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 § 112
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.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinders (EP2266407A1) in view of Lohkamp(US 2001/0040193).
Regarding claims 1,7,8 Meinders teaches a method of producing a biscuit, comprising(paragraph 8, 42)
-preparing a first biscuit dough
-forming with the first biscuit dough a biscuit body
-preparing a second biscuit dough, wherein the second biscuit dough Is liquid(dough layer is a batter);
-spraying the second, liquid, biscuit dough on a top surface of the biscuit body to form an outer biscuit layer that coats the surface of the biscuit body according to a predefined motif.
Meinders teaches spraying a predefined layer of 0.1-10mm onto the top surface of the biscuit body. Since the term “motif” is not fully defined, any shape would be considered a predetermined motif as claimed. As such, a predetermined layer thickness is considered a “predetermined motif”.
Meinders teaches that the outer layer can be applied by a sprayer(para 42)but does not specifically teach an atomizer nozzle that creates a jet of nebulized biscuit directed against the surface of the biscuit body. Meinders also does not teach wherein said second, liquid, biscuit dough is supplied under pressure to the atomizer nozzle (12) via a membrane pump (14), at a pressure comprised between 15 and 40 bar.
However, Lohkamp teaches an atomizer device for coating food products with batter. The coating device nebulizes biscuit dough with at least one atomizer nozzle to create a jet of nebulized biscuit dough that coats the surface of the food product. The device uses a membrane pump to supply dough to the nozzle device. A pump would inherently provide pressure to the dough.(abstract, para 6,8,9,54). Lohkamp teaches that the coating device effectively coats the food product with minimal waste(abstract). It would have been obvious to use the device of Lohkamp in Meinders to nebulize biscuit dough with at least one atomizer nozzle to create a jet of nebulized biscuit dough that coats the surface of the food product and to use membrane pump to supply dough to the nozzle device because the coating device effectively coats the food product with minimal waste.
It would have been obvious to adjust the diameter of the nozzle and the pressure at which the batter is applied depending on the design desired in the outer batter layer and in order to ensure that the batter is properly dispensed and does not clog the nozzle.
Regarding claim 2, Meinders teaches that the outer biscuit layer has a thickness of 0.4-2mm(paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 3, Meinders is silent on the viscosity of the outer biscuit layer. However, Meinders teaches spraying the batter onto the first biscuit dough(para 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the viscosity of the batter in order to allow it to be sprayed onto the first biscuit dough.
Regarding claim 4, Meinders teaches that the biscuit outer layer comprises 3000g of wheat flour, 1809g of water, and 60g of salt(example 1). Therefore, the outer layer comprises 62% flour and 37% water. Meinders does not specifically teach between 10wt% and 20wt% flour and between 15wt% and 20wt% sugar. However, it would have been obvious to include sugar if a sweet taste was desired, depending on the needs of the consumers. As such, it would have been obvious to swap some of the flour for sugar in order to provide the same moisture content and consistency.
Regarding claim 5, Meinders teaches that the outer layer can comprise about 5-30wt% fat(paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 9, Meinders does not specifically teach wherein said jet (16) of second nebulized biscuit dough has a substantially planar conformation with a triangular profile. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the profile and configuration of the biscuit dough applied to the surface of the first biscuit dough depending on the design desired in the outer batter layer.
Regarding claim 10, Meinders does not specifically teach wherein said spraying step envisages the use of a shaped mask (20) that is set between the nozzle (12) and the surface (101A) of the biscuit body (101) so as to expose only a predefined area of the surface (101A) of the biscuit body (101) to the jet of the second biscuit dough. However, it would have been obvious to use a shaped mask so as to expose only a predefined area of the surface (101A) of the biscuit body (101) to the jet of the second biscuit dough in order to form the desired design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5,7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights