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The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.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) 1-5,7-8,16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiefenbacher(US 2006/0057269) in view of Marty(Beer Cheese Brat Pretzel Pizza).
Regarding claims 1-3,16, Tiefenbacher teaches a prepared pizza crust product that is designed to be heated before consumption comprising a prebaked pizza crust, wherein the prebaked pizza crust is coated at least partially with lye(sodium hydroxide) after baking(example 2, para 99). Specifically, a pizza dough is baked, coated in lye, and then further intended to be reheated by a consumer before consumption in order to create a glossy coating(abstract).
Tiefenbacher teaches forming a pizza crust(pizza sticks)(example 2) but does not specifically teach that the pizza crust is topped with toppings to form a prepared pizza. However, Marty teaches a pizza that is formed by making a pizza dough, coating the dough with lye, prebaking the pizza crust, adding a sauce, adding toppings on top of the sauce, and then further baking the prebaked dough and toppings(p.10). It would have been obvious to include sauce on the pizza crust of Tiefenbacher and toppings on top of the sauce as taught in Marty in order to provide a pizza product, that is well known and desired by consumers.
Regarding claim 4, Tiefenbacher in view of Marty does not specifically teach that the lye is applied to the rim of the pizza but not to the rest of the pizza crust which is covered by toppings. However, it would have been obvious to only apply the lye to the rim of the pizza, because that is the only part that is visible to the consumers. As such, Tiefenbacher teaches applying to lye selectively depending on the effect desired(claim 35).
Regarding claim 5, Tiefenbacher teaches applying salt on the lye coated prebaked crust before subjecting the pizza to the heating step before consumption(para 116). It would have been obvious to use coarse salt since the crust is a pretzel crust.
Regarding claim 7, Tiefenbacher teaches that the dough comprises 63% flour, 0.6% salt(about 1%), 0.3% yeast(para 56, R1).
Regarding claim 8, Tiefenbacher teaches that the prebaked dough can be frozen and stored(claim 34, para 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to obvious to package the pizza so that it can be stored and transported to another location if needed.
Claim(s) 9-14,17,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiefenbacher(US 2006/0057269) in view of Marty(Beer Cheese Brat Pretzel Pizza) further in view of Groth(US 3379141).
Regarding claim 9,10,14,Tiefenbacher teaches a process for making a prepared pizza comprising the steps of(example 2)
Preparing a dough by mixing dough ingredients
Proofing the dough at room temperature(25C) for 45 mins
Baking the dough into a pizza crust
Applying lye to at least a part of the baked pizza crust
Tiefenbacher teaches forming a pizza crust(pizza sticks) but does not specifically teach that the pizza crust is topped with toppings to form a prepared pizza. However, Marty teaches a pizza that is formed by making a pizza dough, coating the dough with lye, prebaking the pizza crust, adding a sauce, adding toppings on top of the sauce, and then further baking the prebaked dough and toppings. It would have been obvious to include sauce on the pizza crust of Tiefenbacher and toppings on top of the sauce as taught in Marty in order to provide a pizza product, that is well known and desired by consumers.
Tiefenbacher does not specifically teach forming the dough into a dough ball and pressing a dough ball into the shape of the preformed crust with a heated press. However, Groth teaches forming pizza crusts comprising forming the dough into a dough ball and pressing a dough ball into the shape of the preformed crust with a heated press(col 1, line 11-27) at a temperature of 200F(col 4, line 35-37). It would have been obvious to form the dough of Tiefenbacher into a dough ball and pressing the dough ball into the shape of the preformed crust with a heated press(col 1, line 11-27) at a temperature of 200F(col 4, line 35-37), as taught in Groth, in order to form the pizza crusts efficiently and uniformly, as is customary in an automated system.
Regarding claim 12, Tiefenbacher teaches that the baking of the preformed crust is done to a moisture content of 12 to 16%(para 90). It would have been obvious to adjust the cooking temperature and time in order to achieve the desired moisture content in the prebaked crust.
Regarding claim 13, Tiefenbacher teaches that the application of the lye is carried out by a lye waterfall application(para 92).
Regarding claim 17, Tiefenbacher teaches that the prepared dough product(obvious to form a pizza as taught in Marty) is intended to be reheated by a consumer before consumption in order to create a glossy coating(abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Tiefenbacher teaches applying salt on the lye coated prebaked crust(including the rim) before subjecting the pizza to the heating step before consumption(para 116). It would have been obvious to use coarse salt since the crust is a pretzel crust.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiefenbacher(US 2006/0057269) in view of Marty(Beer Cheese Brat Pretzel Pizza) in view of Noort(Saltiness enhancement by taste contrast in bread prepared with encapsulated salt).
Regarding claim 18, Tiefenbacher does not specifically teach that the salt is encapsulated coarse salt. However, Noort teaches that the use of encapsulated coarse salt on bread enhances the salty taste of the composition and reduces sodium content by 50%(abstract). Excess sodium is known to cause health problems. It would have been obvious to use encapsulated coarse salt at the salt in Tiefenbacher as taught in Noort since it allows for a reduction of sodium content by 50%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Tiefenbacher teaches bread sticks and not a prepared pizza product as claimed. However, the secondary reference Marty renders obvious forming a lye treated pizza product. Pizza is a well-known food composition that can be made from a variety of crusts as taught in Marty.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant argues that one would not combine Tiefenbacher and Marty because Tiefenbacher teaches application of lye after prebaking and Marty teaches the application of lye on the uncooked dough crust. However, Tiefenbacher already teaches that concept of prebaking pizza crust, application of lye to the prebaked pizza crust, and further heating by the consumer. Marty merely teaches application of pizza sauce and toppings to the crust, as pizza is a well-known food product in the art.
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