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 amendment filed on 11/21/25. Claims 72 and 87 are amended. Claims 1-71 are cancelled and claim 76 is withdrawn. Claims 72-75,77-87 are pending.
The previous 112 rejection is withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 72-75,77-87 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.
The amendment in claim 72 is not supported by the original disclosure. The amendment recites “ peak activity” for each of the enzymes. However, there is no disclosure of “ peak activity” in the specification.
Claim 72 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 72, the limitation “ peak activity” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is encompassed by peak. The specification does not define what “ peak activity “ constitute. It’s unclear what would quantify as “ peak”. ( for prior art application, it’s interpreted as activity in the temperature range)
The new rejections are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 72,85-86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng ( 2016/0007618) in view of Van Eijk ( 6251444).
For claims 72,86, Feng discloses a composition consisting of thermally-stable amyloglucosidase having optimum temperature of at least about 60 degrees C, preferably from 60-85 degrees C, maltogenic amylase and another enzyme including fungal amylase. Feng discloses the thermally-stable amyloglucosidases is used together with maltogenic amylase and both enzymes have similar thermal stabilities and both remain active after starch granules gelatinize. Since Feng discloses the optimum temperature for amyloglucoside is from 60-85 degrees C, it follows that the optimum temperature for maltogenic amylase is also within the same range. The amount of amyloglucosidase is in the range of 500-1500AGU and 1000-10000 Manu for maltogenic amylase. ( see paragraphs 0011,0051,0053,0068,0069,0070,0082 and table 1)
Feng does not disclose the activity temperature for the alpha amylase and the Fau of the alpha amylase as in claims 72 and 85.
Van Eijk discloses the Fau unit for fungal amylase and the teaches the amounts of enzyme can vary depending on enzyme activity, baking method, kind of bread, fermentation time and temperature and kind of raw material used. The enzyme activity is measured at 30 degrees C. ( see col. 2 lines 16-31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of the fungal amylase depending on the intended use and the effect of the various factors as taught in Van Eijk. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Feng discloses using fungal amylase. Van Eijk shows that fungal amylase has activity at temperature of 30 degrees C. Thus, it is a thermo-labile amylase.
Claim(s) 73-75,77-84,87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (2016/0007618) in view of Van Eijk ( 6251444), and Cichy ( 2019/0313653).
For claims 73-75,77, Feng discloses Feng discloses a composition consisting of thermally-stable amyloglucosidase having optimum temperature of at least about 60 degrees C, preferably from 60-85 degrees C, maltogenic amylase and another enzyme including fungal amylase. Feng discloses the thermally-stable amyloglucosidases is used together with maltogenic amylase and both enzymes have similar thermal stabilities and both remain active after starch granules gelatinize. Since Feng discloses the optimum temperature for amyloglucoside is from 60-85 degrees C, it follows that the optimum temperature for maltogenic amylase is also within the same range. The amount of amyloglucosidase is in the range of 500-1500AGU and 1000-10000 Manu for maltogenic amylase. ( see paragraphs 0011,0051,0053,0068,0069,0070,0082 and table 1)
For claim 73, Feng discloses enzyme composition as described above and bakery product comprising the enzyme composition with no added sugar. ( see additional paragraphs 0015, 0045).
For claims 74, 75, 77, Feng discloses a process for producing bakery product with no added sugar. The process comprises the steps of producing a dough by mixing flour, the enzyme composition, yeast and water, proofing the dough. For claim 75, Feng discloses to shaping to desire form by molding. For claim 77, Feng discloses baking at 190-220 degrees C ( see additionally paragraphs 0008,0015,0045,0074,0076 and example 1)
For claims 81, 87,Feng discloses that during the baking and also proofing, sugars, particularly non-fructose sugars are generated by the enzyme blend. The initial dough can have 0% sugar added. The blend of enzyme contains the thermostable amyloglucosidase and the maltogenic amylase. Feng also discloses the final baked product formed utilizing the enzyme formulation is sweeter when compared to an 8% sugar control. Thus, it is inherent the enzyme act on the saccharide in the dough to increase the content of glucose and maltose. Since the product is sweeter than baked product containing 8% sugar, the product contains less sugar. Feng also disclose the initial quantity of sugar can be 0 or some low amount like 1-3%. Thus, Feng discloses reduced amount of added sugar ( see paragraph 0074,0079).
For claims 82,84 Feng discloses baking the dough at temperature of 420 degree F( 215 degrees C) and the baked product will have less than about 1% fructose. For claim 84, it is interpreted that the baked product has a fructose content of 1% ( see example 1, paragraph 0081)
For claim 83, Feng discloses the final baked product contains glucose of at least 3%, preferably about 3-10% and less than 1% fructose. The ranges of lactose and saccharose includes 0%. Feng also discloses the baked product will typically have total sugar mainly of glucose and maltose of at least 5%, preferably from about 6-12%. If the total sugar is 6% and at least 3% is glucose, then the remaining is maltose because Feng discloses the total sugar is mainly of glucose and maltose. ( see paragraph 0079,0080).
Feng does not disclose the activity temperature for the alpha amylase and the Fau of the alpha amylase as in claim 72, the percent of damage starch as in claims 74,75,77, the properties as in claims 78-80.
Van Eijk discloses the Fau unit for fungal amylase and the teaches the amounts of enzyme can vary depending on enzyme activity, baking method, kind of bread, fermentation time and temperature and kind of raw material used. The enzyme activity is measured at 30 degrees C. Van Eijk discloses the dough comprises 25-1250 FAU. ( see col. 2 lines 16-31)
Cichy discloses bean-base flour. Cichy teaches that starch damage occurs when starch granules are broken usually during the milling process and can impact water absorption and dough mixing properties. A high level of starch damage in flours would produce a sticky dough. The level of starch damage in hard wheat is 6-12% while soft wheat is 2-4%. ( see paragraph 0020)
For claim 72, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of the fungal amylase depending on the intended use and the effect of the various factors as taught in Van Eijk. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the can follow the guideline of Van Eijk in the amount and optimize through routine experimentation to obtain the most optimum properties for the particular baked product. Feng discloses using fungal amylase. Van Eijk shows that fungal amylase has activity at temperature of 30 degrees C. Thus, it is a thermo-labile amylase. For claim 80, Feng in view of Van eijk disclose thermo-labile amylase having activity in the claimed temperature range. Thus, is obvious the enzyme acts on starch polysaccharide to produce fermentable sugar. For claims 78-79, Feng discloses the combination of enzymes having the characteristics as claimed and the dough contains no added sugar. Thus, it is obvious the properties are present. For claims 74,75,77, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use flour with level of starch damage that will not deleteriously affect the processing of the dough as taught in Cichy. The level of starch damage also depends on the type of wheat. For instance, if flour from hard wheat is used, the level of starch damage is from 6-12%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues the thermally stable amyloglucosidase in Feng is not the claimed enzyme. Applicant states Fend discloses the enzyme as Po-AMG which is in contrast with the claimed enzyme to the Gold crust or AMG 100. This argument is not persuasive because it does not commensurate with the scope of claim 72. There is no limitation in the claim to distinguish the claimed amyloglucosidase from the amyloglucosidase disclosed in Feng. The enzyme is only defined by the activity temperature and the temperature in Feng overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Applicant argues the broad temperature range is essential to Feng’s technical effect. It’s irrelevant that Feng activity temperature can go up to 85%. The fact remains that the enzyme activity temperature includes temperatures within the claimed range. Applicant points to example 1 and argues that Feng clearly teaches away from removing or replacing the Po-AMG-like enzyme. This argument is not persuasive because it doesn’t reflect the rejection. There is no argument or position set forth in the rejection to remove the thermally stable amyloglucosidase in Feng. The enzyme meets the requirement of the claim.
With respect to Van Eijk, applicant argues Van Eijk teaches away from removing the lipase and hemicellulose. This argument is not persuasive because the Van Eijk is only a secondary teaching showing the temperature at which alpha amylase is active and the guidance on the amount of the amylase. Applicant does not argue on the proposed modification. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant points to the affidavit filed with the response. The affidavit is not persuasive. The affidavits gives data on samples comprising no enzyme, Fau/Gluco, Fau/Manu, Gluco/Manu, Fau/Gluco/Manu and sample with no enzyme and 3% sugar. However, the showing is not against the prior art because Feng discloses the use of three enzymes of alpha amylase, amyloglucosidase, and maltogenic amylase. The showing is also not commensurate in scope with the claims. Page 4 shows example 5 as containing 40FAU, 990 AGU and 1500 MANU; these are single amount within the broad ranges claimed. There is no evidence to conclude that the same results will be obtained if 20 FAU, 578 Agu and 500 Manu are used. The affidavit does not set forth the active temperature of the enzymes. It cannot be determined if the enzymes tested are exactly like the enzymes recited in the claims.
Applicant further argues that the examiner’s approach requires removal of essential enzymes. This argument is not persuasive because it’s based on applicant’s own hypothetical rejection. The rejection does not set forth any position on removing the Po-AMG amyloglucosidase. The Van Eijk reference is not relied upon to show a composition comprising 3 enzymes. The reason for using Van Eijk is explained in the rejection and applicant does not argue the position taken. It’s unclear what applicant means by combining only the residual elements. The rejection sets the teaching of Feng and shows that the composition of Feng consists of the enzymes recited in claim 72.
With respect to the Cichy reference, applicant asserts the examiner does not state what limitation of the rejected claims require the citation to the Cichy publication. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The rejection states “ for claims 74,75,77, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use flour with level of starch damage that will not deleteriously affect the processing of the dough as taught in Cichy. The level of starch damage also depends on the type of wheat. For instance, if flour from hard wheat is used, the level of starch damage is from 6-12%. Applicant argues there is no suggestion in Cichy to pick a flour with at least 5% starch damage. This argument is not persuasive. Cichy teaches the level of starch damage can also depend on the type of wheat. Thus, if hard wheat is selected for the bakery product, the level of starch damage is 6-12% which is in the claimed range because at least 5% is 5 or greater. Cichy also teaches that a high level of damage starch gives a sticky dough. Thus, depending on the level of stickiness of the dough desired, it would have been obvious to one to select the level of starch damage. The claimed range includes any level of 5 and greater. Applicant further argues that Cichy seems to recommend flours with a low level of starch damage, lower than that required by the rejected claims. This argument is not persuasive. The Cichy teaching suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a level of starch damage depending on the property desired. Cichy is restricted to a specific level of starch damage. Applicant points to paragraph 0020 of Cichy to argue that the patent teaches starch damage of .4-1%. The level is specific to only bean flour. In the same paragraph, Cichy also discloses that hard wheat has a starch damage content of 6-12%. The essential teaching of Cichy is that the starch damage content can vary depending on what is desired and the type of flour used. Cichy does not teach away from the claimed range because Cichy also discloses level in the claimed
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 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.
December 12, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793