DETAILED ACTION
This 2nd Non-final Action vacates and replaces the office action filed on December 11, 2025 due to the arithmetic error present in the rejection of claim 7.
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 .
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-13
Withdrawn claims:
1-6
Previously canceled claims:
None
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
7, 11
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
7-13
Currently rejected claims:
7-13
Allowed claims:
None
Cited Prior Art
The following prior art is cited in the subsequent 35 USC §103 rejections:
Tsuda (Tsuda, Ryuzi. “Utilization of Sulfite Waste Liquor (Lignin and Fermented Substance)”, Materials Science, Vol. 16, No. 169, p. 819-824, published October 1967 [accessed online March 11, 2025])(IDS Reference filed 09/21/2022);
PDB (“Yeast Initiator TRNA”, RCSB Protein Data Bank, published 09-03-1997 [accessed online March 11, 2025] https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1yfg);
Aquaculture (“Lignin Sulfonate”, Aquaculture – Aquatic Animals, Technical Evaluation Report, published July 5, 2013 [accessed online May 7, 2026])
Food Standards (“Sulphites”, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, published February 2019 [accessed online December 2, 2025] https://web.archive.org/web/20200804141003/https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/sulphite/Pages/default.aspx);
Oswald (Oswald, Nick. “Ethanol Precipitation of DNA and RNA: How it Works”, BiteSizeBio, published July 22, 2024 [accessed online December 2, 2025]);
Bampidis (Bampidis, et al. “Safety of lignosulphonate for all animal species”, EFSA Journal, Vol 18(2):6000, published January 10, 2020 [accessed online December 1, 2025]);
Erickson (Erickson, Galen. “What is the feed value of whey for cattle?” University of Nebraska-Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, published February 2, 2020 [accessed online December 2, 2025]);
Hoffmann (Hoffmann, Klaus. “The Use of Nucleotides in Animal Feed”, Engormix, published February 4, 2011 [accessed online December 2, 2025]);
Kruger (Kruger, Dina, et al. “Benefits of Application of Yeast Cell Walls in Animal Husbandry”, Ohly, an ABF Ingredients Company, published March 1, 2019 [accessed online December 2, 2025]).
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 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda as evidenced by PDB in view of Aquaculture.
Regarding claim 7, Tsuda teaches uses for sulfite pulp effluent (SWL, p. 819, col. 1, ¶ 1), including a fermentation method for the production of feed yeast (p. 819, col. 2, line 8) comprising producing yeast using SWL as a raw material (p. 821, col. 2, ¶ 2). Tsuda also teaches SWL has 40% of total solids as lignin (p. 819, col. 2, ¶ 1) and that lignin exists in SWL in the form of lignosulfonic acid (p. 822, col. 2, ¶ 3-4), therefore, the culture medium with SWL for yeast production contains lignosulfonic acid. Tsuda also teaches that yeast with a high nucleic acid content is obtained during fermentation (p. 821, col. 2, ¶ 2) and that a method to extract ribonucleic acid from yeast is cold alkali treatment (p. 822, col. 1, ¶ 3). Although Tsuda does not explicitly state that the end product comprises the yeast (which is known to contain cell wall material), lignosulfonic acid, and nucleic acid derived from the yeast, it necessarily follows that after processing the product comprising those ingredients would be collected.
Although Tsuda does not explicitly teach the molar mass of the nucleic acids present in the composition, it is known in the art that yeast contain nucleic acids that have a molecular weight ranging from 10,000 to 100,000. Evidence to support that yeast contains nucleic acids with a molecular weight ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 is provided by PDB. PDB teaches of yeast tRNA (Title) comprising one unique nucleic acid chain and a weight of 24.71 kDa (equivalent to 24,710 Da, section Macromolecule Content).
Tsuda does not teach the lignosulfonic acid being present in an amount ranging from 10 to 30 wt.%.
However, in the same field of endeavor of compositions comprising lignosulfonic acid, Aquaculture teaches that alternative names for lignosulfonic acid include lignin sulfate (p. 1, line 7, 10). Aquaculture also teaches that approved use of lignin sulfate includes molasses used in feeds comprising not more than 11% of the molasses (p. 4, lines 157-158), which overlaps with the claimed range of “10 wt% to 30wt%”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed composition of Tsuda with the use of the amount of lignosulfonic acid as taught by Aquaculture. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Aquaculture teaches that the molasses is a form of feed additive. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Regarding the recitation “wherein the composition is used for feeding animals”, this recitation is interpreted as the intended use of the method as claimed. Thus, the recitation does not carry patentable weight. MPEP §2111.02(II) states if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Regarding claim 10, Although Tsuda does not explicitly teach the molar mass of the nucleic acids present in the composition, it is known in the art that yeast contain nucleic acids that have a molecular weight ranging from 10,000 to 100,000. Evidence to support that yeast contains nucleic acids with a molecular weight ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 is provided by PDB. PDB teaches of yeast tRNA (Title) comprising one unique nucleic acid chain and a weight of 24.71 kDa (equivalent to 24,710 Da, section Macromolecule Content), which falls within the claimed range of “from 20,000 to 70,000”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda as evidenced by PDB in view of Aquaculture as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Food Standards.
Regarding claim 8, Tsuda does not teach that the final composition comprises sulfites.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Food Standards teaches that sulfites are naturally occurring minerals that have a long history of use in foods (p. 1, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tsuda to include sulfites in the composition. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Food Standards teaches that sulfites are widely used as a food additive to prevent spoilage and preserve color (p. 1, ¶ 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda as evidenced by PDB in view of Aquaculture as applied to claim 7 above, and further evidenced by Oswald.
Regarding claim 9, Tsuda also teaches that yeast with a high nucleic acid content is obtained during fermentation (p. 821, col. 2, ¶ 2) and that a method to extract ribonucleic acid from yeast is cold alkali treatment (p. 822, col. 1, ¶ 3). Although Tsuda does not explicitly state that the nucleic acids are soluble, nucleic acids are known in the art to be soluble in water. Evidence to support that nucleic acids are soluble in water is provided by Oswald. Oswald teaches that nucleic acids are soluble in water (p. 2, ¶ 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda as evidenced by PDB in view of Aquaculture as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bampidis and Erickson.
Regarding claim 11, Tsuda does not teach the composition further comprising a combination of plant-based feed and an animal-based feed.
Regarding the inclusion of plant-based feed, Bampidis teaches that basal diets for pigs include barley, maize (i.e., corn), and soybean (p. 6, ¶ 3.3.1.1. Safety for weaned piglets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Tsuda with the inclusion of barley, maize, and soybean as taught by Bampidis. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Regarding the inclusion of animal-based feed, Erickson teaches including condensed whey in livestock feed (p. 1, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tsuda to include whey as an animal-based feed as taught by Erickson. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Erickson teaches that condensed whey is better for feeding in terms of energy (p. 1, ¶ 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda as evidenced by PDB in view of Aquaculture as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hoffmann.
Regarding claim 12, although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the composition contains the nucleic acid in an amount ranging from 3 wt% to 50 wt% when being fed to the animals, Hoffmann teaches supplementing feed with nucleotides (p. 4, ¶ 2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of nucleic acid during routine optimization to find the amount of nucleic acid that resulted in the desired animal feed. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where 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). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda as evidenced by PDB in view of Aquaculture as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kruger.
Regarding claim 13, although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the composition contains the yeast cell wall component/yeast cell wall components in an amount ranging from 3 wt% to 30 wt% when being fed to animals, Kruger teaches that yeast cell walls are widely used in the animal feed industry to improve animal health and performance (p. 1, col. 1, ¶ 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of yeast cell wall material during routine optimization to find the amount of yeast cell wall material that resulted in the desired animal feed. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where 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). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims based on amendments in the Claims. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 7 and 10 over Tsuda, PDB, and Bampidis: Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, p. 6-7, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 7 under 35 USC §103 in view of Tsuda, PDB, and Bampidis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsuda, PDB, and Aquaculture.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of dependent claims 8-13: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 were determined to be persuasive. However, a new ground of rejection has been entered with respect to claim 7. The Examiner maintains that in light of the new rejection, the dependent claims are properly rejected over the cited combinations of prior art described in the claim rejections.
The rejections of claims 7-13 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights