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 Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 7 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the claims: (1) the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-4 and 8-13
Withdrawn claims: 9 and 11-12
Previously canceled claims: 5
Newly canceled claims: 6-7
Amended claims: 1
New claims: 13
Claims currently under consideration: 1-4, 8, 10, and 13
Currently rejected claims: 1-4, 8, 10, and 13
Allowed claims: None
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 13 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 homogeneous yeast and processing aid compositions that can be used in the production of baked goods (Abstract; claim 10; p. 5, lines 25-32; p. 6, lines 21-51). The composition comprises:
(a) 0.01 to 20% w/w of active enzyme protein – In Example 2, Hille teaches 18 g of hemicellulase per 1018 g of composition = 1.8% w/w active enzyme protein (p. 6, lines 29-32). In Example 3, Hille teaches 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; p. 6, lines 39-42).
(b) at least 25% w/w of baker's yeast – In Example 2, Hille teaches 1000 g of baker’s yeast per 1018 g of composition = 98.2% w/w yeast (p. 5, lines 26-32). In Example 3, Hille teaches 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).
(d) more than 10% w/w and less than 75% w/w of water – Hille teaches that the composition may be in compressed/block form or in an instant dry yeast composition (p. 3, line 50 – p. 4, line 8; Example 2; Example 3). Hille further teaches that drying the extruded mixture is optional (claim 9). In Example 2, Hille produces the composition in block form from fresh baker’s yeast having a moisture content of approximately 68%, and the extruded mixture is not dried (p. 5, lines 26-32). Therefore, Hille teaches that the composition comprises approximately 68% water, which lies inside the claimed range.
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 met 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 discuss 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). Hille further teaches that the drying the extruded mixture is optional (claim 9). 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 arriving at the claimed invention because Hille teaches that the yeast may have a high moisture content and the enzymes may be added in the form of solutions, and Schooneveld teaches adding a polyol stabilizer to solutions of enzymes and ascorbic acid.
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 13, Hille implicitly teaches that the yeast forms a continuous matrix encapsulating the enzyme protein, such that the enzyme protein is not present in granulated or particulate form – Hille teaches that the “process for the production of a homogeneous composition comprising yeast and an effective amount of a processing aid which process comprises adding the processing aid in dry or solution form to the yeast to form a mixture and simultaneously or subsequently extruding the mixture and optionally drying it.” (p. 2, lines 47-52; claim 9). Processing aids include enzymes (p. 3, lines 21-27). Where the enzymes may be added in solution form to the yeast and the mixture is homogeneous, the limitation of “the yeast forms a continuous matrix encapsulating the enzyme protein, such that the enzyme protein is not present in granulated or particulate form” is met.
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. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 7 April 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that the present invention concerns a yeast/enzyme co-formulation produced by adding a liquid enzyme product during manufacturing of yeast products, and 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, such procedure not being realized in the prior art (p. 5, ¶¶ 3-4).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive at least because the claimed invention is toward a product, not a process. 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.
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. 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 commercial liquid enzyme product or a liquid enzyme product prepared during manufacture of the homogeneous mixture.
Applicant next argued that there is nothing from Hille in view of Schooneveld 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 (p. 5, ¶ 5). Applicant argued that the contemplated application of processing aids is described in Hille as "in powder form, or dissolved in water in a concentrated solution" (see page 3, line 46), and Hille further acknowledges the sensitivity of enzymes and the risk of "substantial loss of activity" on page 3, line 49 (p. 6, ¶ 2). Applicant argued that this aligns well with the fact that all working examples in Hille were made with granulated enzymes, and none of the examples describe dissolving the granulated enzymes in water of the pending claims, or any resulting yeast products that "forms a continuous matrix encapsulating the enzyme protein, such that the enzyme protein is not present in granulated or particulate form", as recited in pending claim 13 (p. 6, ¶ 3). Applicant argued that Hille does not disclose use of a polyol enzyme stabilizer, as used in commercial liquid enzyme products, and no such liquid products are mentioned, and Schooneveld fails to cure the defects of Hille since Schooneveld does not suggest mixing the yeast and enzymes as a separate baking additive product, but discloses a liquid enzyme product, as such (p. 6, ¶¶ 4-5).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the teachings of Hille, the scope of Hille’s disclosure is not limited to the examples. Hille even explicitly states, “It should be noted that the present invention is by no means limited to these examples.” (p. 4, lines 16-17). Hille clearly teaches that the enzymes may be added “dissolved in water in a concentrated solution” (p. 3, line 46; claim 9).
Regarding the application of Schooneveld, where Hille teaches that the enzyme may be in liquid form when added to the yeast, where Hille does not require that the composition is dried (claim 9) and where Hille is concerned with long-term stability of the homogeneous mixture (Abstract; Example 2, Table 2) it would have been obvious to add a polyol stabilizer to the composition given the teachings of Schooneveld that liquid enzyme compositions are stabilized by polyols and given that the composition of Hille may comprise as substantial amount of water. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, having a basic understanding of biochemistry and the susceptibility of proteins, including enzymes, to degradation, would have recognized that such a stabilizer would be useful in maintaining enzymatic activity over time in high-moisture compositions such as those of Hille.
Applicant further argued that the pending claims, as amended, require “more than 10% w/w and less than 75% w/w of water” which is neither taught nor suggested by the combination of Hille and Schooneveld (p. 6, ¶ 6).
In response, Hille also renders obvious the claimed range of 10% to 75% w/w of water as described in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Applicant argued that Tent and Nourigeon, respectively, fail to cure the alleged defects of Hille and Schooneveld (p. 6, ¶ 8 – p. 9, ¶ 3).
In response, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive. As such, the rejections of claims 8 and 10 are maintained.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights