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 the Application
Claims 24-26, 28, 31-33, 36, 38 and 45-49 are pending. Claims 1-23, 27, 29-30, 34-35, 37 and 39-44 have been cancelled. The previous 103 rejections have been modified in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Duplicate Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 24 be found allowable, claim 38 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 24-26, 28, 31-33, 36, 38 and 45-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitcenda (US 4,600,585 Feeding regimen for minimizing weaning stress, 1986) in view of Lanter (EP 0479555 A2, 1992, Extruded, high-fat animal feed nugget), Laarman (Effects of starch content of calf starter on growth and rumen pH in Holstein calves during the weaning transition, Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 95, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 4478-4487, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4822), Burr (US 2015/0327578 A1, Methods of feeding high fat poured feed blocks) and Sorenson (Caring for Calves in Confinement, Jan. 2017, https://www.agproud.com/articles/49530-caring-for-calves-in-confinement) as evidenced by Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau (Whole shelled corn, https://augustacoop.com/wp-content/uploads/product_images/23062.pdf).
Regarding claims 24, 28 and 38 Vitcenda discloses a method of feeding newborn bovines (ruminant beef or dairy calves) comprising the bovine ingesting a solid milk replacer (first solid feed composition) in pellet form in addition to a dry grain (second solid feed composition) (col 2, lines 5-21). Vitcenda discloses the solid milk replacer pellet comprises 5-33% fat (col 2, lines 22-23), which overlaps with the claimed range of 20-90% fat. 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.
Vitcenda discloses the calves were fed colostrum for the first three days, thereafter fed 8 oz of solid milk replacer pellets up to 42 days of age. The calves were fed liquid milk replacer up to 14 days of age and were fed grain for days 15-42 (col 2, Example II). This disclosure of Vitcenda meets the claim limitation of administering to the ruminant calf during and/or after its weaning period a solid feed combination.
Vitcenda discloses bovine calves typically undergo shock when fluid milk material feeding is terminated (weaning) which also includes a decrease in weight gain or a decrease in weight at the time of weaning (weaning dip). However, during the present process (administering the solid milk replacer pellets) the weaning shock does not take place and the bovine continues to gain weight at a very rapid rate (col 1, lines 50-59). Vitcenda also discloses the milk replacer pellet causes some fermentation in the rumen thereby stimulating the development of the rumen (col 1, line 66-col 2, line 1). This disclosure by Vitcenda meets the claim limitation of: wherein the administering reduces weaning stress of the ruminant calf during and or after the ruminant calf’s weaning period, reduces weaning dip in a ruminant calf during the ruminant calf’s weaning period and stimulates maturation of a rumen of the ruminant calf during the weaning period.
Vitcenda further discloses the solid milk replacer pellets may further include other nutritional materials as desired (col 2, lines 28-32).
Vitcenda does not disclose the other nutritional materials in the solid milk replacer pellets include a fermentable feed ingredient comprising starch or fermentable fiber.
Lanter, in the field of animal feed supplements, discloses cows fed with treatment B, which comprises 30% nuggets and 70% pellets (a solid feed combination comprising a first and second solid feed composition) (page 5-6, Example 2). Lanter also discloses the nuggets (the first solid feed composition) comprise 24.75% bleachable fancy tallow and corn flour (page 6, lines 3-4 and page 5, lines 10-16). Lanter’s corn flour is considered to meet the claim limitation of a fermentable feed ingredient comprising starch and fermentable fiber. Lanter discloses the nuggets of the invention are an excellent energy source and have the advantage of improving the palatability of various finished feed products (p2, line 55-p3, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the solid milk replacer pellets of Vitcenda with the corn flour starch of Lanter since both compositions are directed toward making high fat pellets for ingestion by bovines and Lanter discloses the high fat nuggets have the advantage of being a high energy source and improving the palatability of the finished feed product. The corn flour starch of Lanter is considered to meet the claim limitation of a fermentable feed ingredient comprising starch and fermentable fiber.
Vitcenda discloses the solid milk replacer pellet is fed alongside a grain (col 2, lines 5-21).
Vitcenda does not disclose which grain (second solid feed composition) is fed to the calves.
Laarman, in the field of starter feeds for bovine calves, discloses Holstein bull calves fed starter diets disclosed in Table 1 (pp 4479 Animals and Diets -4480 Table 1). Laarman discloses starter diets for calves comprising ground corn (Table 1), which comprises starch and fermentable fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the solid milk replacer pellets and grain of Vitcenda with the ground corn of Laarman since they are both directed to diets for calves.
Vitcenda discloses the calves are fed 8 ounces (226 g) of the solid milk replacer pellet and 4 ounces (114 g) of grain (col 2, lines 13-18), which is 12 ounces (340 g) of combined solid milk replacer pellet and grain. Vitcenda’s 226 g (8 ounces) of solid milk replacer pellet comprises 5-33% fat (11-75g of fat). As evidenced by Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau, corn comprises 3.5% fat (p1). Therefore by selecting Laarman’s ground corn as the grain of Vitcenda’s calf grain, the 114 g (4 ounces) of grain comprise 4 g of fat. The combined fat from of the solid milk replacer pellet (11-75g fat) and the ground corn (4 g fat) yields a total of 15-79 g of fat in the total 340 g (12 ounces) which yields a fat content of 4-23% fat, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5-20%. 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.
Vitcenda does not disclose the fat is a rumen inert fat selected from partially or fully hydrogenated fats or fatty acids.
Burr, in the field of supplemental animal feedstuffs, discloses a composition comprising a high fat pellet with a total fat content of at least 40% [0007] which can also include grain products (fermentable feed ingredients) [0045]. Burr also discloses the high fat pellets can include animal and plant sources of fat and hydrogenated analogs thereof, including hydrogenated vegetable fat [0044]. Burr discloses an example where cow-calf pairs were administered the feedstuff of the invention [0093].
Burr does not state the calves of the cow-calf pairs are excluded from access to the feedstuff and Sorenson discloses keeping cow-calf pairs in a confined area can be cost effective and calves can eat the same diet as the cows (p1, para 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the solid milk replacer pellet of Vitcenda with the high fat pellet of Burr containing hydrogenated vegetable fats since it is disclosed that hydrogenated vegetable fats are suitable for inclusion in high fat pellets for ruminants.
Regarding claim 25, as discussed above, Vitcenda in view of Lanter, Laarman, Sorenson and Burr discloses the solid milk replacer pellet (first feed composition) is fed with barley (second feed composition). As evidenced by Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau, corn comprises 3.5% fat (p1). Therefore by selecting Laarman’s ground corn as the grain of Vitcenda’s calf grain, the second solid feed composition has a fat content of 3.5% which falls within the claimed range of at most 5% fat.
Regarding claim 26, Vitcenda discloses the calves may also be fed hay (col 2, lines 18-20), which meets the claim limitation of a third solid feed composition comprising a fermentable fiber.
Regarding claim 31, Vitcenda discloses the solid milk replacer pellet (first solid feed composition) fed with a grain (second solid feed composition) and free choice of hay (col 2, lines 18-20). Since Vitcenda’s hay is offered as free choice it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to elect to not offer the hay as a feed choice, since it is an optionally available for consumption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have elected to feed the claves of Vitcenda only the solid milk replacer pellet (first solid feed composition) fed with a grain (second solid feed composition), which meets the claim limitation of the solid feed combination consists of a mixture of the first solid feed composition and the second solid feed composition.
Regarding claims 32 and 47, Vitcenda does not disclose the second feed composition (grain) in the form of a pellet.
Laarman, in the field of starter feeds for bovine calves, discloses Holstein bull calves fed starter diets disclosed in Table 1 (p4479 Animals and Diets and p4480 Table 1). Laarman discloses starter diets for calves comprising ground corn in the form of a pellet (Table 1, p4480).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the grain of Vitcenda with the grain comprising pellet of Laarman since both are taught as appropriate for inclusion in the diets of calves.
Regarding claims 33 and 48, Vitcenda discloses the milk supplement replacer pellet as discussed above.
Vitcenda does not disclose the pellet is extruded.
Lanter, in the field of animal feed supplements, discloses cows fed with treatment B, which comprises 30% nuggets and 70% pellets (a solid feed combination comprising a first and second solid feed composition) (page 5-6, Example 2). Lanter also discloses the nuggets (the first solid feed composition) comprise 24.75% bleachable fancy tallow and corn flour (page 6, lines 3-4 and page 5, lines 10-16). Lanter discloses the high fat nuggets are extruded (Example 1, page 5, lines 22 – 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the solid milk replacer pellet of Vitcenda with the extruded high fat nugget of Lanter since both are directed toward solid, high fat dietary supplements for bovines.
Regarding claims 36 and 49, Vitcenda discloses the solid milk replacer pellet (first solid composition) and grain (second solid composition) as discussed above.
Vitcenda does not disclose the ratio of the first solid feed composition relative to the second solid feed composition is in the range of 30:70 to 1:99 on a weight basis.
Lanter, in the field of animal feed supplements, discloses cows fed with treatment B, which comprises 30% nuggets and 70% pellets (a solid feed combination comprising a first and second solid feed composition) (page 5-6, Example 2). Lanter also discloses the nuggets (the first solid feed composition) comprise 24.75% bleachable fancy tallow and corn flour (page 6, lines 3-4 and page 5, lines 10-16).
Lanter further discloses the pellets (the second solid feed composition) are a non-added fat feed supplement containing starch, protein, nitrogen and various vitamin and mineral sources (Example 2, page 6, lines 4-5). Lanter’s starch is considered to meet the claim limitation of one or more fermentable feed ingredients
Lanter discloses cows fed with treatment B, which comprises 30% high fat nuggets (first solid feed composition) and 70% non-added fat pellets (second solid feed composition) (page 5-6, Example 2). This results in a ratio of 30:70 of the first solid feed composition to the second solid feed composition, which falls within the claimed range of 30:70-1:99.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the first and second solid feed compositions of Vitcenda with the ratio of the first and second solid feed compositions of Lanter since both are directed to a combination of a high fat pellet and grain based composition for bovines.
Regarding claim 45, Vitcenda discloses feeding the solid milk replacer pellet and grain from day 14 to day 42 (28 days) in order to avoid weaning stress (Abstract) and allow the calf to gain weight at a very rapid rate (col 1, lines 58-59), which falls outside the claimed duration of one week. However, it is known in the art that the duration of administering a feed is a result effective variable, the longer the duration of administering the feed the more rapid weight gain the calf will experience. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05 II A. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding claim 46, Vitcenda in view of Lanter, Laarman, Burr and Sorenson discloses the method of claim 24 as discussed above.
Vitcenda does not disclose the solid feed combination is fed ad libitum.
Burr, in the field of supplemental animal feedstuffs, discloses a composition comprising a high fat pellet with a total fat content of at least 40% [0007] which can also include grain products (fermentable feed ingredients) [0045]. Burr also discloses the composition can be employed in free choice feeding with ruminants [0073]. Burr’s free choice feeding is considered to meet the claim limitation of being fed ad libitum.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the solid milk replacer pellet of Vitcenda with the free choice feeding of Burr since it is disclosed that it is appropriate to feed solid feed combinations comprising high fat pellets on an ad libitum basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 August 2025 have been fully considered. To the extent they apply to the above rejections they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the pre-weaned and weaning calves of Vitcenda have different biology and physiological processes than other calves and adult bovines. Vitcenda discloses easily digestible solid milk replacer pellets for introducing calves to solid feeds before and during weaning while Lanter is directed to feeds for dairy cows. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that weaning calves and adult bovines require different feed and feed strategies. Lanter discloses the improved palatability but does not attribute it to a specific ingredient. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the references. Remarks pp6-7.
This argument is not persuasive. The claims are drawn to administering a solid feed combination to a calf during its weaning period. Vitcenda is drawn to a solid milk replacer that can be fed to calves from day 3-day 42 of life (col 2, Examples 1 and 2). Vitcenda also discloses the rumen is fully developed at 4-5 weeks of age (28-35 days of life) (col 2, lines 1-4). Therefore the calves of Vitcenda are still consuming the solid milk replacer after their rumen is fully developed (at least days 35-42). Lanter discloses the nuggets of the invention have the advantage of improving the palatability of various finished feed products and ruminants can consume the nuggets without adversely influencing their ability to digest dietary fiber or other nutrient components (p2, line 55-p3, line 1). Lanter does not explicitly state the feedstuff is detrimental to calves. Therefore, despite the possible differences in the development of their digestive tracts, it would have been obvious to try the feed of Lanter in combination with the solid milk replacer of Vitcenda with a reasonable expectation of success because the calves of Vitcenda would have a fully developed rumen, similar to adult cows, at a point when they are being administered the solid milk replacer of Vitcenda modified with the starch and fermentable fiber of Lanter. Additionally the calves would also benefit from the other advantages disclosed by Lanter, including the increased palatability and the high energy source. Additionally Lanter does not teach that the ingredients of the composition are detrimental to weaning calves.
Applicant argues that the Vitcenda’s disclosure that the rumen is fully developed at 4-5 weeks of age conflicts with the instant specification which states that a period of about 7 weeks is needed for rumen development. Applicant points to Pokhrel to disclose the rumen development of rumen in calves. Remarks pp7-8.
This argument is not persuasive. Regardless of when the rumen in calves develops, Vitcenda discloses feed the calves a solid milk replacer and Lanter discloses the corn flour. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the combination of Vitcenda and Lanter because both compositions are directed toward making high fat pellets for ingestion by bovines and Lanter discloses the high fat nuggets have the advantage of being a high energy source and improving the palatability of the finished feed product. Lanter does not disclose the bovine feed is detrimental to weaning calves, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the combination of Vitcenda and Lanter.
Applicant argues Vitcenda is drawn to weaning calves while Burr is drawn to a feed composition for cows. Burr does not teach whether the calves had access to the feed blocks of Burr. Burr’s silence on calves cannot teach a connection between calves and its high fat pellets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to combine the references. Remarks p9.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Vitcenda and Burr are both drawn to high fat pellets for calves and cows. Burr does not disclose the feed for cows, which can also be accessed by the calves of the cow/calf pairs, it detrimental to calves. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tried the combination of Vitcenda and Burr with a reasonable expectation of success because they are both drawn to high fat pellets for calves/cows and Burr discloses that hydrogenated vegetable fats are suitable for inclusion in high fat pellets for ruminants. Burr does not disclose the high fate pellets for ruminants are detrimental to calves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant included Pokhrel, B., et al., "Postnatal Growth and Development of the Rumen: Integrating Physiological and Molecular Insights," Biology, 2024, 13( 4): 269. with the remarks filed 18 August 2025 without including the document in and IDS form. Therefore the reference is included here and made of record.
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 CARRIE GLIMM whose telephone number is (571)272-2839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:30-6:30 ET.
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.
/C.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793