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
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated June 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33, 37, 39 and 41-46 are pending.
Claims 5-12, 15-20, 22, 24, 26-28*, 30, 32, 34-36*, 38 and 40 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 21, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33, 37 and 39 are currently amended.
Claims 41-46 are new. Claims 41 and 42 depend from claim 1 and are grouped with Group I.
Claims 25, 29, 31, 33, 37, 39 and 43-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 21, 23, 41 and 42 as filed on June 1, 2026 are under consideration.
This action is made FINAL.
37 CFR 1.121 – Manner of Making Amendments
With regard to claims 26-28, 34 and 35, as per MPEP § 714 II C (C) canceled and not entered claims must be listed by only the claim number and status identifier, without presenting the text of the claims.
Withdrawn Objections / Rejections
In view of the amendment of the claims, all previous claim rejections are withdrawn, all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn, all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(d) are withdrawn, all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are withdrawn, and all previous claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Vibrio spp.” should be italicized consistent with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 13, 14, 21, 23, 41 and 42 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 1 as currently amended recites 10 to 20% w/v, where w/v refers to the volume per mass of feed formulation. Applicant’s Remarks do not identify support for any of the amendments. With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2163. While the specification discloses amounts in w/v (e.g., paragraph [0117]), there is no disclosure that w/v refers to volume per mass. This is new matter. Claim 1 as currently amended further recites a statistically significant increase in survival. While the specification discloses an exemplary embodiment drawn to survival (e.g., paragraphs [0187]-[0189]), there is no disclosure of statistical significance of the disclosed methods. This is new matter. Claims 2-4, 13, 14, 21, 23, 41 and 42 are included in this rejection because they depend from claim 1 and thus they also recite new matter. Claims 3 and 21 are also included in this rejection because they recite amounts in w/v which are defined in claim 1 as currently amended as meaning the volume per mass of feed formulation rather than weight per volume as understood from the plain meaning. This is new matter. Claim 23 is also included in this rejection because there is no disclosure of at least 90% survival. While the specification exemplifies an embodiment drawn to survival (e.g., Figure 18), there is no basis for extrapolating the result of 93% obtained for the methods of paragraph [0187]-[0189] to encompass the range of at least 90%. This is new matter.
Claims 3 and 4 as currently amended recite amounts such that the total is less than 100%. Applicant’s Remarks do not identify support for any of the amendments. With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2163.
Claim 14 as currently amended recites volume ratios. Applicant’s Remarks do not identify support for any of the amendments. With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2163.
Priority
The earliest date potentially available to all pending claims is October 16, 2020 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed December 1, 2025.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 21, 23, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppien-Fox et al. (US 2020/0068922, published March 5, 2020, filed August 28, 2019) as evidenced by Wikipedia “Cinnamaldehyde,” last edited December 10, 2024, of record and as evidenced by Han et al. “Characterization and pathogenicity of acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease in natural mutants, pirABvp (-) V. parahaemolyticus, and pirABvp (+) V. campbellii strains,” Aquaculture 470:84-90, 2017.
Koppien-Fox teaches feed compositions for aquaculture species inclusive of shrimp comprising 5 to 25 wt% (approximately equivalent to vol% for products of similar density) of one or more essential oils selected from the group inclusive of cinnamon essential oil or/and oregano essential oil (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1, 3, 14; paragraphs [0022]-[0025], [0043], Example 4), as required by instant claims 2-4, 13, 21. Cinnamon oil can comprise about 85 to 90% cinnamaldehyde (paragraph [0046]) and cinnamon oil encompasses synthetic cinnamon oil comprising synthetic cinnamaldehyde (paragraph [0048]), as required by instant claim 21. As evidenced by Wikipedia, cinnamaldehyde is also known as trans-cinnamaldehyde.
The percentages can be greater than or less than the ranges enumerated above (paragraph [0058]).
Koppien-Fox further teaches an embodiment comprising an essential oil fraction comprising synthetic cinnamaldehyde and oregano essential oil; the oregano may comprise carvacrol (paragraph [0074]), as required by instant claims 2, 13. The essential oil can comprise about 0 to 50% oregano essential oil and about 0 to 50% cinnamon essential oil (encompasses ratios of 1:1); the cinnamon essential oil can optionally comprise synthetic cinnamaldehyde (paragraph [0075]), as required by instant claim 14.
Koppien-Fox exemplifies an embodiment drawn to the efficacy of the feed additive for promoting growth and resistance to Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection in shrimp (Example 4). As evidenced by Han, two Vibrio parahaemolyticus virulence genes, pirAvp and pirBvp, are known to encode a toxin that causes acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (abstract, first line), as required by instant claims 41, 42. High dose diet B had numerically greater survival than control A but not statistically significant while the highest dose diet C had significantly greater survival than control A (paragraphs [0129]-[0130]; Figures 8-13, in particular 13):
PNG
media_image1.png
320
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, as required by instant claim 23.
Koppien-Fox does not specifically teach or exemplify an embodiment comprising 10 to 20% w/v trans cinnamaldehyde as required by claim 1 or comprising 20% w/v as required by claim 21 and therefore anticipation cannot be found. However, Koppien-Fox teaches feed compositions comprising 5 to 25 wt% essential oils inclusive of cinnamon essential oil and Koppien-Fox teaches cinnamon oil can comprise about 85 to 90% cinnamaldehyde or/and cinnamon oil can encompass cinnamaldehyde. Therefore, Koppien-Fox renders obvious compositions as instantly claimed because [i]n 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 re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the desired result of producing a statistically significant increase in the survival of shrimp as required by claim 1 and the increase in survival of at least 90% as required by claim 23, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See MPEP 2111.04. Because Koppien-Fox renders obvious compositions as instantly claimed, the compositions of Koppien-Fox necessarily achieve these results because a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01. In further support of this presumption, Koppien-Fox exemplifies an embodiment drawn to the efficacy as a feed additive for promoting growth and resistance to Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection in shrimp and illustrates survival in excess of 90%.
Regarding claims 2-4, 13 and 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate feed compositions according to Koppien-Fox comprising cinnamon essential oil or/and cinnamaldehyde in combination with another essential oil inclusive of oregano oil because Koppien-Fox expressly contemplates combinations comprising about 0 to 50% cinnamon essential oil or/and cinnamaldehyde in combination with about 0 to 50% oregano essential oil. It would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the total and relative amounts thereof in the feed compositions in order to optimize the efficacy thereof as a feed additive for promoting growth and resistance to Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection in shrimp because Koppien-Fox expressly exemplifies such. It is prima facie obvious to optimize such result-effective variables within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 41 and 42 further limiting the desired results of claim 1, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See MPEP 2111.04. Because Koppien-Fox renders obvious compositions as instantly claimed, the compositions of Koppien-Fox necessarily achieve these results because a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01. In further support of this presumption, Koppien-Fox exemplifies an embodiment drawn to the efficacy as a feed additive for promoting growth and resistance to Vibrio parahaemolyticus infection in shrimp and illustrates survival in excess of 90%. As evidenced by Han, two Vibrio parahaemolyticus virulence genes, pirAvp and pirBvp, are known to encode a toxin that causes acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (abstract, first line).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
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 ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID BLANCHARD can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/ALISSA PROSSER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights