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 .
Detailed Action
Status of Application
1. Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. 1.114, filed 10 February 2026 and the Amendment and Applicants’ Arguments/Remarks, all filed 5 January 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are currently pending. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are examined on the merits within.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 10 February 2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
3. Applicants’ arguments, filed 5 January 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. Rejection of Hansen (WO2006/072252) in view of Faltys et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0032021) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new Rejection is made in view of Hansen and Rosendahl et al. (European Journal of Physiology, 2016).
New Rejections
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (WO2006/072252) in view of Rosendahl et al. (European Journal of Physiology, 2016).
Hansen teaches compositions for treating hypocalcemia in cows. See page 1. The composition comprises at least 30 grams of calcium and other minerals, vitamins, additives, carriers and excipients. See page 12. Hansen teaches that a bullet comprising 57.9 % CaCl2 x 6H2O, 23.2% CaSO4 x ½ H2O, 14.4% water, and 4.5% glyceryl PEG ricinolate (coating material) is known. See page 4. The composition comprises a calcium source in a water soluble, dispersible or disintegrable casing composed of cellulose or starch material (i.e., binder excipient). See page 8. The composition comprises at least 30 g of calcium per casing or capsule. See page 12.
Hansen does not teach menthol.
Rosendahl et al. teach menthol or thymol stimulated the I in Na+ or NH4 + containing solutions in a dose-dependent manner and modulated transepithelial Ca2+ fluxes. See abstract. The two lower concentrations of menthol (10 and 100 μmol·l−1) significantly enhanced the net absorption of Ca2+ by the ruminal epithelium, via mechanisms that probably involve both a direct action on TRP channels and secondary effects on barrier-forming proteins of the paracellular pathway. See page 1349.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to add menthol to the formulation of Hansen to improve calcium absorption. One would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a more effective formulation in the treatment of hypocalcemia in ruminants. It would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the amounts of each ingredient within known effective amounts and ratios to achieve the desired consistency of product and improvement of calcium absorption.
Correspondence
6. No claims are allowed at this time.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WORSHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-5).
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, Robert Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/JESSICA WORSHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights