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 II, claims 7-15, in the reply filed on October 20, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 8, 10 and 15 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 8 states the dough ball is pressed in a pan into the shape of a preformed pizza crust. Claim 8 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 recites a step of pressing a dough ball into the shape of a preformed pizza crust. Following the pressing step, claim 7 recites transferring the pressed dough into a pan. Thus, where claim 7 requires the pressing of the dough ball to occur prior to the dough being transferred into a pan, it is unclear if claim 8 requires an additional pressing step. Though where claim 7 recites the pressed dough is transferred into a pan, there is no longer a dough ball available to be pressed in a pan as recited in claim 8. Thus it is unclear what step must be carried out to meet claim 8.
Claim 10 is included in the rejection as it depends from claim 8.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the prepared gluten-free pizza crust" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 depends from claim 9, and claim 9 depends from claim 7. Given that the final step of claim 7 is baking the preformed pizza crust, “the prepared gluten-free pizza crust” in claim 15 will be considered to refer to the baked pizza crust in claim 7, including the toppings that are applied before baking as set forth in claim 9.
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 and 13 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).
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).
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.
However, 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 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, 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.
Claim 11 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lyttek et al (WO 2021/009151) is cited in applicant’s specification for the manner of making the pressed preformed pizza crust.
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, Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler 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