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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) and the Response and Amendment filed 21 July 2025 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-4 and 6-12
Withdrawn claims: 9 and 11-12
Previously canceled claims: 5
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: 1
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-4, 6-8, and 10
Currently rejected claims: 1-4, 6-8, and 10
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 July 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “wherein the baking additive is a homogeneous mixture of the baker's yeast cells and enzyme protein” in lines 5-6. It is unclear how the composition comprising (a) enzyme protein, (b) baker’s yeast, and (c) a polyol stabilizing agent is a homogeneous mixture of the baker’s yeast cells and enzyme protein when a polyol stabilizing agent is also required to be present. Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending claim 1 to recite, “wherein the baking additive is a homogeneous mixture”. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is construed as suggested for amendment.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille (EP0619947A1, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed April 5, 2022) in view of Schooneveld-Bergmans et al. (US 2003/0190399 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hille teaches a dried homogeneous yeast/processing aid composition that can be used in the production of baked goods (Abstract; claim 10; p. 6, lines 21-51). The composition comprises:
(a) 0.01 to 20% w/w of active enzyme protein – 2.02% w/w of the enzymes amylase and hemicellulase; (0.22% w/w amylase + 1.8% w/w hemicellulase = 2.02% w/w enzymes; page 6, lines 39-42).
(b) at least 25% w/w of baker's yeast – 95.64% w/w baker’s yeast (yeast amount on a dry basis = 100% – 1.0% w/w sorbitan monostearate – 0.22% w/w amylase – 1.8% w/w hemicellulase – 1.34% w/w ascorbic acid = 95.64% yeast; page 6, lines 25, 37-43).
wherein the baking additive is a homogeneous mixture – “the processing aid is homogeneously mixed with the yeast” (page 3, lines 28-29),
wherein the baker's yeast cells and enzyme protein are in direct contact – By virtue of being a homogeneous mixture, at least some of the cells will be in direct contact with at least some of the enzyme protein. As such, this limitation is anticipated by the composition of Hille,
and wherein the enzyme protein is extracellular to the yeast – Hille teaches that the enzyme is added to yeast extracellularly (page 3, lines 45-46), not expressed intracellularly by genetic modification, for example.
Hille does not teach that the composition comprises (c) a polyol stabilizing agent.
However, Schooneveld teaches liquid bread improving compositions comprising one or more enzymes, ascorbic acid, and one or more polyols ([0008]). Schooneveld teaches that the enzymes may be selected from carbohydrases, protein modifying enzymes, redox enzymes, and lipid modifying enzymes ([0013]). Schooneveld teaches that polyols provide a stabilizing effect by lowering the water activity in aqueous solutions to such an extent that processes which inactivate enzymes and degrade ascorbic acid, and microbial infections are slowed down, providing an advantage for commercial products in that shelf life can be extended ([0009]). The liquid bread improving compositions are mixed with yeast, water, and flour to form a dough ([0015]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the composition of Hille with the teachings of Schooneveld to add a polyol stabilizer. First, Hille teaches that the processing aids (i.e., enzymes and ascorbic acid (p. 3, lines 21-27) may be added in powder form or dissolved in water in a concentrated solution (p. 3, lines 46-47). Schooneveld, teaches that it is advantageous to add polyols to liquid bread improving compositions comprising a solution of enzymes and ascorbic acid to prevent inactivation of enzymes and degradation of ascorbic acid ([0009]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a polyol stabilizer to the composition of Hille to prevent enzyme and ascorbic acid inactivation/degradation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so given the teachings of Schooneveld.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Hille teaches that the composition further comprises an emulsifier (page 3, line 22). In an exemplary embodiment, Hille teaches sorbitan monostearate as the emulsifier (p. 6, lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 3, Hille teaches that the composition further comprises ascorbic acid (page 3, lines 22-23; p. 6, line 43).
Regarding claim 4, Hille teaches that the enzyme used may be an amylase, hemicellulase (p. 6, lines 39-42), a redox enzyme (i.e., oxidase), or lipase (page 3, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 6, Hille teaches that the composition comprises less than 75% w/w of total water – dry matter content of the product is 95.8% (page 7, Table 3, Exp.1), corresponding to 4.2% water.
Regarding claim 7, Hille teaches that the composition comprises less than 10% w/w of total water – dry matter content of the product is 95.8% (page 7, Table 3, Exp.1), corresponding to 4.2% water.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille and Schooneveld-Bergmans et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tent et al. (EP0167643A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hille and Schooneveld teach all elements of claim 1 as stated above and that the composition is extruded through a screen with a hole size of 0.8 mm (page 6, lines 44-45).
The cited prior art does not discuss that the extrudate is a cylindrical particulate with a longest dimension of 1-5 mm, and is silent on the characteristics of the extrudate beyond its width being 0.8 mm.
Tent discloses a process for preparing stable active dried yeast wherein the yeast cake is extruded into granules with a diameter of 0.4-0.8 mm and a length of 3-6 mm ([0019], lines 3-8). Granules of this size were chosen for their “good handling properties” ([0019], line 8). By convention, a shape with a diameter will have a circular cross section, and a three-dimensional shape with parallel sides (such as an extrudate) and a circular cross section is a cylinder.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hille with the teachings of Tent to produce cylindrical granules of the yeast/processing aid composition with good handling properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consult Tent to determine a suitable length for the extruded particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Tent teaches that extruded particles with a diameter matching those of Hille and a length of 3-6 mm have good handling properties.
Furthermore, Tent teaches a preferred particle length of 3-6 mm ([0019], lines 7-8). The invention of the instant application claims a particulate with a longest dimension of 1-5 mm. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hille and Schooneveld-Bergmans et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nourigeon (EP0375558A1, cited in the IDS filed April 5, 2022).
Regarding claim 10, Hille and Schooneveld teach all elements of claim 1 as stated above, but do not teach combining the baking additive with flour to make a dough pre-mix.
However, Nourigeon teaches a ready-to-use baking mix (i.e., pre-mix) comprising flour, yeast, and an “activator” (claim 2), and that the “activator” contains enzymes, ascorbic acid, and an emulsifier (claim 1(b)). This combination of ingredients is meant to provide bakers with a ready-to-use product to which they can simply add water and knead the resulting dough ([0003]). The ready-to-use product also avoids the need to store several ingredients individually ([0004]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Hille using the teachings of Nourigeon to add the pelletized and dried homogeneous yeast/processing aid composition (i.e., baking additive) to flour and package the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide baked-product manufacturers and/or end consumers with a pre-mix of baking ingredients to which water can be added to make a dough (Nourigeon, [0003]), to minimize ingredient dust during measuring (Hille, page 2, lines 18-19), and/or to reduce the number of individual ingredients to store (Nourigeon, [0004]) and measure (Hille, page 2, lines 16-18). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Nourigeon teaches a ready-to-use baking mix comprising flour and the other ingredients in the composition of Hille.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 July 2025 with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-7 (p. 4, ¶¶ 3-7) have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has necessitated the new ground of rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 21 July 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 8 (p. 5) and 10 (p. 6, ¶¶ 1-4), Applicant argued:
The present invention concerns a yeast/enzyme co-formulation produced by adding a liquid enzyme product during manufacturing of yeast products. While the prior art adds granulated/powdered enzyme products that may be dissolved in water, the Applicant has found that a simplified process can be made by adding commercial liquid stabilized enzyme products directly into the yeast production process. This procedure is not realized in the prior art - likely because the baking industry is highly focused on powder ingredients.
Liquid enzymes require less processing and are cheaper to produce than solid enzymes, and liquid enzymes can be pumped into the yeast production process in closed systems, which reduces handling and spills. The present invention has shown that it is not necessary to encapsulate the enzyme in particles, and that the intimate contact of yeast cells and enzyme protein molecules is compatible with both. This is not realized in the prior art documents.
Accordingly, there is nothing in the cited references that collectively teaches or suggests each limitation as arranged in the amended claim, and the person of skill in the art would find no motivation based on these references to arrive at the Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. Nothing in the instant claims requires that the active enzyme protein is in the form of a liquid enzyme product. 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 liquid enzyme product) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
Moreover, Applicant’s arguments are toward the process of making the composition, and the claims are directed toward the composition itself. Applicant is reminded that regarding a product claim, “…determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).” See MPEP § 2113.
In the final composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether the active enzyme protein was added to the composition as a liquid enzyme product or a dried enzyme product since the final product is a dried homogeneous mixture.
Finally, Hille teaches that the processing aids (i.e., enzymes) may be added in powder form, or dissolved in water in a concentrated solution (p. 3, lines 45-46). The disclosed concentrated enzyme solution represents a liquid enzyme product. Hille therefore teaches the liquid enzyme product in question and its application to the homogeneous composition.
Regarding the polyol stabilizer required by the amended claim 1, a new ground of rejection over Hille in view of Schooneveld-Bergmans et al. (US 2003/0190399 A1) is presented hereinabove.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793