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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made by the claims on 07/24/2026.
Claims 1 and 5-12 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, and 9 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 13-14 remains cancelled. Claims 3-4 are newly cancelled. Rest of claims are previously presented. Claims 1 and 5-12 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “mate-rial” in line 5 should read “material”; and “where-in” in line 6 should read “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “the fermented food” and “the step (3)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for either limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner WO 98/00029 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wagner) in view of He CN107616416A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as He), Van Eijk US Patent No. 6,251,444 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Van Eijk) and Ananta WO 2021/260067 A2 (hereinafter referred to as Ananta).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 11-12, Wagner teaches a method of preparing a baked product (e.g., bread such as steamed bread) with improved anti-staling properties as measured by crumb firming, loss of crumb elasticity, reduced slice-ability, reduced palatability or reduced flavor, the method comprising the steps of preparing a dough comprising wheat flour in combination with other types of flour such as corn flour, oat flour, soy flour, sorghum flour, potato flour, etc., and contacting the dough with an enzyme composition comprising protein glutaminase (e.g. peptidoglutaminase II, page 5, line 6-7), and a lipase (page 1, line 7-8; page 4, line 26-page 5, line 7; page 7, line 1-3, and page 9, line 5-7 and line 22-25). Further, Wagner teaches that the dough is subjected to a sourdough process (page 9, line 18-19), thus reading on the limitation about the fermented food obtained by lactic acid bacterial fermentation with a microorganism such as Lactobacillus (e.g., the sourdough microbiome is known to contain Lactobacillus).
Wagner teaches the combination of wheat flour with other types of four (e.g., corn flour, oat flour, soy flour, sorghum flour, potato flour, etc.) but is silent regarding other types of flour including an almond-derived raw material.
He in the same field of endeavor teaches that almond flour can be combined with wheat flour to make a steamed bread (e.g., steamed bun) ( that is nutritious and health-promoting Abstract; 0002; 0007; 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wagner by substituting almond flour for other types of flour in making the dough that comprises wheat flour for steamed bread with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established the suitability of almond flour in combining with wheat flour to make a nutritious and health-promoting steamed bread. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Wheat flour or almond flour is known to contain protein and fat/oil.
Wagner is silent regarding the enzyme dosages (e.g., units) of protein glutaminase and lipase. However, Wagner teaches that the protein glutaminase is specific for glutamine substituted at the carboxyl position or both the alpha-amino and carboxyl position, and has an effect of changing functional properties of the protein components that may be found in dough, such as solubility, dispersabilty, and the like, and therefore provides an improvement in one or more properties of the dough and/or a food product made from such dough (page 4, line 29-32; page 5, line 6-8). Wagner further teaches that a lipase modifies lipid present in the dough or dough constituents so as to soften the dough (page 7, line 1-3), therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amounts of protein glutaminase and lipase added to the dough such that they could effectively modify the glutamine residues and lipid respectively thus improving the dough properties. As such, the dosages of either enzymes as recited in claims 1 and 9 are merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Further, Van Eijk teaches a bread improver composition that comprises, inter alia, lipase (Abstract), and that such a bread improver could improve loaf volume and crumb softness of the bread (column 1, line 50-57). Van Eijk further teaches that when adding the bread improver to a dough/flour, lipase is added at an amount of 400-4,000 units per kg of flour (column 2, line 44-47). Additionally, Van Eijk teaches that the amounts of enzymes to be included in the dough vary depending on various factors such as enzyme activity, baking method, kind of bread, fermentation time, temperature and the kind of raw materials used. It will be appreciated that the skilled person is able without undue experimentation to determine the effective amounts of the enzymes in question (column 2, line 16-22).
Furthermore, Ananta teaches a method for treating a plant-based protein-containing composition (e.g., wheat, rice, pea, corn, walnut, potato, rapeseed, etc., page 4, 3rd para.) with a protein deamidase such as a protein glutaminase, in which the protein deamidase could improve solubility and other functional properties of protein (Abstract; page 6, bottom para.; page 7, 2nd para.). Ananta teaches that the dosage of the protein deamidase used is preferably 0.25-5 U per gram of plant-based protein-containing composition or 0.05-1% of protein deamidase by weight of the protein-containing composition (page 7, 6th para.).
Both Wagner and Van Eijk are directed to bread improvers comprising lipase. Both Wagner and Ananta are directed to treating a plant-based protein composition with protein deamidase to improve the properties of proteins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wagner by including the dosages of lipase and protein glutaminase as disclosed by Van Eijk and Ananta with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that those dosages are effective in improving bread and protein properties.
It is found that modification of Wagner with He, Van Eijk and Ananta would arrive at a dosage of either enzyme that overlaps with or falls within the ranges as recited in claims 1 and 9. Calculation: Van Eijk teaches 400-4,000 lipase units per kg of flour, thus assuming the flour of Wagner contains ~5% fat, then the lipase units per g of fat would be 400-4,000 units/ 50 g fat which is equal to 8-80 lipase units/ g fat; and Ananta teaches 0.25-5 U per gram of protein-containing composition, thus assuming the flour of Wanger contains ~10% protein, then the protein glutaminase units per g of protein would be 0.25-5 U/ 0.1 protein which is equal to 2.5-50 U per gram of protein. In the 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 I).
Further regarding claim 9, The preamble language “enhancing fermentation smell of a plant fermented food” recites the purpose of the claim, and the recited purpose does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art because the actual steps recited in Wagner in view of He, Van Eijk and Ananta and the instant claim are the same and will necessarily provide the purpose in the preamble of claim 9. Further, it is noted that claim 9 does not shed light on the degree of enhancement. Further, instant specification actually recites that a broad range 0.01-2000 U lipase / g of fat, and a broad range of 0.1-10,000 U protein deamidase / g of protein are proper in the claimed invention (see para. 0025).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner as modified by He, Van Eijk and Ananta as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xu US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0037790 A1 (cited in the IDS submitted 02/06/2024, hereinafter referred to as Xu).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Wagner teaches adding a lipase to a dough to make a bread such as steamed bread (page 9 line 30-31) but is silent regarding the lipase is a Candida cylindracea-derived lipase.
Xu in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of making a bread (e.g., steamed bun) comprising adding the combination of a protein glutaminase and a lipase to a dough, followed by fermentation and steaming (0007; 0016; 0042), in which the lipase is a commercial enzyme such as Lipase AY from Amano (0025), which is a Candida cylindracea-derived lipase (see para. 0021 of the instant specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Wanger by using Lipase AY to treat the dough of Wanger with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that Lipase AY is an art recognized lipase suitable for treating a dough. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0037790 A1 (cited in the IDS submitted 02/06/2024, hereinafter referred to as Xu) in view of He CN107616416A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as He), Van Eijk US Patent No. 6,251,444 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Van Eijk) and Ananta WO 2021/260067 A2 (hereinafter referred to as Ananta).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-12, Xu teaches a method of making a bread (e.g., steamed buns) comprising adding a combination of a protein glutaminase and a lipase to a dough made of wheat flour, followed by fermentation and steaming (0007; 0016; 0018; 0033; 0042).
Xu further teaches that the lipase is a commercial enzyme such as Lipase AY from Amano (0025), which is a Candida cylindracea-derived lipase (see para. 0021 of the instant specification).
Xu teaches making steamed buns from dough made of wheat flour, thus being silent regarding almond-derived raw material.
He in the same field of endeavor teaches that pearly barley flour and almond flour can be combined with wheat flour to make a more nutritious and health-promoting steamed bun, when compared with a steamed bun that uses wheat flour alone (Abstract; 0007; 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu by combining pearl barley flour, almond flour and wheat flour to make nutritious and health-promoting steamed buns. Wheat flour or almond flour is known to contain protein and fat/oil.
On the dosages of protein glutaminase and lipase, Xu does not expressly teach the enzyme units as recited in claims 1 and 9. What Xu teaches is that when lipase works as a quality improving agent having good color tone improvement effect, and protein-glutaminase works as a quality improving agent which maintains softness and improves workability during dough shaping (0032). Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amounts of lipase and protein glutaminase added to the dough such that they could effectively improve color tone of the dough and maintain softness of the dough thus improving the dough qualities. As such, the doses of either enzymes as recited in claims 1 and 9 are merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Further, Van Eijk teaches a bread improver composition that comprises, inter alia, lipase (Abstract), and that such a bread improver could improve loaf volume and crumb softness of the bread (column 1, line 50-57). Van Eijk further teaches that when adding the bread improver to a dough/flour, lipase is added in an amount of 400-4,000 units per kg of flour (column 2, line 44-47). Additionally, Van Eijk teaches that the amounts of enzymes to be included in the dough vary depending on various factors such as enzyme activity, baking method, kind of bread, fermentation time, temperature and the kind of raw materials used. It will be appreciated that the skilled person is able without undue experimentation to determine the effective amounts of the enzymes in question (column 2, line 16-22).
Furthermore, Ananta teaches a method for treating a plant-based protein-containing composition (e.g., wheat, rice, pea, corn, walnut, potato, rapeseed, etc., page 4, 3rd para.) with a protein deamidase such as a protein glutaminase, in which the protein deamidase could improve solubility and other functional properties of protein (Abstract; page 6, bottom para.; page 7, 2nd para.). Ananta teaches that the dose of the protein deamidase used is preferably 0.25-5 U per gram of plant-based protein-containing composition or 0.05-1% of protein deamidase by weight of the protein-containing composition (page 7, 6th para.).
Both Xu and Van Eijk are directed to bread improvers comprising lipase. Both Xu and Ananta are directed to treating a plant-based protein composition with protein deamidase to improve the properties of proteins. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu by including the dosages of lipase and protein glutaminase as disclosed by Van Eijk and Ananta with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that those dosages are effective in improving bread and protein properties.
It is found that modification of Xu with He, Van Eijk and Ananta would arrive at a dosage of either enzyme that overlaps with or falls within the ranges as recited in claims 1 and 9. Calculation: Van Eijk teaches 400-4,000 lipase units per kg of flour, thus assuming the flour of Xu in view of He contains ~5% fat, then the lipase units per g of fat would be 400-4,000 units/ 50 g fat which is equal to 8-80 lipase units/ g fat; and Ananta teaches 0.25-5 U per gram of protein-containing composition, thus assuming the flour of Xu in view of He contains ~10% protein, then the protein glutaminase units per g of protein would be 0.25-5 U/ 0.1 protein which is equal to 2.5-50 U per gram of protein. In the 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 I).
Further regarding claim 9, The preamble language “enhancing fermentation smell of a plant fermented food” recites the purpose of the claim, and the recited purpose does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art because the actual steps recited in Xu in view of He, Van Eijk and Ananta and the instant claim are the same and will necessarily provide the purpose in the preamble of claim 9. Further, it is noted that claim 9 does not shed light on the degree of enhancement. Further, instant specification actually recites that a broad range 0.01-2000 U lipase / g of fat, and a broad range of 0.1-10,000 U protein deamidase / g of protein are proper (see para. 0025).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of He, Van Eijk and Ananta as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Huang WO 2019/091547 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Huang).
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches making the steamed buns by fermenting with a yeast (Table 1), thus being silent regarding fermentation with a lactobacillus LAB.
Huang in the same field of endeavor teaches that besides yeast fermentation, it is also suitable to make steamed buns with sourdough that comprises lactobacillus (page 1, line 9-15; page 12 bottom para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu by substituting sourdough that comprises lactobacillus for the yeast in fermenting the dough to make steamed buns with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that yeast and sourdough are functional equivalents in fermenting dough to make steamed buns thus substituting one for another for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144. 06 II. Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 regarding pending claims have been fully considered but are found moot over the new ground of rejection set forth in the instant office action.
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights