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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: between “depurated” and “purged”, the claim should read “or” not “to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 6 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the amount of one or more off-flavor producing compound” in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as Claim 1 does not specifically recite “one or more off-flavor producing compound”. Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lei et al. (CN 104304830), made of record by Applicant.
A machine translation of the CN document is used below and has been provided to the Applicant.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, Lei teaches a method for decreasing off-flavor in an aquatic species for human or animal consumption, said method comprising: providing biomass derived from a microorganism to an aquatic species in an aquaculture production system, wherein off-flavor is reduced in edible tissues of the aquatic species, in comparison to the aquatic species grown under identical conditions in the absence of the biomass, as Lei teaches a method and a feed additive for removing the muddy or earthy taste of freshwater fish and its application (Paragraph 2 of machine translation), as Lei teaches providing a feed comprising yeast cell wall and yeast contents (Paragraph 8 of the machine translation), both of which are biomass derived from a microorganism, where the biomass is provided in the form of a feed ingredient that is consumed by the aquatic species (Paragraphs 8 and 60 of the machine translation).
Lei teaches that they discovered that compounds that give freshwater fish an earthy smell mainly include geosmin and 2-MIB, along with other compounds and that the earthy smell is mainly caused by geosmin and MIB, and is most pronounced in the subcutaneous, lipid-rich tissues of the fish (Paragraph 18 of the machine translation). Lei teaches that carp were used for the experiment that were winter-aged fish raised in ponds, therefore meeting the limitation of the aquaculture production system, and were involved in an experiment involving a control group fed ordinary feed without additives to remove the earthy smell, experiment group 1 with formulation of the inventive feed at a weight percentage of 0.5% and experiment group 2 with formulation of the inventive feed at a weight percentage of 0.8% and experiment group 3 with formulation of the inventive feed at a weight percentage of 1% (Paragraph 67 of machine translation). Lei teaches that the survival rate and growth rate of all carp in the experimental feed groups with the addition of the additive to remove the earthy smell were significantly improved (Paragraph 71). The fish meat was steamed and then tasted by evaluators who gave a rating on a scale of degree of 0-7 of earthy smell (Paragraph 77). Lei teaches that the results showed that the earthy smell of carp raised on the experimental feed with added deodorizing feed additives was significantly lower than that of the control group, and teaches that adding an additive to the feed to remove the earthy smell of freshwater fish can reduce the earthy smell of farmed carp, and the removal effect is better with the increase of the amount added (Paragraph 80). Lei teaches that the results show that adding an additive to the feed to remove the earthy smell of freshwater fish could significantly reduce the content of geosmin and 2 MIB in farmed carp meat (Paragraph 83). Since Lei teaches that the earthy smell is mainly caused by geosmin and MIB, and is most pronounced in the subcutaneous, lipid-rich tissues of the fish (Paragraph 18 of the machine translation), and also teaches the levels of these off-flavors were reduced through the use of the disclosed additive as compared to the control group, Lei teaches the limitation where the off-flavor is reduced in edible tissues of the aquatic species, in comparison to aquatic species grown under identical conditions in the absence of the biomass.
Regarding Claim 2, since Lei teaches reduction or removal of the off-flavors and removing earthy smell in the carp meat, this meets the limitation of the biomass not masking off-flavor or altering the natural flavor of the aquatic species.
Regarding Claim 7, Lei does not teach the method involves depuration or purging to reduce off-flavor as the method involves use of the disclosed additive, as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12, as set forth above, Lei teaches the fish meat from the control group and three experimental groups was steamed and then tasted by evaluators who gave a rating on a scale of degree of earthy smell (Paragraph 77). Lei teaches that the results showed that the earthy smell of carp raised on the experimental feed with added feed additives was significantly lower than that of the control group, and teaches that adding an additive to the feed to remove the earthy smell of freshwater fish can reduce the earthy smell of farmed carp, and the removal effect is better with the increase of the amount added (Paragraph 80). Lei’s teaching of the taste test by evaluators who gave a rating describing the degree of earthy smell on a scale of 0-7 meets the limitation of an edible portion of the aquatic species comprises one or more improved taste profile characteristics as measured by a descriptive taste test panel, in comparison to the aquatic species grown under identical conditions in the absence of the biomass.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 5, 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (CN 104304830), made of record by Applicant.
Regarding Claims 5, 6, and 10, Lei is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Lei is taken as cited above and teaches Lei teaches that Applicant discovered that compounds that give freshwater fish an earthy smell mainly include geosmin and 2-MIB, along with other compounds and that the earthy smell is mainly caused by geosmin and MIB, and is most pronounced in the subcutaneous, lipid-rich tissues of the fish (Paragraph 18 of the machine translation). Lei teaches that adding an additive to the feed to remove the earthy smell of freshwater fish can reduce the earthy smell of farmed carp, and the removal effect is better with the increase of the amount added (Paragraph 80). While Lei does not specifically teach an amount of one or more off-flavor producing compounds is decreased in the tissues by at least about 10 ppt, Lei does teach that the removal effect of the off-flavors increased with increased amount of additive fed. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the aquaculture art to have determined the optimal amount of feed additive to give, in order to provide the most desired off-flavor removal affect seen. In addition, where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in the amount of decrease of off-flavor producing compound involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II. Regarding Claim 10, Lei teaches that the survival rate and growth rate of all carp in the experimental feed groups with the addition of the additive to remove the earthy smell were significantly improved (Paragraph 71). Therefore, Lei teaches that the additive improved growth rate of the aquatic species and reduced off-flavor in the carp meat, as compared to aquatic species not fed the additive. Therefore, Lei is seen to teach or render obvious that the rate of addition of the biomass to the aquatic production system, or pond, is adjusted to minimize reduction of growth rate of the aquatic species, while optimizing the reduction of off-flavor, because Lei teaches the growth rate is improved upon feeding of the inventive additive.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (CN 104304830), made of record by Applicant in view of Tucker.
Regarding Claim 8, Lei is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 1 and does not specifically teach where the aquatic species is depurated or purged to further reduce off-flavor.
Tucker teaches of development of off-flavors in fish grown in a pond (Page 8), and teaches that blue-green off flavors include 2 MIB and geosmin and are caused by blue-green algae (Page 2). Tucker teaches of various methods of reducing off-flavors in fish prior to harvest, including moving the fish to another pond, where this is called “purging the pond” (Page 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Lei to have included an additional step of purging in order to further reduce off-flavors of geosmin and 2-MIB in the fish prior to harvest.
Regarding Claim 9, and relating to the rejection of Claim 8, as set forth above, Lei teaches that growth rates were improved for the carp in the experimental groups as compared to the control group, which is the aquatic species grown under identical conditions but without the biomass. Therefore, in light of the teachings of Lei, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected higher weights at a given time for the carp in the experimental groups in light of their faster growth rate, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably expected the weights of the experimental group to be higher than aquatic species grown under identical conditions in the absence of the biomass and purged to reduce off-flavor.
While the prior art does not teach where purging would attain the same level reduced level of off-flavors as the aquatic species grown in the presence of the biomass, since Lei teaches increasing levels of the inventive additive resulted in an increase in reduction of off-flavors, and purging methods are also well known in reducing off-flavors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used both methods and determine the most optimal reduction of the known off-flavors of geosmin and 2-MIB.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al. (CN 104304830), made of record by Applicant in view of Dequito, et al. (2015) and Sarlin and Phillip (2016).
Regarding Claim 11, Lei is taken as cited above and teaches yeast used in the additive, but does not teach where the microorganism is a methylotrophic bacterial species.
Dequito teaches a list of bacteria that are known to degrade 2-MIB and includes Candida spp. along with other bacterial species such as Pseudomonas spp. (Table 1, Parge 88), the latter of which Applicant discloses is a methylotrophic bacterial species. Sarlin and Phillip teach that Candida spp. are yeast that are known to be used as fishmeal substitutes (Page 55). Dequito teaches that specifically Pseudomonas is effective at degrading 2-MIB in freshwater aquaculture pond (Page 6, conclusions). Therefore, in light of the teachings of Dequito, it would have been obvious to substitute one of the disclosed methylotrophic bacterial species, such as Pseudomonas, for the yeast in the feed additive of Lei whose objective it is to remove or reduce off-flavors including 2-MIB.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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 at 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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 11/21/2025