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 .
Note that at least Claims 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, and 24 have not been properly marked in regard to claim insertions. With a view towards compact prosecution, the noted claims are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/10/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlinghaus (US 2011/0097471 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Arlinghaus teaches a fat composition for use in baked dough articles [0002]. The composition may have a melting point of, e.g. 40.6 °C [0014], and is therefore solid at 20 °C as claimed. Regarding the limitation that the fat composition is anhydrous, Arlinghaus teaches the inclusion of water as optional [0031]. Arlinghaus therefore teaches embodiments which are anhydrous.
The composition comprises 0.1-5 wt% of emulsifiers such as lecithin and distilled monoglycerides [0034] and a base oil [0020]. Arlinghaus teaches up to about 70 wt% of a base oil [0023] and up to about 40 wt% of a hardstock fat [0029]. Arlinghaus therefore teaches up to about 100% of fat in a combination of the base oil and hardstock fat, which meets the compositional limitations of the “first component” of the claim.
Additionally, given that Arlinghaus teaches the fat for use in baked dough articles, Arlinghaus is interpreted to teach a “bakery compatible fat” as claimed.
It would have been obvious to have include the amount of base oil (a “first component”), lecithin, and a distilled monoglyceride in the amounts claimed in the composition of Arlinghaus, given that Arlinghaus teaches the claimed components and amounts for inclusion in the fat composition.
Regarding Claim 3, Arlinghaus teaches that the composition is flaked (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 4, Arlinghaus teaches that the base oil may be palm oil or coconut oil [0020], or interesterified combinations of the oils, and the hardstock fat may be palm oil, palm kernel oil, and coconut oil [0027]. The combination of the base oil and hardstock fat of Arlinghaus meets the limitation of the “first component” of the Claim.
Arlinghaus teaches that the Mettler Dropping Point is 35-60 °C, which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 9, Arlinghaus teaches that the fat is used for lamination [0049].
Regarding Claim 10, Arlinghaus teaches that the hard fat may be palm oil, liquid oils (e.g. soybean or corn oil), and mixtures thereof [0020].
Arlinghaus teaches that the Mettler Dropping Point is 35-60 °C [0054, Claim 9], which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 12-14, Arlinghaus teaches the preparation of a dough [0035]. Arlinghaus teaches the composition is intended to be used in similar applications as in the preparation of, e.g. biscuits. It would therefore have been obvious to have utilized the dough of Arlinghaus for a baked good.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlinghaus as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Wilson (reference is made to the provided archival version, https://web.archive.org/web/20201023025956/https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319260, 2020)
Regarding Claim 2, Arlinghaus teaches the use of lecithin but does not specify the source.
Wilson teaches that lecithin derived from soy, sunflower, and canola (Page 3, Paragraph 1) is used in food applications (Page 1, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilized lecithin derived from soy, sunflower, or canola in the composition of Arlinghaus. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Wilson teaches that these are known sources of lecithin. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07
Claims 15, 16, 18, 20-24, 27, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbin (US 5266345) in view of Arlinghaus and Bridgford (https://www.bridgford.com/foodservice/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Roll-Doughs-HR.pdf, 2021)
Regarding Claims 15 and 20, Corbin teaches method for making a dough for a bakery product (Abstract). The method comprises combining flour, water, and shortening to produce a dough, forming the dough into portions, refrigerating or freezing the portions (Column 11, Example XVII).
Corbin does not address the use of the fat composition of Claim 1 as the shortening.
Arlinghaus teaches the shortening fat composition as describe above in regard to Claim 1, and additionally teaches its use in dough compositions [0006].
It would have been obvious to have utilized to modify Corbin by utilizing the shortening of Arlinghaus. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Corbin teaches the use of shortening in a dough composition, and Arlinghaus teaches a shortening suitable for dough compositions.
Corbin additionally does not address packaging the frozen dough portions.
Bridgford teaches that packaging a frozen dough product provides “optimum quality” (Page 2, Paragraph 1) of the product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to package the frozen dough product of Corbin. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide for a high-quality frozen dough product.
Regarding Claim 16, Corbin teaches a dough for a bakery product (Abstract) comprising 4-22 parts of shortening (Abstract). The dough may be biscuit (Column 10, Example XV), pizza (Column 11m Example XVII), bread, (Column 9, Example XIII), or croissant (which is a pastry) dough (Columns 8-9, Example XII).
Corbin does not address the use of the fat composition of Claim 1 as the shortening.
Arlinghaus teaches the shortening fat composition as describe above in regard to Claim 1, and additionally teaches its use in dough compositions [0006].
It would have been obvious to have utilized to modify Corbin by utilizing the shortening of Arlinghaus. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Corbin teaches the use of shortening in a dough composition, and Arlinghaus teaches a shortening suitable for dough compositions.
Regarding Claim 18, Corbin teaches a laminated croissant composition (Columns 8-9, Example XII). The composition comprises 31.27 wt% premix, the premix comprising 42.46% shortening (Column 5, Example III). Corbin therefore teaches the use of 13.3% shortening, which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Corbin teaches that the frozen dough is cooked (Column 11, Lines 39-44). Note that the product of Corbin is interpreted to be “ready to eat” as claimed.
Regarding Claims 23, 24, and 31, Corbin teaches a method for preparing a baked good comprising combining flour, water, and shortening, forming the dough into portions, baking the portions, and freezing and packaging the baked good (e.g. Pages 8-9, Example XII).
Corbin does not address the use of the fat composition of Claim 1 as the shortening.
Arlinghaus teaches the fat composition according to Claim 1, and additionally teaches the addition of flour and water to the composition to make a dough [0035].
It would have been obvious to have utilized to modify Corbin by utilizing the shortening of Arlinghaus. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Corbin teaches the use of shortening in a dough composition, and Arlinghaus teaches a shortening suitable for dough compositions.
Regarding Claims 27 and 29, Corbin teaches a laminated croissant composition (Columns 8-9, Example XII). The composition comprises 31.27 wt% premix, the premix comprising 42.46% shortening (Column 5, Example III). Corbin therefore teaches the use of 13.3% shortening, which lies within the claimed range.
Note that Corbin generally teaches a dough for a bakery product (Abstract) comprising 4-22 parts of shortening (Abstract). It would have been obvious to have utilized an amount of shortening lying within the range of Corbin. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights