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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and response filed 10/10/2025. Claims 1-11 and 17-24 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11 were amended , claims 12-16 were canceled and new claims 17-24 were added.
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.
Claim 1,2 and dependent claims 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 1 and 2 recite “wherein the low protein diet of the animal feed composition contains at least 5% less crude protein than the crude protein for optimal growth performance of the animal which is contained in an animal feed comprising a breeder recommended standard protein diet.” The broadly claimed limitation is not supported for all animal species in the disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “at least 5% less” does not provide an upper limit. The claim further recites “the available phosphorous concentration associated with enhanced animal performance of the animal feed composition is higher in the animal feed composition as compared to the animal feed comprising the breeder recommended standard protein diet”. The scope is too broad and the disclosure does not provide support or guidance for all species. It is unclear how “the available phosphorus concentration” is effected and “breeder recommended standard protein diet” is insufficient to establish the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Cowieson et al. (WO2015197871A1) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claims 1-11 and 17-24, Cowieson discloses a method for increasing weight gain and/or improving Feed Conversion Ratio of farm animals, the method comprising the step of applying to the animal a feed with an efficient amount of one or more proteolytic enzymes in combination with at least one phytase wherein: (a) the phytase is administered in such amounts that the specific activity in the final feed is between 1000 FYT/kg feed and 4000 FYT/kg feed and (b) the protease is an acid stable serine protease administered in a dosage of between 10000 units/kg feed and 30000 units/kg feed.
Furthermore, in disclosed embodiments, (i) The phytase is classified as belonging to the EC 3.1.3.26 group. (ii) The protease is an acid stable serine protease derived from Nocardiopsis dassonvillei subsp. dassonvillei DSM 43235 (A1918L1 ),
Nocardiopsis prasina DSM 15649 (NN018335L1 ), Nocardiopsis prasina (previously
alba) DSM 14010 (NN18140L1 ), Nocardiopsis sp. DSM 16424 (NN018704L2),
Nocardiopsis alkaliphile DSM 44657 (NN019340L2) and Nocardiopsis lucentensis DSM
44048 (NN019002L2). (iii) The inorganic phosphorous source is dicalcium phosphate.
(iv) The animal is selected from pigs and poultry.
Regarding the claimed “available phosphorus concentration associated with enhanced performance of the animal feed composition is higher in the animal feed composition as compared to the animal feed comprising the breeder recommended standard protein diet”, as the limitation is undefined in scope, a meaningful comparison with prior art is not possible. It is considered that the claimed effect of phosphorus content is inherent in the composition in Cowieson, as both the current invention and Cowieson include phytase treatment with identical enzymes in animal feed.
Claims 1-11 and 17-24 are therefore obvious over Cowieson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of claim amendments have been considered and are partially persuasive. The previous rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn. Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the broadly claimed invention, for the reasons provided above.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not fully persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793