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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 14, 18-19 and 21-23 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15-17 and 20 have been cancelled. The previous 103 rejections have been modified in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2: insert “of the diet composition” after “1000 kcal”
Claim 21, line 1: insert “the method for preparing a” before “methionine-restricted”
Claim 21, line 2: insert “of the diet composition” after “1000 kcal”
Claim 22, line 1: insert “the method for preparing a” before “methionine-restricted”
Claim 22, line 2: insert “of the diet composition” after “1000 kcal”
Claim 23, line 2: insert “of the diet composition” after “1000 kcal”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 9, 12, 14, 18-19 and 21-23 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.
Claims 1 and 14 recite: “wherein the cysteine is present in an amount such that the weight ratio of the methionine:cysteine is from 1:2.5 to 1:3.87 w/w” (claim 1) and “wherein the methionine and the cysteine are in an amount such that the weight ratio of methionine:cysteine is from 1:2.5 to 1:3.87 w/w.” The specification provides support for a methionine to cysteine ratio of 1:0.5-1:2.5 in paragraphs [15], [18] and [47]. Example 1 provides individual data points for ratios of 1:0.96, 1:3.87 and 1:2.77. However, this is not sufficient disclosure to support the instantly claimed range of from 1:2.5-1:3.87 of methionine to cysteine w/w and thus the new claim limitations add new matter to the claims. The new matter should be deleted from claims 1 and 14.
Claims 4, 9, 12 and 23 are rejected here because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected here because they depend from claim 14.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected here because they incorporate all the limitations of claim 1.
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, 4, 9, 12, 14, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacotte (WO 2017/216240 A1) in view of Animal Fixer (Popular Dog Food Calorie Contents, 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20161221231038/http://animalfixer.com/articles/dog-canned-Pouch-calorie.pdf) and Sanderson (Nutritional management of heart disease, 2008, https://www.dvm360.com/view/nutritional-management-heart-disease-proceedings).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 23; Lacotte discloses a wet pet food having enhanced palatability comprising a wet pet food palatability enhancing composition (a diet composition) (p2, lines 25-26). Lacotte discloses dogs and cats are the preferred pets in the context of the invention (p4, lines 6-7). Lacotte discloses the wet pet food palatability enhancing composition comprises one or more free amino acids and the free amino acids can be methionine and cysteine (p9, lines 12-15 and p10, lines 4-10). Lacotte discloses said one or more free amino acids are in an amount from 2-30 wt% based on the total weight of said wet pet foot palatability enhancing composition (p10, lines 11-13).
Based on Lacotte’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected between more than 2% to less than 30% methionine and from between less than 2% to less than 30% cysteine, which encompasses the claimed ratio of methionine to cysteine of 1:2.5 to 1:3.87. 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.
Lacotte discloses the wet pet food is a chunk-in-gravy product (solids-in gravy form) (p13, lines 13-14).
Lacotte does not disclose the quantity of methionine per 1000 kcal of the diet composition.
Animal Fixer discloses an adult dog food with chunks in gravy has a calorie content of 113 kcal/5.3 oz (p15, last table: Pedigree Little Champions Adult, Chunks in gravy w/ Beef). Animal Fixer’s 113kcal/5.3 oz is equivalent to 1000 kcal per 1.39 kg of the chunks in gravy dog food.
Lacotte discloses the wet pet food can comprise from 0.5-4% of the palatability enhancing composition (p13, lines 17-20) and the palatability enhancing composition can comprise one or more free amino acids are in an amount from 2-30 wt% based on the total weight of said wet pet foot palatability enhancing composition (p10, lines 11-13).
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 chunks in gravy pet food of Lacotte with the calorie density of the chunks in gravy dog food of Animal Fixer since both are drawn to chunks in gravy dog foods and Animal Fixer discloses the calorie density is appropriate for dogs consuming chunks in gravy type foods.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Using the information disclosed by Lacotte and Animal Fixer, the range of methionine in 1000 kcal of wet chunks in gravy is calculated. See results in Table 1 below.
As can be seen in Table 1 above, the combination of Lacotte in view of Animal Fixer discloses a methionine range of 0.14-16.68 g methionine in 1000 kcal of the chinks in gravy pet food composition, which encompasses the claim 1 range of 0.25-0.87 g methionine per 1000 kcal of the diet composition, the claim 4 amount of about 0.55g methionine per 1000 kcal of the diet composition and the claim 23 amount of about 0.71g/1000 kcal of the diet composition. 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.
As to the claim 1 language “for an adult dog”, this is the preamble of the claim and only states the purpose or intended use for the invention and is therefore not a claim limitation. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02 II. Given the fact that the prior art teaches a food composition for dogs with all of the components of the composition of the instant claims, the preamble is not considered to further limit the claim.
As to the claim 1 language “a methionine restricted diet,” this is the preamble of the claim and only states the purpose or intended use for the invention and is therefore not a claim limitation. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02 II. Given the fact that the prior art teaches a food composition for dogs with claimed amount of methionine of the instant claims, the preamble is not considered to further limit the claim.
Regarding the amount of taurine in the diet composition, Lacotte discloses the palatability enhancing composition is a blend of materials comprising proteins, peptides, amino acids and nutrients (p5, lines 30-33).
Lacotte does not disclose the wet pet food includes taurine.
Sanderson, in the field of dog health, discloses dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs is linked to a taurine deficiency. Sanderson discloses the dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs can be reversed with taurine supplementation (bottom of p3-top of p4). Sanderson discloses the recommended dose of taurine is 500-1000 mg by mouth three times a day (TID) (bottom of p4).
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 wet pet food of Lacotte with the taurine diet supplementation of Sanderson since the taurine supplement of Sanderson is known to reverse dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs.
As to the quantity of taurine in the diet composition, Sanderson discloses a quantity 500-1000 mg by mouth three time per day. However, it is known in the art that the quantity of taurine is a result effective variable, change the amount of taurine and it changes the risk of dilated cardiomyopathy. 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 product disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Lacotte disclose the wet pet food can include X preparation ingredients, which includes nutrients (p15, lines 1-9) and the nutrient can be choline (p8, lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 12, Lacotte discloses the wet pet food mas a moisture content no less than 50% (p4, line 16).
Regarding claims 14, 21 and 22; Lacotte discloses method for making a wet pet food comprising combining a wet pet food and a wet pet food palatability enhancing ingredient to form a wet pet food in a chunks in gravy product (p13, last line – p14, line 23). Lacotte discloses dogs and cats are the preferred pets in the context of the invention (p4, lines 6-7). Lacotte discloses the wet pet food palatability enhancing composition comprises one or more free amino acids and the free amino acids can be methionine and cysteine (p9, lines 12-15 and p10, lines 4-10). Lacotte discloses said one or more free amino acids are in an amount from 2-30 wt% based on the total weight of said wet pet foot palatability enhancing composition (p10, lines 11-13).
Based on Lacotte’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected between more than 2% to less than 30% methionine and from between less than 2% to less than 30% cysteine, which encompasses the claimed ratio of methionine to cysteine of 1:2.5 to 1:3.87. 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.
Lacotte does not disclose the quantity of methionine per 1000 kcal of the diet composition.
Animal Fixer discloses an adult dog food with chunks in gravy has a calorie content of 113 kcal/5.3 oz (p15, last table: Pedigree Little Champions Adult, Chunks in gravy w/ Beef). Animal Fixer’s 113kcal/5.3 oz is equivalent to 1000 kcal per 1.39 kg of the chunks in gravy dog food.
Lacotte discloses the wet pet food can comprise from 0.5-4% of the palatability enhancing composition (p13, lines 17-20) and the palatability enhancing composition can comprise one or more free amino acids are in an amount from 2-30 wt% based on the total weight of said wet pet foot palatability enhancing composition (p10, lines 11-13).
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 chunks in gravy pet food of Lacotte with the calorie density of the chunks in gravy dog food of Animal Fixer since both are drawn to chunks in gravy dog foods and Animal Fixer discloses the calorie density is appropriate for dogs consuming chunks in gravy type foods.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Using the information disclosed by Lacotte and Animal Fixer, the range of methionine in 1000 kcal of wet chunks in gravy is calculated. See results in Table 1 below.
As can be seen in Table 1 above, the combination of Lacotte in view of Animal Fixer discloses a methionine range of 0.14-16.68 g methionine in 1000 kcal of the chinks in gravy pet food composition, which encompasses the claim 14 range of 0.25-0.87 g methionine per 1000 kcal of the diet composition, the claim 21 range of about 0.55g methionine per 1000 kcal of the diet composition and the claim 22 range of about 0.71 g methionine per 1000 kcal of the diet composition. 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.
Regarding the amount of taurine in the diet composition, Lacotte discloses the palatability enhancing composition is a blend of materials comprising proteins, peptides, amino acids and nutrients (p5, lines 30-33).
Lacotte does not disclose the wet pet food includes taurine.
Sanderson, in the field of dog health, discloses dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs is linked to a taurine deficiency. Sanderson discloses the dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs can be reversed with taurine supplementation (bottom of p3-top of p4). Sanderson discloses the recommended dose of taurine is 500-1000 mg by mouth three times a day (TID) (bottom of p4).
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 wet pet food of Lacotte with the taurine diet supplementation of Sanderson since the taurine supplement of Sanderson is known to reverse dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs.
As to the quantity of taurine in the diet composition, Sanderson discloses a quantity 500-1000 mg by mouth three time per day. However, it is known in the art that the quantity of taurine is a result effective variable, the change the amount of taurine and it changes the risk of dilated cardiomyopathy. 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 product disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
As to the claim 14 language “a methionine restricted diet,” this is the preamble of the claim and only states the purpose or intended use for the invention and is therefore not a claim limitation. In method claims, a claimed intended use must result in manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02 II. Given the fact that the prior art teaches method of making a food composition for dogs with claimed amount of methionine of the instant claims, the preamble is not considered to further limit the claim.
Regarding claims 18-19, Lacotte in view of Animal Fixer and Sanderson discloses the diet according to claim 1 as discussed above, which is incorporated here by reference. Lacotte discloses providing the wet pet food to a pet and feeding said wet pet food to the pet (p16, lines 26-29).
As to the claim 18 language “for promoting longevity in a dog” and the claim 19 language “for preventing dilated cardiomyopathy in a dog”, these limitations are deemed to be an intended use so far as the process is concerned. In process claims, a claimed intended use must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP 2111.02 II. Given that the method of feeding the diet composition of Lacotte is identical to that of the instant claims reciting only a feeding step, it meets the intended use of the claimed process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 January 2026 have been fully considered. To the extent they apply to the above rejections they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lacotte is not analogous art. Applicant argues there is nothing in Lacotte that suggests a methionine-restricted diet composition. Applicant argues the instant invention solves a problem not contemplated by the prior art and is therefore not in the same field of endeavor as Lacotte. Remarks pp5-8.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Lacotte is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lacotte is drawn to pet foods comprising methionine and cysteine which is a chunk in gravy style pet food as in the instant claims. It is noted the claims are drawn to a diet comprising the listed ingredients, therefore additional ingredients are allowed in the composition, including those disclosed by Lacotte. Lacotte discloses the pets of the invention include dogs and cats (p4, lines 6-7).
In response to applicant's argument that the instant claims methionine restriction can be used to prevent dilated cardiomyopathy and also addresses the costs associated with a methionine supplemented diet solution, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the instant case, the prior art discloses the composition of claims 1 and 14 therefore product and method of the prior art would provide the same advantages as those of the instant claims.
Applicant argues Lacotte in view of Animal fixer does not disclose a methionine restricted diet composition suitable for dogs. Applicant argues Lacotte discloses a wet pet food meant for cats and one would not be motivated to combine the dog food of Animal fixer with the cat food of Lacotte. Remarks pp8-9.
This argument is not persuasive. Lacotte discloses wet pet food, where pets includes dogs and cats (Abstract and p4, lines 3-5), the fact that Lacotte and Animal Fixer are both drawn to dog foods/pet foods is motivation to combine the references. In response to applicant's argument that Lacotte does not disclose a reduced methionine diet, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The prior art discloses the claimed amounts and ratios of methionine in a pet food.
Applicant argues the amount disclosed by Lacotte encompasses quantities of methionine higher than the instant claims. Applicant argues the instant invention only caused beneficial shifts in metabolism in the dog when the diet contained methionine in less than 1.37g/1000kcal and Lacotte does not disclose these low levels of methionine for a methionine restricted diet. Applicant argues a skilled artisan would not be motivated by Lacotte or Animal Fixer to arrive at the critical rage of methionine and cysteine needed in the diet. Remarks p9.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Lacotte does not disclose a restricted methionine diet with beneficial shifts in metabolism, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As can be seen in Table 1 on p4 of the Office Action dated 11/19/2025. In the instant case, Lacotte in view of Animal Fixer discloses methionine from 0.14-16.68 g/1000kg of animal food which encompasses the claimed range. Additionally, the data that Applicant points to in order to demonstrate the benefits of the instant invention and the criticality of the range is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Example 1 of the instant specification does not specify if there is any taurine included in the diet and if so how much taurine is included. The instant claims require taurine from 0.125-0.5g per 1000 kcal of the diet composition.
Applicant argues the instant invention provides taurine at a lower level than disclosed by Sanderson. Applicant argues Example 1 in the specification shows dogs receiving the diet of the instant application saw unchanged taurine levels. Sanderson discloses quantities for treating DCM as opposed to preventing DCM. Remarks pp9-10.
This argument is not persuasive. The rejection is based on a results effective variable argument with respect to the inclusion of taurine in the diet. The rejection does not rely on Sanderson to disclose the specific amount of taurine. As discussed previously, Sanderson discloses dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs is linked to a taurine deficiency. Sanderson discloses the dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs can be reversed with taurine supplementation (bottom of p3-top of p4). Sanderson discloses the recommended dose of taurine is 500-1000 mg by mouth three times a day (TID) (bottom of p4).
Additionally the amount of taurine used in Example 1 in the specification does not seem to be disclosed and therefore arguments with respect to Example 1 and the amount of taurine in the composition are moot.
Applicant argues unexpected therapeutic advantage. Applicant points to Examples 1 and 2 to demonstrate the unexpected advantages of the product and method of the instant claims. Remarks p10-12.
This argument is not persuasive. Example 1 and 2 in the specification do not disclose the amount of taurine (if any) included in the test diets. The instant claims require taurine from 0.125-0.5g per 1000 kcal of the diet composition. Therefore the data presented in Examples 1 and 2 is not commensurate in scope with the claims and cannot be used to argue unexpected results compared to the prior art.
Conclusion
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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/C.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights