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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 8/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/13/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym CBD should be fully defined the first time it is used to ensure clarity. In claim 12, Ziplock should use lowercase Z. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No 6,280,783 (BLASCHKE).
BASCHKE teaches a pre-mixed dough (col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 10). Whether the pre-mixed dough is from a pet treat recipe or for a human is an intended use that does not result in a structural difference of the dough.
The product is packaged (col. 10, lines 22-30).
The pre-mix dough is pre-cut in shapes (col. 3, lines 30-40).
The dough can be in a plurality of pieces (see Fig. 1).
Given the dough is in a plurality of pieces, the dough can be baked without needing to mix ingredients.
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.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No 6,280,783 (BLASCHKE) in view Agha, Eva, Peanut Butter Pumpkin Dog Treats, The Curious Chickpea, accessed at https://www.thecuriouschickpea.com/peanut-butter-pumpkin-dog-treats/#mv-creation-335-jtr; 10/19/2021 (AGHA).
As to claim 2, BASCHKE teaches a pre-mixed dough (col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 10).
The product is packaged (col. 10, lines 22-30).
The pre-mix dough is pre-cut in shapes (col. 3, lines 30-40).
The dough can be in a plurality of pieces (see Fig. 1).
BLASCHKE does teach the addition of egg, flour, salt and water (see Table 11) .
BLASCHKE is silent as to the additional claimed ingredients such as peanut butter, canned pumpkin and cinnamon.
AGHA teaches making dog treats with oat and almond flour, flaxseed, cinnamon, salt, peanut butter and canned pumpkin puree (see Ingredients, pg. 19/27). Peanut butter and pumpkin puree naturally contain water. Indeed, on page 6 the peanut butter and pumpkin are referenced as wet ingredients. The shape of the treats are bones. At pg. 19 the treats are shown as being well rated (i.e., 4/7/5.0) and characterized as a healthy, delicious treat on pg. 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the recipe of AGHA in BLASCHKE, as AGHA teaches the recipe is directed to a healthy, delicious treat.
The applicant is also respectfully reminded that while food items are patentable, the culinary creativity of chefs is not the type of creativity which meets the standards for patentability. See General Mills v. Pillsbury Co.,378 F.2d 666 (8th Cir.1967) (first commercially successful one step mix for angel food cakes is not patentable because of nonobviousness standard since alleged invention is only the exact proportion of an already known leavening agent). In this regard, courts have taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In re Levin, 178 F.2d 945, 948 (C.C.P.A.1949) (butter substitute not patentable).
As to claim 3, BLASHKE is silent as to a treat with peanut butter, and cinnamon
ASGHA teaches that 192 g flour (i.e., oat and flour), 128g peanut butter, 130g canned pumpkin, 1 tsp flaxseed (3.2 g), a pinch of salt (i.e., 0.5g) and ½ tsp cinnamon (0.7 g). This is approximately 454.4 g (see Ingredients). This is flour in an amount of about 42%, peanut butter is in amount of about 28%, and canned pumpkin in an amount of about 29%, The salt is in amount of about 0.1 % and ground cinnamon is an amount of about 0.15%. Water is optional, as claimed.
However, it would have bene obvious to vary the ingredients of the ASGHA recipe based on the desired taste.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASCHKE and ASGHA, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0091144 (MCGARRAH)
The references above are silent as to adding CBD.
However, MCGARRAH teaches that the addition of CBD provides health benefits such as reducing inflammation [0005].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled to add CBD to the product of the reference above, as CBD has health benefits such as reducing inflammation.
As to clam 5, BLASCHKE teaches forming the dough in squares (see Figure 3).
As to claims 6-8, BASCHKE teaches a product packaged (col. 10, lines 22-30) in a block with score/pre-cut grooves (see Figure 3 and col. 2, lines 15-25).
At col. 8, lines 1-2, designs or images can be used (i.e., a plurality of indicia)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASCHKE, ASGHA, and MCGARRAH as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No 2013/0202750 (RADLEY).
As to claim 9, BASHCKE teaches that packaging but does not teach a baking tray (col. 3, lines 35-40).
The references above do not teach a disposable, microwavable and oven safe tray.
However, RADLEY provides the consumer with a product that requires only a minimum of manipulation, clean up and expense by the consumer [0037]. It is suitable for a conventional oven or microwave oven [0039]. The term “baking tray” refers to a flat receptacle used for supporting a product to be baked in the oven. The baking tray may have a raised edge or rim, or may be flat without a raised edge or rim. The baking tray may be a single layer, or multiple layers [0040]. The tray is disposable [0037].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art use the tray of RADLEY in the references above, requiring a minimum of manipulation, clean up and expense by the consumer.
As to claim 10, BASCHKE teaches that the dough products can be wrapped. The wrapping would naturally protect the dough form air and moisture (col. 10, lines 25-30).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASCHKE, ASGHA, MCGARRAH and RADLEY as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0217610 (KOWALEWSKI).
The references above are silent as to using a ziplock mechanism.
However, KOWALEWSKI teaches adding a zip lock mechanism so that packaging can be resealed [0038].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled to add a ziplock mechanism to the product of the references above, as KOWALEWSKI teaches that this allows the package to be sealed and resealed.
Claims 13-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No 6,280,783 (BLASCHKE) in view Agha, Eva, Peanut Butter Pumpkin Dog Treats, The Curious Chickpea, accessed at https://www.thecuriouschickpea.com/peanut-butter-pumpkin-dog-treats/#mv-creation-335-jtr; 10/19/2021 (AGHA) and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0202750 (RADLEY).
As to claim 13, BASCHKE teaches a pre-mixed dough (col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 10).
The product is packaged (col. 10, lines 22-30).
The pre-mix dough is pre-cut in shapes (col. 3, lines 30-40).
The dough can be in a plurality of pieces (see Fig. 1).
Given the dough is in a plurality of pieces, the dough can be baked without needing to mix ingredients.
BLASCHKE is silent as to adding pumpkin, peanut butter, and other ingredients.
AGHA teaches making dog treats with oat and almond flour, flaxseed, cinnamon, salt, peanut butter and canned pumpkin puree (see Ingredients, pg. 19/27). Peanut butter and pumpkin puree naturally contain water. Indeed, on page 6 the peanut butter and pumpkin are referenced as wet ingredients. The shape of the treats are bones. At pg. 19 the treats are shown as being well rated (i.e., 4/7/5.0) and characterized as a healthy, delicious treat on pg. 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the to use the recipe of AGHA in BLASCHKE, as AGHA teaches the recipe is directed a healthy, delicious treat.
BASHCKE teaches that packaging can include a baking tray (col. 3, lines 35-40).
BASCHKE teaches that the dough products can be wrapped. The wrapping would naturally protect the dough form air and moisture (col. 10, lines 25-30).
The references above do not teach a disposable, microwavable and oven safe tray.
However, RADLEY provides the consumer with a product that requires only a minimum of manipulation, clean up and expense by the consumer [0037]. It is suitable for a conventional oven or microwave oven [0039]. The term “baking tray” refers to a flat receptacle used for supporting a product to be baked in the oven.
As to claims 14 and 15, the references above do not teach a disposable, microwavable and oven (pg. 9, lines 1-5) safe tray.
However, as noted above, RADLEY provides the consumer with a product that requires only a minimum of manipulation, clean up and expense by the consumer. The baking tray may have a raised edge or rim, or may be flat without a raised edge or rim. The baking tray may be a single layer, or multiple layers [0040]. The tray is disposable [0037].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art use the tray of RADLEY in the references above, a minimum of manipulation, clean up and expense by the consumer.
As to claim 17, BASCHKE teaches a pre-mixed dough (col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 10).
The product is packaged (col. 10, lines 22-30).
The pre-mix dough is pre-cut in shapes (col. 3, lines 30-40).
The dough can be in a plurality of pieces (see Fig. 1).
At col. 3, lines 5-10, the product is in a block shape that can include grooves (co. 5, lines 45-50). At col. 8, lines 1-2, designs or images can be used.
As to claim 19, BLASHKE is silent as to adding pumpkin, cinnamon and peanut butter.
ASGHA teaches that 192 g flour (i.e., oat and flour), 128g peanut butter, 130g canned pumpkin, 1 tsp flaxseed (3.2 g), a pinch of salt (i.e., 0.5g) and ½ tsp cinnamon (0.7 g). This is approximately 454.4 g (see Ingredients). This is flour in an amount of about 42%, peanut butter is in amount of about 28%, and canned pumpkin in an amount of about 29%, The salt is in amount of about 0.1 % and ground cinnamon is an amount of about 0.15%. Water is optional, as claimed.
However, it would have bene obvious to vary the ingredients of the ASGHA recipe based on the desired taste.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASCHKE, ASGHA, RADLEY as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0217610 (KOWALEWSKI).
The references above are silent as to using a ziplock mechanism.
However, KOWALEWSKI teaches adding a zip lock mechanism so that packaging can be resealed [0038].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled to add a ziplock mechanism to the product of the references above, as KOWALEWSKI teaches that this allows the package to be sealed and resealed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BASCHKE, ASGHA, and RADLEY and as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0091144 (MCGARRAH).
The references above are silent as to adding CBD.
However, MCGARRAH teaches that the addition of CBD provides health benefits such as reducing inflammation [0005].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled to add CBD to the product of the references above, as CBD has health benefits such as reducing inflammation.
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon
WO2016207587 – teaches a disposable oven safe tray.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p.
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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791