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 1-8 in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant amends claims 9-12 to depends from elected claim 1. Thus, the claims will be examined along with the elected invention. Claims 13-18 are cancelled. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it’s too short and does not describe the disclosure sufficiently. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “ preparing a second dough by aging first dough and mixing the first dough and the dough “ is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what the step encompasses. The claim does not recite any step of “ preparing a first dough”. It’s unclear what the first dough constitutes. The recitation of “ mixing the first dough and second dough is unclear because the first dough and second are the same. The second dough is just the first dough after aging; it’s a transition of the dough. There is no recitation of two different dough entities. Thus, it’s unclear what is meant by mixing. On line 4, the limitation of “ mixed dough” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is considered as mixed dough because the first and second dough are not separate entities. The way the claim is written; the second dough is just a transition from the first dough through aging.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite for the same reason as claim 1. The claims do not recite the first and second dough as separate entities. Thus, it’s unclear what the ratio indicates.
Claim 6 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. The claim recites the condition of proofing relative to the thickness. However, the claims had not recited any step of forming any particular thickness. The claim is also indefinite for including broad ranges with narrower ranges. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation 50-80%, 1.2 to 1.7cm, and the claim also recites 10-50%, .7 to 1 cm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 has the same problem as claim 6. The claim recites a certain a hardness relative to thickness. But, the claims have not set forth forming the dough to any thickness. It’s unclear how the claim is connected to claim 1.
Claim 10 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what the numbers mean.
Claim 11 has the same problem as claim 3.
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) 1-4,7-8,11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article “ Making aged pizza dough- chewy and flavorful pizza dough using sponge dough” Jahnke ( 2003/0206994)
For claim 1, the article teaches to make dough for pizza. The dough is prepared by the steps comprising preparing a sponge dough by mixing water, flour and yeast, refrigerating the dough overnight, forming a pizza dough, adding the pizza dough to the sponge dough, resting the mixed dough at room temperature for 20 minutes, fermenting the rested dough in a warm place for one hour. The dough can be refrigerated. The sponge dough is the same as the claimed second dough because it’s aged after mixing ingredients to form the dough. The claim does not recite two separate doughs. In any event, the articles disclose an aged dough and a pizza dough which is readable upon the claimed second dough and first dough. Fermenting is the same as proofing. ( see entire article)
For claims 2, 12, the article teaches aging in a refrigerator over night. Refrigerator temperature is typically 3-4 degrees and overnight would encompass the claimed 16-23 hours.
For claims 3,11, the claim is indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. In any event, the article discloses two separate doughs. The sponge dough contains 50 g flour and the pizza dough contains 250 g flour. The sponge dough is the age dough which is the same as the claimed second dough. The pizza dough is equivalent to the claimed first dough. Assessing from the amount of flour, the ratio of pizza dough:sponge dough is 5.
For claim 7, the article discloses to heat treat the dough.
The article does not disclose freezing the dough as in claim 1 and the temperature as in claim 8.
Jahnke discloses a method of making frozen bakery product. The bakery product includes pizza dough. The pizza dough is pressed to form pizza crust and baked at 550 degrees F for 5 minutes to form a par baked product which is then frozen. The frozen dough is baked in microwave oven. ( see paragraph 0095-0097)
The article teaches to bake the pizza dough for consumption. However, it’s well known in the art as shown in Jahnke to par bake the dough and freezing for quick reheating at later time for consumption. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to freeze the dough for long term storage. It would also have been have been obvious to par-bake the dough for quick reheating at a later time. It would have been obvious to follow the guideline of Jahnke for the temperature and time and to adjust depending on the degree of cook desired and the temperature used. For instance, it would have been obvious to use lower temperature for longer time or vice versa.
Claim(s) 5-6,9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article in view of Jahnke as applied to claims 1-4,7-8,11,12 above, and further in view of Cai ( 20170142982) and Leicht ( 2016/0081358).
The article does not disclose the features in claims 5-6, 9-10.
Cai discloses a method of making dough. The dough is shaped into desired shape such as pizza crust. The shape dough is proofed at temperature of about 26.5-43 degrees C at about 60-90 relative humidity. ( see paragraph 0042)
Leicht discloses food product having crunchy texture. The product includes pizza crust. The crust includes thin crust and thick crust. The thin crust is usually within the range of 3-10mm ( .3-1cm) and thick crust is usually 10-40mm (1-4cm). Leicht discloses a texture analyzer can be used to analyze many aspects of food products such as hardness, chewiness, gumminess etc.. ( see paragraphs 0019, 0023-0024)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to press the dough when desiring to form pizza crust. This step would have been readily apparent to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to vary the thickness depending on the textural desired of thick crust, thin crust or any varying intermediates. As shown in Leicht, the thickness claimed is typical of thin or thick crust It would have been obvious to follow the guideline of Cai for the temperature and relative humidity and to optimize depending on the type of crust and the degree of expansion desired. It would have been obvious to vary the time depending on the temperature and degree of proofing desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to use texture analyzer as shown in Leicht to determine the texture of the product. It would have been obvious to determine the specific numbers desired to obtain the desirable texture. The dough disclosed in the article comprises flour, yeast and salt.
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.
March 3, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793