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 .
This office action is in response to argument filed 3/11/26. The claims are not amended. Claims 1-8 and 19-20 are pending. Claims 9-18 remain withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1- 8 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen ( 2019/0000119) in view of Van Den Broeck ( 6190890).
For claims 1,2 ,19,20,Hansen discloses a composition comprising an effective amount of at least one polypeptide having cellulase activity ( endo-glucanase EC 3.2.1.4), a dough comprising the composition and rye flour and bakery product prepared from the dough. The cellulase is present in amount of .1mg to 100mg/g bran. Claim 7 recites .001 to 500mg/kg of flour. This equates to .0000000001-.05% of enzyme in the dough. Hansen discloses .1mg 100mg cellulase/g of bran ( .0002-.1%) and the bran is used at .1-20% in dough comprising 60-80% rye flour+20-40% wheat flour. The highest amount of bran in the dough based on the flour is 16% ( .20X100) is 20%. The highest amount of enzyme in the dough is .02% ( .1/100 X 20). Hansen discloses effective amount falling within the range claimed. 433 ( see paragraphs 0006-0007-0013,0020,0021,0054,9959,0085,0152,0154)
For claim 3, Hansen discloses the cellulase enzyme can be obtained from Aspergillus niger, Trichoderma reesei. ( see paragraphs 0056-0057)
For claim 5, Hansen discloses the composition comprising additional enzymes such as xylanase. Any amount is considered effective amount. ( see paragraph 0013,0045,0058)
For claim 6, Hansen discloses the dough comprises 65-75% rye flour. ( see paragraph 0152)
For claim 8, Hansen discloses baked products such as bread which is considered a crusty bakery products because bread has a crust ( see paragraph 0147).
Hansen does not disclose the sequence id 3 as in claims 1,4 and the amount as in claim 7.
Van Den Broeck discloses cellulase having 100% match to sequence id 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
1086
1904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hansen discloses to use fungal cellulase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to use any known fungal cellulase such as the one disclosed in Van Den Broeck. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the amount in the dough to obtain the most optimum properties. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation. As to the properties of reduced stickiness and softness or elasticity, it’s obviously inherent the same properties are present in absent of showing otherwise Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues the Hansen and Van Den Broek alone or in combination provide no indication that modifying a dough with GH 12 Type 2 cellulase of claim 1 would have successfully provided a dough with reduced stickiness. This argument is not persuasive. It’s not necessary to show modifying an ingredient for the same purpose as disclosed in the instant specification. It’s only needed to show that such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Hansen discloses to use fungal cellulase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any known fungal cellulase such as the one disclosed in Van Den Broek. One skilled in the art does not need to be aware of any particular property provided by the enzyme to use the enzyme. Hansen requires the addition of the fungal cellulase and does not restrict the source of the enzyme. Thus, it would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the known cellulase enzyme disclosed in Van Den Broek. Any property provided by the enzyme would have been expected when it’s used. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Applicant again points to the affidavit filed with the response of 10/20/25. Applicant states that appendix A shows the enzyme in the declaration as CP as shown in the IUB number and the CP is the name of cellulase 3.2.1.4. This statement still does not reflect the affidavit. The affidavit submitted just recites the enzyme as CP, not VERON CP. The number characterizes the chemical reaction of the enzyme, not the specific enzyme used. Also, Hansen does not disclose the cellulase used as VERON CP. Thus, it’s unclear the purpose of the appendix. The affidavit is still not persuasive.
Page 2 of the affidavit show example containing 100ppm of CP but it’s not clear what is this enzyme. There is no explanation of the source of the enzyme. But, more importantly, the showing does not address the rejection because Hansen is not used alone in the rejection. The position taken is that it would have been obvious to use the enzyme disclosed in Van Den Broek. Also, the showing is not based on objective measurement. The instant specification defines stickiness as adhering to the hand but the numbers are arbitrarily assigned. It’s not known the degree of stickiness to the hand to be assigned a 3 versus 4 or 5. There is no objective measurement correlating with the numbers assigned. Also, the showing does not commensurate in scope with the claim 1 which also recites sequence no. 2. Paragraph 6 states that Van Den Broek discloses an L12 cellulase which had activity to stabilized apple juice. The cellulase in Van Den Broek is not limited to just using in apple juice. Van Den Broek discloses the enzyme to be generally used in food industry which would include its use in dough production. Van Den Broek discloses on column 5 lines that the enzyme reduces viscosity of various kinds of grain. A less viscous grain indicates a less sticky grain, thus, indicating that alteration in stickiness is a property of the enzyme.
Applicant argues that viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s internal resistance to flow or its thickness while stickiness relates to a material’s ability to adhere to itself or to another surface. Applicant states examples of oil, grease, sugar water or low viscosity, PVA glue are sticky but not necessarily considered viscous. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant has not submitted any evidence to show that viscous is only applicable to fluid. Van Den Broek specifically refers to grains which are solid substance. Van Den Broek discloses that the cellulase reduces the viscosity of various kinds of grains. A less viscous grains infer a less sticky grains. A lookup of the synonym of sticky includes viscous. Sticky is defined as adhering to objects while viscous is defined in the dictionary as “ having a thick or sticky consistency”.
In any event, Hansen in view of Van Den Broek disclose the same enzyme. Thus, any property provided by the enzyme would have been expected when it’s used. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
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 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.
April 20, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights