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 .
The amendment filed April 23, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claims 1-6 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The previous 112(b) rejections of claims 8, 10 and 15 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
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 8 and 10 are 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 8 has been amended to claim that the dough ball is pressed in a second pan into the shape of a preformed pizza crust. Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which states that the preformed pizza crust is transferred into a first pan. The examiner finds no support, and applicant does not point to any, for the pizza crust to be pressed into the shape of a preformed pizza crust in one pan, and then transferred to another pan.
Claim 10 is included in the rejection as it depends from claim 8.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-10, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katie (Katie. 2020. “Gluten Free Pizza that Tastes Like Pizza” Wheat by the Wayside; downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20200919104341/https://wheatbythewayside.com/best-gluten-free-pizza-dough/ on November 7, 2025) as evidenced by Orlando food Sales (cited on IDS filed Sept. 15, 2023).
Regarding claim 7, Katie teaches a process for making a gluten-free pizza crust comprising
Preparing a dough by mixing gluten free wheat starch, salt, yeast and water (pp. 8-9, steps 1-3). The dough of Katie includes 52 wt.% gluten free wheat flour, 1.8 wt. % salt, 0.78 wt. % yeast, 2.7 wt. % olive oil and 42 wt. % water (p. 9 “Ingredients”), based on the total weight of Katie’s ingredients. The amounts of salt, yeast, oil and water fall within the claimed ranges.
Katie teaches using “Caputo Fioreglut Gluten-free Flour” (p. 9 “Ingredients”). Orlando Food Sales teaches that Caputo gluten free flour comprises, in addition to wheat starch, buckwheat flour, rice starch and dextrose (i.e., sugar). Therefore, by using Caputo Gluten free flour Katie is considered to teach all of the claimed dough components and in the amounts as claimed absent convincing evidence showing that the Caputo Fioreglut Gluten-free Flour does not include the wheat starch, buckwheat flour, rice starch and dextrose in amounts as claimed.
Forming the dough into at least one dough ball (p. 9, step 7)
Pressing the dough ball into the shape of a preformed pizza crust (p. 10 “pat out the dough into a circle”)
Transferring the pressed dough into a pan (p. 11 “form the crust and then slide into the hot oven). The pan (i.e., pizza stone or cast-iron pan) of Katie is preheated in the oven (p. 11).
Baking the preformed pizza crust for a total of 14 minutes (pp. 12-13, steps 4-6).
Katie is silent as to proofing the dough in the pan, and to baking for at least 15 minutes.
Regarding the proofing, Katie teaches proofing the dough in a bowl prior to pressing into the shape of a preformed pizza crust (p. 12 “Making the dough” step 5). Any order of steps is considered prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)C. Therefore, given that both Katie and the claimed invention provide a process for making a gluten-free pizza crust, the timing of the proofing step is not considered to provide an unobvious result.
Regarding the baking time, Katie teaches a total baking time of 14 minutes (pp. 12-13 “Forming & Baking the Pizza” steps 4 and 6), which touches the claimed time of at least 15 minutes and thereby renders the claimed time obvious. Further, one of ordinary skill would recognize that baking times may vary, depending on the degree of doneness desired in the final product as well as the baking temperature. Therefore, the claimed baking time is considered to be obvious over the teachings of Katie.
Applicant’s attention is further directed to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 p. 234
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention merely because it is not disclosed that,
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function.
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267 ;
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
Given that applicant and the prior art both teach the making of a gluten free pizza crust using the same ingredients and essentially the same process, the claimed process of making a gluten-free pizza crust is considered to be obvious over the teachings of modified Katie.
Regarding claim 8, Katie teaches pressing the dough ball into the shape of a preformed pizza crust, following by transferring the pressed dough into a pan (pp. 10-11). Katie does not teach pressing the dough in a pan into the shape of a preformed pizza crust.
However, any order of process steps is considered to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results per MPEP § 2144.04(IV)C. In the instant case, given both the prior art and the instant invention are making a pizza crust, whether the dough ball is pressed into the shape of a pizza crust and then placed into a pan, placed into a pan, formed into the shape of a pizza crust and then placed into another pan, or placed into a pan and then formed into the shape of a pizza crust is not considered to provide a new result given either order of steps provides a pizza shaped crust in a pan.
Regarding claim 9, Katie teaches baking the pizza crust for a period of time, applying pizza toppings, then baking for an additional period of time (pp. 12-13 steps 4 and 6). Any order of steps is considered prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)C. Therefore, given that both Katie and the claimed invention provide a process for making a gluten-free pizza crust, including baking the pizza crust after applying toppings, the claimed process, is considered to be obvious over the teachings of Katie.
Regarding claim 10, Katie teaches applying the toppings to the pre-baked crust (p. 12 “Forming and Baking the Pizza” step 5). The toppings of Katie are not applied directly to the proofed dough. However, as stated above, any order of steps is considered prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)C. Therefore, given that both Katie and the claimed invention provide a process for making a gluten-free pizza crust, including applying toppings, the claimed process is considered to be obvious over the teachings of Katie.
Regarding claim 13, Katie teaches adding water and oil to the dry ingredients and mixing, as well as scooping the dough into a ball and rolling it around to coat the dough (p. 12 steps 2 and 4). This is considered to meet the claimed step of mixing the ingredients in a mixing bowl that is coated with oil.
Regarding claim 16, Orlando Food Sales provides evidence that the Caputo flour taught by Katie includes guar gum (Orlando p. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Katie does not specifically teach the average thickness of the pizza crust. However, Katie does teach that if one likes a thicker crust edge, one can pat the dough, and if one likes a crispier crust, one can roll the dough (p. 8 “Pro-tip”). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been able to have arrived at the claimed dough thickness through no more than routine experimentation, depending on how crispy (or not) of a pizza crust was desired. Further, it is well known that the thickness of pizza crust can vary widely, and to have arrived at the claimed thickness is not considered to provide an unobvious result over the teachings of the prior art where both the prior art and the instant invention are directed to the process of providing a gluten-free pizza crust.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katie (Katie. 2020. “Gluten Free Pizza that Tastes Like Pizza” Wheat by the Wayside; downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20200919104341/https://wheatbythewayside.com/best-gluten-free-pizza-dough/ on November 7, 2025) in view of Sarah (Sarah Van Sciver. 2010. “Gluten Free Pizza Crust.” Downloaded from https://allergyfreemenuplanners.com/2010/01/18/gluten-free-pizza-crust-also-grain-egg-and-nut-free/#:~:text=Combine%20the%20flax%20seed%20meal,dough%20will%20be%20very%20stiff on November 7, 2025).
Katie teaches process for making a gluten free pizza crust as detailed above with regard to claim 7.
Katie is silent as to the pizza crust including flax seeds.
Sarah teaches a gluten free pizza crust comprising flax seeds, where the flax seeds are soaked in water prior to being mixed with the other ingredients (Step 1).
Where both Katie and Sarah teach gluten free pizza crusts, it would have been obvious to have included the soaked flax seeds of Sarah in the pizza crust of Katie in order to provide the pizza crust of Katie with the additional nutritional benefits provided by flax seeds. This would have required no more than routine experimentation, where flax seeds were known to be included in gluten free pizza crusts, and would have been expected to continue to provide a palatable gluten free pizza crust.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katie (Katie. 2020. “Gluten Free Pizza that Tastes Like Pizza” Wheat by the Wayside; downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20200919104341/https://wheatbythewayside.com/best-gluten-free-pizza-dough/ on November 7, 2025) in view of Addesso et al. (US 5,354,566).
Katie teaches a process for making a gluten free pizza crust as detailed above with regard to claim 7.
Katie is silent as to pressing the dough ball into the shape of a preformed pizza crust in a heated press operating at a temperature, pressure and time as claimed.
Addesso et al. teach a process for preparing pizza dough crusts, where the dough ball is pressed into the shape of a preformed pizza crust in a heated press for preferably 3-4 seconds (col. 5 lines 28-46), falling within the claimed range of time for pressing.
Addesso et al. teach the temperature of the upper press is preferably 75 to 80°C (col. 5 lines 33-35), falling within the claimed range. Addesso et al. do not speak to the pressure. However, given there is no mention of increased or decreased pressure, and the claimed about 25-30 bar includes atmospheric pressure, the process of Addesso et al. is considered to be carried out at a pressure as claimed.
Therefore, given that Katie and Addesso et al. are both directed towards the production of pizza crusts, it would have been obvious to have utilized the dough pressing process as taught by Addesso et al. with the gluten-free pizza dough as taught by Katie in order to provide the predictable result of a pressed gluten-free preformed pizza dough. This would have required no more than routine experimentation, as both the claimed gluten-free dough and the claimed method step of pressing were known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katie (Katie. 2020. “Gluten Free Pizza that Tastes Like Pizza” Wheat by the Wayside; downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20200919104341/https://wheatbythewayside.com/best-gluten-free-pizza-dough/ on November 7, 2025) in view of Jeanne (Jeanne. 2009. “Gluten-Free Pizza!.” Art of Gluten-Free Baking; downloaded from https://artofglutenfreebaking.com/gluten-free-pizza-edited-62910/ on January 22, 2026).
Katie teaches a process for making a gluten free pizza crust as detailed above with regard to claim 7.
Katie teaching proofing the dough in the bowl covered with plastic wrap, and in a warm place for 1 hour (i.e., setting aside to let dough rise) (pp. 9-10 “Making the Dough step 5). The “warm place” of Katie is considered to fall within the claimed temperature range of about 18 to 40°C. Further, where Katie teaches covering with plastic wrap, the presence of the plastic wrap will retain the moisture from the dough, and is considered to provide a relative humidity as claimed.
However, Katie is silent as to proofing the dough in the pan.
Jeanne teaches a gluten-free pizza, where the dough is shaped in the pan, and then left for about 20 minutes to rise (p. 3 “Leave for about…”). 20 minutes falls within the claimed time range.
Therefore, where it was known in the art before the instant invention to proof gluten-free pizza dough for a time and temperature as claimed, as well as to utilize plastic wrap over the dough to trap moisture, it would have been obvious to have proofed the pizza dough of Katie in the pan as taught by Jeanne with the reasonable expectation that a suitable pizza crust would have been provided. This would have required no more than routine experimentation, as it was known to proof dough both in the bowl and in the pan.
Additionally, any order of steps is considered prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)C. Therefore, given that all of Katie, Jeanne and the claimed invention provide a process for making a gluten-free pizza crust, including proofing the dough in the pan, the claimed process, is considered to be obvious over the teachings of Katie in view of Jeanne.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katie (Katie. 2020. “Gluten Free Pizza that Tastes Like Pizza” Wheat by the Wayside; downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20200919104341/https://wheatbythewayside.com/best-gluten-free-pizza-dough/ on November 7, 2025) in view of Sanguinetti et al. (5,865,107).
Katie teaches a process for making a gluten free pizza crust as detailed above with regard to claim 9.
Katie is silent as to the prepared (i.e., baked) gluten free pizza crust being frozen and packaged.
Sanguinetti et al. teaches that it is known to make frozen pizza, wherein, after baking with toppings, the pizza is frozen and then packaged (col. 1 lines 12-19).
Therefore, where it was known in the art well before the instant invention to have baked a pizza with toppings, followed by freezing and packaging the pizza, it would have been obvious to have frozen and packaged the gluten free pizza of Katie in order to provide a frozen, packaged gluten-free pizza. This would have required no more than routine experimentation and would have been expected to provide the predictable result of a prepared and packaged gluten free pizza crust.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katie (Katie. 2020. “Gluten Free Pizza that Tastes Like Pizza” Wheat by the Wayside; downloaded from https://web.archive.org/web/20200919104341/https://wheatbythewayside.com/best-gluten-free-pizza-dough/ on November 7, 2025) in view of Jeanine (Jeanine. 2018. “Thick and Chewy Gluten Free Pizza Crust”; downloaded from https://www.faithfullyglutenfree.com/new-pizza-crust-for-that-big-beefy-pizza/ on June 12, 2026).
Katie teaches a process for making a gluten free pizza crust as detailed above with regard to claim 7.
Katie is silent as to the gluten free pizza crust comprising an ingredient as recited in claim 17.
Jeanine teaches a gluten free pizza crust, where the gluten free pizza crust comprises dry milk powder. This is considered to render obvious the inclusion of the claimed “non-fat dry milk” in a gluten free pizza crust.
Therefore, where both Katie and Jeanine teach gluten free pizza crusts, it would have been obvious to have included the dry milk powder of Jeanine in the pizza crust of Katie in order to provide the pizza crust of Katie with the additional nutritional benefits provided by dry milk powder. This would have required no more than routine experimentation, where dry milk powder was known to be included in gluten free pizza crusts, and would have been expected to continue to provide a palatable gluten free pizza crust. Further, applicant’s attention is again directed to In re Levin as included above with regard to claim 1. Where all of the claimed ingredients are known to be included in gluten-free pizza crusts, the claimed process including a non-fat dry milk is not considered to represent an unobvious contribution over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 23, 2026, 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. Applicant amended independent claim 7 to require several more ingredients in the pizza crust, and added new claims 16-18. These amendments are addressed in the rejection above.
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 NIKKI H. DEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3435. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, Tricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
Nikki H. Dees
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights