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 Application
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 18-28 are pending in the present application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12-14 and 18-28 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.
Independent claims 1, 20 and 21 are rejected for reciting the phrase “at least about 16%”. It is under stood that the application supports - - at least 16%- - (see original claims). The application does not support this amount when modified with “about”, as this extends the range beyond what was originally supported (i.e., below at least 16%). Claims 5-8, 10, 12-14, 18-19 and 22-28 are rejected as the depend on or rely claim 1, 20, or 21 as an independent claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12-14 and 18-28 are 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.
Each of the independent claims 1, 20 and 21 recite that dietary fiber comprises larch arabinogalactan and that the emulsifier blend comprises larch arabinogalactan. It is unclear whether the same larch arabinogalactan is present in the emulsion and also serves as a dietary fiber or larch arabinogalactan is two different parts of the feed. Claims 5-8, 10, 12-14, 18-19 and 22-28 are rejected as the depend on or rely claim 1, 20, or 21 as an independent claim.
Claims Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 12-14 and 18-28 are free of the prior art. The prior art such as Kelly, et al, Effects of Yucca shidigera Extract on Growth, Nitrogen Retention, Ammonia Excretion, and Toxicity in Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus and Hybrid Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus x O. niloticus, Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, Vol. 34, No. 2, June 2003 (KELLY) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0093952 (FREHNER) and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0287919 (PHIL) do teach adding yucca, the claimed essential oils and larch arabinogalactan to aquaculture systems, respectively. The prior art does not teach a feed and methods for treating aquaculture species as claimed, wherein the feed comprises a dietary fiber comprising larch arabinogalactan; and at least 16% about 0.5% to about 10% by weight of an extract from Yucca schidigera, and an emulsified essential oil composition. The emulsified essential oil comprises about 25 wt.% to about 40 wt.% oregano oil, about 25 wt.% to about 40 wt.% cinnamon essential oil, and about 25 wt.% to about 40 wt.% thyme essential oil, and wherein the emulsified essential oil composition is present as an emulsion having an average particle size of about 25 microns or less with a ratio by weight of the essential oil blend to the emulsifier in the emulsion larch arabinogalactan is about 3:1 to about 1:3. The feed is fed at 10 ppm to 100 ppm of the essential oil blend on a daily basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10, 12-14, 18-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The obviousness rejections and double patenting rejections from the previous Official Action in view of applicant’s arguments and changes to the claims (e.g. see applicant’s arguments beginning on pg. 8 of the response of 1/9/2026 regarding the obviousness rejection and pg. 12 for the double patenting rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p.
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 Dees can be reached on 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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791