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 .
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 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made by the claims on 03/03/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending in the application. Claim 1 and 9-12 are currently amended. Claim 2 remains cancelled. Claims 13-14 are newly cancelled. Rest of claims are previously presented. Claims 1 and 3-12 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Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites the steps of preparing the plant protein raw material and treating the prepared plant raw material with lipase and protein deamidase. However, the step of preparing the plant protein raw material that comprises an oat (almond, or coconut)-derived raw material would have been inherent in claim 1, and claim 1 expressly teaches treating the plant raw material with the due enzyme. Further, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites that the plant protein food is a fermented food and the method comprises a step of fermenting the enzyme-treated plant protein material with a microorganism. However, claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, already recites the step of fermenting the enzyme-treated plant protein raw material with a microorganism. As such, claim 3 fails to further limits the subject matter of claim 1 and claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-5, 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 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, 3-5, 7-9 and 11-12, Wagner teaches a method of preparing a baked product (e.g., 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 and an oat-derived raw material (e.g., oat flour or oat meal), 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). Wheat flour, oat flour or an oat meal is known to contain protein and fat/oil. Further, Wagner teaches that a dough is subjected to a sourdough process (page 9, line 18-19), 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 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, dispersability, 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 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 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 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 commercially 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, 3-4 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 Hsieh, “Substitution of wheat flour with wholegrain flours affects physical properties, sensory acceptance, and starch digestion of Chinese steam bread (Mantou)”, LWT - Food Science and Technology, 2017, 86, pages 571-576 (hereinafter referred to as Hsieh), 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, 3-4 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). Wheat flour is known to contain protein and fat/oil.
Xu further teaches that the lipase is a commercially 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 oat-derived raw material.
Hsieh in the same field of endeavor teaches partial replacement (e.g., 10% or 30%) of wheat flour with oat flour to make steamed buns (e.g., Mantou or Chinese steamed bread) having delayed starch digestion, thus providing an alternative dietary choice (Abstract; Conclusion).
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 partially replacing wheat flour with oat flour (e.g., 10% or 30%) to make steamed buns with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that such a partial replacement of wheat flour with oat flour could delay starch digestion and provide an alternative dietary choice.
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 Hsieh, 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 Hsieh 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 Hsieh 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 Hsieh, 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 Hsieh, 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 03/03/2026 regarding pending claims have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 9-14 are withdrawn in view of the amendment made to claim 9.
The ODP rejection over 18/251,846 are withdrawn in view of the amendment made to claims 1 and 9.
The 35 USC 102 rejection over Wagner and the 35 USC 102 rejection over Wagner as modified by Xu are withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claims. Further, the argument that Wagner and Xu fail to teach the doses of the enzymes are moot over the new ground of rejection set forth in the instant office action.
Conclusion
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