claimed mixing steps, nor the dissolution of sugar; and Dzhalazov and Zapryanov teach a different dough formulation and also does not discuss dissolution of sugar in a gelling agent. Applicant urges that Thiele further teaches kneading of the dough.
These arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection as presented in this Office Action, because these references have only been relied on to teach an advantage using an open mold for the purpose of allowing steam to escape and therefore help to lower the moisture and water activity of the fully baked product.
On pages 19-20 of the response regarding Besse Applicant urges that the reference describes an entirely different type of dough compared to the claimed method and also does not teach or suggest substantially dissolving sugar in the gelling agent and nothing in Besse would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Syrakvasha to eliminate kneading steps that Syrakvasha teaches are needed for the dough to achieve the desired properties.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented in this Office Action, and in light of Besse providing motivation for how corn starch can be advantageous for achieving the desired texture to the baked product.
On page 21 of the response, Applicant urges that the claims have been amended to be commensurate in scope with the comparative study presented in the Declaration filed August 20, 2025.
This is acknowledged and appreciated. It is noted that in view of the amendments to the claims, the rejections relying on Syrakvasha as the primary reference have been withdrawn. It is noted however, that the Declaration filed August 20, 2025 also does not discuss any particular dissolution of sugar with the gelling agent.
The Declaration filed January 23, 2026 has been considered. In view of the amendments to the claims, the rejections that rely on Syrakvasha as the primary reference have been withdrawn. Further regarding the step of substantial dissolution these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thiele (US 691363) also teaches that the upper mold element (3) can compress the dough into the desired shape using heat (see figure 3b) and then the upper mold element can be lifted off the top surface of the dough (see figure 3c) and subsequently pressed back onto the dough for shaping such that the lifting of the upper mold element would also have allowed for steam to escape.
Xu (US 12543748) discloses maintaining dough at a temperature of 23° and then placing into a mold (column 11, lines 7-21).
Horton (US 20110274741) discloses wheat flour based dough temperatures such as 10-25°C, for the purpose of providing a malleable dough and to avoid heat degradation or destruction of any heat sensitive ingredient and to avoid unwanted flavor development within the dough (see paragraph 165).
Bakerpedia (Glucose) discloses that glucose syrup is known to also include water (see pages 1-2 where dried glucose syrup is glucose syrup with the water removed).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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 on 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights