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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/7/25 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10 are amended and claims 11 and 12 are added. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2013/0323355) in view of Mallon ( 2010/0063269).
For claim 1, Zhang discloses gluten-free bakery product comprising a composition containing gluten-free cereal flour and a hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. The hydroxypropyl methylcellulose contains 10-40% methoxyl groups and 3-35%, preferably 4-12% hydroxypropoxyl groups. For claim 5, the methoxyl groups are in the range of 10-40, preferably 15-30%,
For claims 6-7, the hydroxypropoxyl groups are in the range of 4-12%.
For claims 8-9, the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose is includes in amount of up to 15 parts based on 100 parts of the gluten-free flours.
For claim 11, Zhang discloses bread product.
For claim 12, Zhang discloses the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose having particle sizes such that more than 50 % are retained on a sieve of 150 micrometers and pass through a sieve of 420 micrometers mesh size. If greater than 50 are retained on 150 micrometer and pass through 420, then the particles are smaller than 420 micrometers which meet component (i) because less than 5% includes 0 meaning the particles are smaller than 420 micrometers and specification meets component (ii).
( see paragraphs 0008,0013,0014,0016,0021,0024,0025, 0028)
Zhang does not disclose the viscosity and the Mw/Mn and the property as in claim 1, the viscosity as in claims 2-3, the Mw/Mn as in claim 4, the combination of flour as in claim 10 and components (iii) and (iv) of claim 12.
Mallon discloses a process for reducing the average molecular weight of cellulose ether. The weight average molecular weight and the number average weight are both reduced. Mallon discloses the molecular weight of a cellulose ether is commonly expressed by its viscosity. The reduction in viscosity is an indication of the molecular weight reduction. Depolymerization of the cellulose causes a reduction in viscosity. The reduction in viscosity changes the color of the cellulose ether. Depending on the viscosity of the starting material, the water soluble cellulose ether is generally depolymerized to a cellulose ether of less than 100 mPa.s ( see paragraphs 0014,0020,0021,0034)
The claimed ranges of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, methoxyl content and hydroxypropoxyl content lie within the ranges disclosed in Zhang. 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 reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990)
As shown in Mallon the average molecular weight and the number average molecular weight of the cellulose ether is related to the degree of polymerization which affects the viscosity of the cellulose. The viscosity affects the color of the cellulose ether. Knowing this property and how the cellulose ether can be treated to reduce the viscosity and obtain certain Mw/Mn ratio, it would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the Mw/Mn and viscosity depending the color desired. Such parameter is a result-effective variable which can be determined through routine experimentation. Zhang in view of Mallon discloses hydroxypropyl methylcellulose having viscosity within the claimed range. Thus, it’s obvious the property claimed can be obtained. Zhang discloses different types of gluten-free flour can be used. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select any particular combination depending on the taste, flavor and texture desired. The selection would have been a matter of preference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include percentage of small particle sizes for the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose depending on the textural feel desired. Zhang discloses that hydroxypropyl methylcellulose can be ground to various sizes including small particle sizes like 44 micrometer, 74 micrometers, 150 micrometers etc.. The determination of various sizes can be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Applicant has not established any criticality or unexpected result with the claimed distribution of sizes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues the unexpected results shown in the specification. This argument is not persuasive because the showing in the specification is not against the prior art. The rejection is based on Zhang in view of Mallon to provide motivation for reducing the viscosity.
Mallon teaches degree of polymerization affecting the viscosity and the viscosity in turn affects the color of the cellulose ether. Knowing this property and how the cellulose ether can be treated to reduce the viscosity and obtain certain Mw/Mn ratio, it would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the Mw/Mn and viscosity depending the color desired. Such parameter is a result-effective variable which can be determined through routine experimentation. Even if one of ordinary skill in the art is not aware of any correlation between reducing the viscosity and properties such as volume and breadcrumb, it would still have been obvious to reduce the viscosity for the reason taught in Mallon. When reduction of viscosity is obtained, then the property claimed is present. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant argues that Zhang in their experimental data alleged sued an HPMC having a 22.8 percent methoxyl content and a viscosity of about 4000mPa-s which corresponds to the HPMC of comparative example A. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is a combination of Zhang in view of Mallon for reduction of viscosity. Furthermore, the showing does not prove unexpected result as argued by applicant because Zhang discloses in table 1 that example 1 has a specific volume of 6.1 and firmness of 58 g. The specific volume is much higher than comparative A shown in applicant’s table 3. The specific volume in Zhang is even higher than examples 1-3. This evidence shows that the correlation between viscosity and volume is not conclusive. The same is true with the firmness. The rejection of new claim 12 is addressed above.
Conclusion
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.
November 29, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793