Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 21-34 in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-34 are pending. Claims 35-42 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected invention.
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 21-34 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.
In the preliminary amendment file on 2/26/24, applicant submits new claims 21-34. The amendment is not totally supported by the original disclosure and claims. The ranges of “ at least 35%, at least 1.1% etc.. in claim 21 is not totally supported”. At least 35% includes any amount of 35% and beyond. The original disclosure and claims recite finite ranges. Table 1 on page 9 recites “ 35-65% flour”, there is no disclosure that the flour can be more than 65%. The same problem is noted for all the ingredients defined by “ at least”. In claim 29, the amounts of 1.1-7.5 leavening agent and 1-30 shortening and/or oil are not supported. The amounts are based on adding the oil, shortening, yeast and chemical ranges shown in table I. But, the disclosure in table I show separate ranges for oil, shortening, yeast and chemical leavener. Claim 29 depends from claim 21 which recite shortening and/or oil meaning only shortening or oil is included. There is no disclosure of 30%,27, 28 etc.. of just shortening or 30% of just oil. There is no disclosure of 7.5% of just chemical leavening or 7.5% of yeast. The same problem is noted for claim 31 with respect to the range of 4-18% of the oil and/or shortening. There is no disclosure of 18, 17,16% of just oil or just shortening.
Claim 27 is 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 27, the limitation “ non natural material” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is included or excluded from such language. It’s unclear what material qualify as “ non natural material”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 21-34 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Kao et al ( 2006/0222740) , Trop ( 4451491),Atwell et al ( 2009/0092716), Silver ( 5492712), Rudie ( 2007/0160728) and Paeschke ( 2008/0085354) .
For claims 21, 24, 29,31 Kao et al disclose a gluten free dough comprising 10-90% rice flour, 0-40% modified rice, 5-15% shortening, protein in amount of 5-15%, .5-2% dry yeast, .1-1% monoglyceride which is an emulsifier, 1-7% hydrocolloids such as xanthan gum, guar gum, etc.. The dough may be leavened by chemical leavener or yeast or both. Example 5 shows the use of both yeast and chemical leavener. ( see paragraphs 0013-0024,0027, 0029,0033,0034,0049,0050 and examples 1 and 5)
For claims 22-23, 32,33,34, Kao discloses the dough is used to make baked products such as pizza crust. Thus, the dough is a pizza dough and the forming of pizza crust inherently requires sheeting of the dough which would give sheeted dough (see paragraph 0053)
For claim 25, Kao discloses the dough includes pregelatinized rice starch which meets the claimed limitation of starch derived from gluten-free grain. ( see paragraph 0028)
For claims 26, 27,Kao discloses the dough comprising whole egg and skim milk powder which are protein sources. The protein can be selected to be free of dairy product. ( see paragraph 0033)
For claim 28, Kao discloses the dough comprising additive such as enzymes. ( see paragraph 0034)
Kao does not disclose the amount of water and the individual amounts of gum as in claims 21,29 and 31 and the amount of yeast as in claim 30.
Paeschke discloses an agglomerate of hydrocolloids including a combination of two hydrocolloids agglomerating with a second hydrocolloids. The blend of hydrocolloids includes gums such as xanthan, guar gum, gum Arabic, gellan gum etc.. The second hydrocolloids includes gums such as xanthan gum, guar gum, gum arabic, carob gum , gellan gum etc.. The agglomerated hydrocolloids is added to dough to improve organoleptic properties, delay hydration and improve processability of the dough containing the hydrocolloids. The agglomerated hydrocolloids can comprise from about 10-99.95% of hydrocolloids and 1-50% of the agglomeration can be added to foods. ( see paragraphs 0006,0012,0016-0018,0041,0043,0046,0064,0087)
Atwell et al disclose gluten-free bakery products. Atwell et al disclose that possible ingredients in the products besides gluten-free flours includes gums, xanthan gum, guar gum, gelatin, eggs, sweetener chemical leavening agents including baking powder and baking powder etc... Most approaches to formulating gluten-free products involve the use of starches, dairy products, gums and hydrocolloids and other non-gluten proteins. ( see paragraphs 0073-0074)
Silver discloses a gluten-free dough for pasta product. Silver teaches to add a stabilizers and the quantity of stabilizer or stabilizers utilized depends on the level of gluten in the flour used and the strength of the stabilizer. The stabilizers are selected from guar gum, gum Arabic, xanthan gum, pectin, locust bean gum, carrageenan etc and combination thereof and are present in an amount of .01-5 w/w%. For example , a combination of .4-.8% guar gum and .2-.4% xanthan gum can be used. ( see col. 1)
Trop et al disclose a dry mix for baked products such as bread that is gluten free. Trop discloses the mix contains gluten-substitute gums such as xanthan gum, guar gum, locust bean gum, carboxymethylcellulose. ( see col. 2 lines 21-50, col. 3 lines 45-63)
Rudie discloses gluten-free food products including bean flour. In table 3, Rudie discloses dough for bread including pinto bean flour, rice flour and cellulose gums. The dough contains xanthan gum, methylcellulose and sodium carboxymethylcellulose.
It’s known in the art as shown in Atwell, Silver, Rudie and Trop, to use combination of gums in dough product to improve the properties of dough lacking in gluten or to improve properties and processability of dough in general as shown in Paeschke. As generally known in the art and disclosed in Trop(col. 2 lines 10-16), it is the gluten protein in wheat flour that gives the proper structure and taste to baked products made from wheat flour. It is well known in the art as shown in Kao, Trop , Atwells, and to use different types of gum and combination of gums are known to be used as gluten-substitute in dough containing gluten-free flour. It’s also known to use combination of three gums as shown in Paeschke to improve processability and properties of the dough. All the prior art discloses different gums, including all of the gums claimed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add combination of different gums including guar gum, xanthan gum and gum arabic , because all the three gums are disclosed in the prior art to be used in dough containing gluten-free flour and to improve properties of dough in genenal, in preparation of the Kao dough to enhance the structure and taste of the baked product prepared from the dough containing gluten-free flour and to obtain enhanced processability of the dough while forming the product. The selection of the combination of gums from all the gum disclosed in the prior art would have been an obvious matter of preference. Kao et al teach the levels of gum can be used in amounts of 1-7 , Trop et al disclose the range can be from .5-5% and Silver discloses the amount can range from .01-5%; it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to follow the guideline of Kao, Trop and Silver for the amounts of gums to use. It would have been obvious to use a mixture of gums as taught in Rudie because such mixture is shown to be effective in preparing doughs for baked products that lack gluten-containing flour or gluten protein. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine the amounts of each gum component within the ranges disclosed in Kao to obtain the most optimum product through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly obtained ranged from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that “ The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set for percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages “(In Re Peterson 65 USPQ2d1379(CAFC2003). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation ( In re Aller, 220 F.2d454,456 ,105 USPQ 233,235(CCPA). As shown in the examples in Kao, the amount of water and yeast can vary depending on the type of baked products. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the appropriate amount of water and yeast through routine experimentation depending on the type of baked product and taste and texture desired.
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.
February 25, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793