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
Claims 18-22, 24, 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisslen [Professional Baking, Second Edition] in view of Douaire et al [US 6,419,965B1].
Gisslen teaches a method for making croissants (page 60) by making a laminated dough sheet by rolling/pressing into a rectangle which is about 3 mm thick (page 59, 76 Step a), cutting the laminated dough into individual pieces (page 76 Step b), stretching the pieces (page 76, Step c), curling the stretched pieces (Page 76, Step d), and surface treating the pieces with an egg wash coating (page 60, Makeup).
Gisslen does not explicitly recite compressing the curled pieces (claim 1), reorienting the pieces (claim 2), pressing to a thickness of 10-22 mm (claim 5), freezing (claim 17).
Douaire et al teach a method for preparing puff pastry products (title) by cutting a laminated dough sheet (Figure 2, #13-15), curling the cut pieces (Figure 2, #16), compressing the curled pieces with pressing rollers (Figure 2, #17-18), freezing the compressed and curled pieces (Figure 2, #19), and a compressed thickness of 3-12 mm (column 7, line 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed compressing and thickness into the method of Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al, since both are directed to methods of making croissants, since Gisslen already included rolling of the dough sheet (page 59), since croissant systems commonly included compressing the curled pieces with pressing rollers (Figure 2, #17-18) and a compressed thickness of 3-12 mm (column 7, line 59) as shown by Douaire et al, since Douaire et al disclose that the compressing provided gluten extension without breaking (column 7 line 46) as well as obtaining an aerated product without a lengthy proving step (column 1, line 49), and since the absence of a long proving step and costly proving room would have enabled faster and less costly preparation of the croissants of Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed reorienting and freezing steps into the method of Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al, since both are directed to methods of preparing croissants, since Gisslen already included cutting the dough into triangles with different orientations, placing the triangles on a bench, and stretching them (page 76, steps b-c); since Douaire et al also taught cutting the dough into triangles having different orientations (Figure2, #15), since reorienting the triangles to a common orientation would have made it easier to stretch them in the proper manner, since croissants were commonly frozen as shown by Douaire et al, since many consumers desired pre-made frozen products which are easier to prepare, and since freezing the products would have enabled better and longer preservation of the croissants of Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al, as applied above, and further in view of Trost [EP 1285581A2].
Gisslen and Douaire et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Gisslen does not explicitly recite stretching 50-100% (claim 3). Trost teaches a method for making croissants by cutting dough pieces (Figure 3, #10), stretching the dough pieces about 50-100% (Figure 3, #18), and curling the stretched dough pieces (Figure 3, #27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed 50-100% stretch into the method of Gisslen, in view of Trost, since both are directed to methods of making croissants, since Gisslen already included stretching but simply did not mention how much, since croissant systems commonly included stretch 50-100% (Figure 3) as shown by Trost, and since the claimed stretch amount would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of dough, the type of end product, the desired size of the end product, and/or number of desired curls in the end product of Gisslen, in view of Trost.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al, as applied above, and further in view of Casper et al [US 2006/0024416A1].
Gisslen and Douaire et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Gisslen also disclosed an egg wash (page 60, Makeup) which commonly included water and egg. Gisslen does not explicitly recite hydrocolloid/polysaccharide (claim 6). Casper et al teach dough moisture barrier (title) including hydrocolloid and water (paragraph 0020) for a freezer-to-oven dough (paragraph 0015) such as a croissant (paragraph 0016). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed hydrocolloid into the method of Gisslen, in view of Casper et al, since both are directed to methods of preparing croissants, since Gisslen already disclosed an egg wash (page 60, Makeup) which commonly included water and egg, since croissant systems commonly used moisture barrier (title) including hydrocolloid and water (paragraph 0020) as shown by Casper et al, and since the moisture barrier hydrocolloid would have enabled better preservation of the croissants of Gisslen, in view of Casper et al.
Claims 8, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al, as applied above, and further in view of Unrath [DE 102014006747A1].
Gisslen and Douaire et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Gisslen also disclosed dispensing a filling onto a central portion of the dough and folding a side portion over the filling (page 59, Step b), the filling being butter which naturally possessed a viscosity which avoids running (page 59, Step b), rolling the dough (page 59, Step f), the dough sheet being about 3 mm thick (page 76, Step a), multiple layers with exposed filling (page 59, Steps a-g), an additional filling on the cut pieces before curling (page 76, Filled Croissants), and a cinnamon sugar filling (page 61).
Gisslen does not explicitly recite two side portions (claim 8), a thickness of 5-6 mm (claim 12).
Unrath teaches a method for making croissants (title) by providing a dough sheet (Figure 1, #2), a central filling on the dough sheet (Figure 1, #3), and folding two side portions over the filling (Figure 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed two side portions into the method of Gisslen, in view of Unrath, since both are directed to methods of making croissants, since Gisslen already included folding a side portion over the filling (page 59, Step b), since croissants were commonly made by folding two side portions over the filling (Figure 5-6) as shown by Unrath, and since two foldable side portions would have better ensured that the filling did not run over the edge of dough sheet of Gisslen, in view of Unrath.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed dough sheet thickness into the method of Gisslen, in view of Unrath and Douaire et al, since both are directed to methods of making croissants, since Gisslen already included a dough sheet thickness of about 3 mm (page 76, Step a), since Douaire et al already included compressing the curled croissant to a thickness of 3-12 mm, and since a thicker dough sheet in the claimed range would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of baked product produced, the type of dough used, and/or the size of the desired end product in the method of Gisslen, in view of Unrath and Douaire et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al and Unrath, as applied above, and further in view of Molchan et al [US 32013/0033577A1].
Gisslen, Douaire et al and Unrath teach the above mentioned concepts. Gisslen does not explicitly recite extruding the filling, and the filling having a filling which avoids running (claim 9). Molchan et al teach a process for forming filled dough food products by providing a flat dough sheet (Figure 3, #28), extruding a filling onto the dough sheet (Figure 3, #24, 22), and the filling having a viscosity which avoids running (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed extruding features into the method of Gisslen, in view of Molchan et al, since both are directed to methods of making dough products, since Gisslen already included a viscous filling in the form of butter but simply did not mention how it was applied, since dough systems commonly included extrusion of the filling as shown by Molchan et al, and since extrusion would have better ensured an even application of the butter of Gisslen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “synergistic effect” of no surface breaking/shredding) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless, Douaire et al disclose that the compressing provided gluten extension without breaking (column 7 line 46).
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 test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Gisslen included a proofing step, while Douaire did not. However, the possible elimination of a proofing step in Gisslen would be beneficial by providing faster processing time with fewer steps. It is further noted that the present claims do not require, exclude, or even mention proofing.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach reorienting the dough. However, Gisslen teaches cutting the dough (page 76, step b) then “placing the triangles on the bench in front of you” (step c). Clearly, the cut triangles possessed different orientations, and the act of moving the triangles to the bench would involve “reorienting” at least some of the triangles. Also, the cut triangles of Douaire also possessed different configurations (Figure 2, #15) and at least some of them would have needed to be reoriented before curling.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed reorienting and freezing steps into the method of Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al, since both are directed to methods of preparing croissants, since Gisslen already included cutting the dough into triangles with different orientations, placing the triangles on a bench, and stretching them (page 76, steps b-c); since Douaire et al also taught cutting the dough into triangles having different orientations (Figure2, #15), since reorienting the triangles to a common orientation would have made it easier to stretch them in the proper manner, since croissants were commonly frozen as shown by Douaire et al, since many consumers desired pre-made frozen products which are easier to prepare, and since freezing the products would have enabled better and longer preservation of the croissants of Gisslen, in view of Douaire et al.
Applicant argues that the references do not disclose the pieces being “stretched from 50% to 100%” and that this provided a “synergistic effect”. However, applicant has not explained what synergistic effect would be attributed to this particular stretch range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed 50-100% stretch into the method of Gisslen, in view of Trost, since both are directed to methods of making croissants, since Gisslen already included stretching but simply did not mention how much, since croissant systems commonly included stretch of 50-100% (Figure 3) as shown by Trost, and since the claimed stretch amount would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of dough, the type of end product, the desired size of the end product, and/or number of desired curls in the end product of Gisslen, in view of Trost.
Regarding claim 6 & 8, 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 test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed dough sheet thickness into the method of Gisslen, in view of Unrath and Douaire et al, since both are directed to methods of making croissants, since Gisslen already included a dough sheet thickness of about 3 mm (page 76, Step a), since Douaire et al already included compressing the curled croissant to a thickness of 3-12 mm, and since a thicker dough sheet in the claimed range would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of baked product produced, the type of dough used, and/or the size of the desired end product in the method of Gisslen, in view of Unrath and Douaire et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights