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 of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) and the Response and Amendment filed 19 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment or cancellation of the claims: (1) the objections to the claims have been withdrawn; (2) the 112(b) rejections of claims 6 and 12 have been withdrawn; (3) the 112(d) rejections of claims 2-6 and 14 have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-3, 7-12, and 15-20
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: 13
Newly canceled claims: 4-6 and 14
Amended claims: 1-3, 12, and 15-18
New claims: 19-20
Claims currently under consideration: 1-3, 7-12, and 15-20
Currently rejected claims: 1-3, 7-12, and 15-20
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 September 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, line 17, “source have” should read, “source has”.
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 1-2, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altom et al. (US 2007/0202154 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 27 October 2022) in view of Perth Cat Hospital (Perth Cat Hospital. (2015, December 23). Chronic Intestinal Disease in Cats. Retrieved December 15, 2025, from https://web.archive.org/web/20191023200544/ http://www.perthcathospital.com.au/chronic-intestinal-disease-cats/), Capodieci (US 2010/0040745 A1), Yamka et al. (US 8057828 B2, cited on the IDS filed on 27 October 2022) and Perlman et al. (US 2008/0044539 A1, cited on IDS filed on 27 October 2022), and as evidenced by Kureck et al. (Kureck, I., de Brito Policarpi, P., Toaldo, I. M., et al. (2018). Chemical Characterization and Release of Polyphenols from Pecan Nut Shell [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh) C. Koch] in Zein Microparticles for Bioactive Applications. Plant Food Hum Nutr, 73, 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-018-0667-0), and Quirós-Sauceda et al. (Quirós-Sauceda, A. E., Palafox-Carlos, H., Sáyago-Ayerdi, S. G., et al. (2014). Dietary fiber and phenolic compounds as functional ingredients: interaction and possible effect after ingestion. Food Funct, 5, 1063-1072. http://doi.org/ 10.1039/c4fo00073k).
Regarding claim 1, Altom teaches a method comprising: delivering a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of a companion animal by administering an effective amount of a controlled release pet food composition to the companion animal in need thereof – Altom teaches a process of feeding to at least a dog or cat (i.e., companion animal) ([0018]) a food ([0019]) containing soluble ([0041], “fermentable”) and insoluble fiber ([0032], “nut shell”), to promote gastrointestinal health and the overall health of the pet ([0010]-[0011], [0014]). Altom further teaches that the process of feeding an animal an animal food comprising a nut shell aids in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair by trapping or binding ingested hair, increasing gastric emptying and allowing the ingested hair to pass out through the feces more frequently, thereby reducing the chronic formation of hairballs ([0031]).
Regarding delivering a polyphenol to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal, Kureck evidences that “pecan nut shells are characterized by higher amounts of polyphenols than the nuts” (p. 138, col. 1, ¶ 1). Therefore, where Altom discloses that the animal food comprising a nut shell, which may be pecan nut shell ([0036]), aids in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair by trapping or binding ingested hair, increasing gastric emptying and allowing the ingested hair to pass out through the feces more frequently ([0031]), Altom discloses that the polyphenol source (i.e., pecan nut shell) is delivered to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the animal.
Regarding the claimed “effective amount”, Altom discloses that “administration may be continuous or intermittent, depending, for example, upon the recipient’s physiological condition, whether the purpose of the administration is therapeutic or prophylactic, and other factors known to skilled practitioners ([0030]). Therefore, Altom discloses administering an effective amount of the pet food composition to have a therapeutic or prophylactic effect.
Altom does not explicitly discuss that the method is a method for ameliorating a symptom of an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder in a companion animal.
However, the instant specification provides inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder to be ameliorated by the claimed method of administering the claimed pet food ([0025]). Perth Cat Hospital teaches, “A significant number of cats that vomit hairballs have underlying stomach and intestinal disease. IBD and lymphoma often lead to a motility disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. The thickened stomach wall and intestinal loops are unable to move hair through the digestive tract at its normal speed. This slower movement results in abnormal hair collection in the stomach or intestines, resulting in hairball formation.” (p. 3, ¶ 9). Therefore, Perth Cat Hospital teaches that frequent hairballs are a symptom of IBD.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to administer the animal food of Altom to a companion animal to ameliorate a symptom of an inflammatory disease (i.e., IBD) in the companion animal in need thereof. Where Altom teaches administering the animal food to an animal to decrease chronic formation of hairballs ([0031]), and where Perth Cat Hospital teaches that frequent (i.e., chronic) hairballs are a symptom of IBD, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer the food of Altom to an animal with IBD experiencing chronic hairballs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Altom teaches that the nut shells and supplemental fibers of the animal food aid in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair and their subsequent excretion, thereby decreasing chronic formation of hairballs ([0031]).
wherein the controlled release pet food composition comprises: a controlled release matrix comprising:
a fiber component comprising a high solubility fiber source and a low solubility fiber source – Altom teaches that the pet food comprises soluble ([0041], “fermentable”) and insoluble fiber ([0032], “nut shell”). It is noted that the instant specification at paragraph [0019] states, “In some embodiments, the terms "high solubility fiber" and "soluble fiber" may be used interchangeably. In some embodiments, the terms "low solubility fiber" and "insoluble fiber" may be used interchangeably.” Accordingly, this limitation is met by Altom.
wherein the fiber component comprises a combination of pecan shells, flax seed, citrus pulp, beet pulp, and cranberry pomace – Altom teaches an animal food composition that comprises a nut shell ([0031]). “The nut shell is low in calories, rich in insoluble fiber and lignins…” ([0032]). The nut shell is selected from the group consisting of pecan nut shell…” ([0036]). Altom also teaches, “Fermentable fibers [i.e., soluble fiber] which are useful in the present invention include beet pulp,…citrus pulp,…and combinations thereof.” ([0046]). Altom further teaches that the composition may comprise a fruit, including cranberries ([0063]).
Altom does not teach that the fiber component comprises flax seed and cranberry pomace.
However, Altom teaches various other types supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), the examples of Capodieci teach cranberry pomace as a source of fiber in pet food (p. 10, SWP Formula 7, and p. 6, SWP Formula 2), and Yamka teaches flax seed as a source of fiber known to be included in pet foods, along with citrus pulp, beet pulp, and cranberry (col. 7, lines 1-15).
Therefore, since Altom teaches several types of supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Altom with the teachings of Capodeici to substitute cranberry pomace for one of the disclosed supplemental fiber sources, and with the teachings of Yamka to substitute flax seed and for another of the additional supplemental fiber sources to provide a total supplemental fiber comprising flax seed, citrus pulp, beet pulp, and cranberry pomace in addition to the pecan shell. Substitution of these known ingredients would yield the predictable result of providing supplemental fiber from known sources to the animal food. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The limitation of the fiber component is therefore obvious.
a polyphenol source comprising one or more of cranberry pomace, pomegranate extract, or green tea extract – Altom teaches that the pet food may comprise antioxidants ([0058]), but is silent as to the type or source of the antioxidants.
However, Perlman teaches cranberry pomace as a source of polyphenolic antioxidants ([0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include cranberry pomace as a source of polyphenolic antioxidants as taught by Perlman in the animal food composition of Altom. First, Altom teaches that their pet food may comprise antioxidants. Since Perlman teaches that cranberry pomace is a source of polyphenolic antioxidants and Altom teaches that their animal food may also comprise cranberries ([0063]), one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select cranberry pomace as the polyphenolic antioxidant source and would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so since cranberries and antioxidants are disclosed by Altom as ingredients of the animal food. The limitation of a polyphenol source is therefore obvious.
wherein the fiber component comprises a weight ratio of the high solubility fiber source to the low solubility fiber source of about 1:20 to about 1:1 – the nut shell (i.e., insoluble fiber) is present at up to 20 or 30 or 50% by weight of the pet food composition ([0038]), while the supplemental fiber, which includes the soluble fiber, is present from about 5-20% by weight of the pet food ([0043]). These amounts for ranges constitute amounts that render the ratios of claims 1 and 2 obvious. For example, 20% by weight of soluble fiber : 20% by weight of insoluble fiber is a ratio of 1:1, and 5% by weight of soluble fiber : 50% by weight of insoluble fiber is a ratio of 1:10. Furthermore, Altom speaks to the effects imparted by both the insoluble and soluble fibers ([0032], [0041]). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the fiber sources and arrive at ratios of about 1:20 to about 1:1 as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
wherein the controlled release matrix comprises an inert, non-fermentable fiber source having polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto, such that the controlled release matrix is adapted to deliver the polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal after ingestion by the companion animal – As described above, Altom teaches an animal food comprising pecan shells as insoluble (i.e., inert, non-fermentable) fiber ([0032]), and Kureck evidences that “pecan nut shells are characterized by higher amounts of polyphenols than the nuts” (p. 138, col. 1, ¶ 1). Altom as modified by Capodeici and Perlman teaches cranberry pomace as a source of insoluble fiber (as the fraction of total fiber that is not soluble fiber) (Capodieci, p. 6, SWP Formula 2, Total Fiber 75.30%, Soluble Fiber 4.5%) comprising polyphenol antioxidants (Perlman, [0096]). As evidenced by Quirós-Sauceda, phenolic compounds are ubiquitous in fruits and nuts (p. 1064, col. 2, ¶ 1), and phenolic compounds are chemically associated, or linked, to dietary fiber in the fruit matrix forming “antioxidant dietary fiber” (p. 1064, col. 2, ¶ 3; p. 1065, Fig. 1). Additionally, Altom discloses that the animal food comprising a nut shell aids in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair by trapping or binding ingested hair, increasing gastric emptying and allowing the ingested hair to pass out through the feces more frequently ([0031]). Finally, the instant specification provides “The composition is produced by extrusion, dried, and then coated with a palatant. The process used to manufacture the composition described in Table 8 (below), ensures the creation of the inventive matrix of present invention.” ([0052]). Altom teaches that dry animal food compositions are made by mixing the ingredients, extruding the mixture into kibbles, and drying the kibbles ([0085]).
Where this combination of references discloses the same ingredients as in the claimed matrix, where Quirós-Sauceda provides evidence that polyphenols are chemically linked to dietary fiber, where Altom discloses delivery of the nut shell/insoluble fiber through the digestive tract, and where the dry animal food of Altom is produced by extrusion and drying, and the instant specification provides that such a method ensures the creation of the inventive matrix, the limitation of a “controlled release matrix comprising an inert, non-fermentable fiber source having polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto, such that the controlled release matrix is adapted to deliver the polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal after ingestion by the companion animal” has been met by the prior art. The limitation of a “controlled release pet food compositon” is likewise met.
For these reasons, claims 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Altom also teaches that the fiber component comprises a weight ratio of the high solubility fiber source to the low solubility fiber source of about 1:15 to about 1:2 – the nut shell (i.e., insoluble fiber) is present at up to 20 or 30 or 50% by weight of the pet food composition ([0038]), while the supplemental fiber, which includes the soluble fiber, is present from about 5-20% by weight of the pet food ([0043]). These amounts for ranges constitute amounts that render the claimed ratio obvious. For example, 5% by weight of soluble fiber : 50% by weight of insoluble fiber is a ratio of 1:10. Furthermore, Altom speaks to the effects imparted by both the insoluble and soluble fibers ([0032], [0041]). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the fiber sources and arrive at ratios of about 1:15 to about 1:2 as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Altom also teaches that the pet food composition further comprises docosahexaenoate fish oil in an amount from about 0.5 to about 2.5 wt.% – “The animal food composition may contain other active agents such as long chain fatty acids…Fish oils are a suitable source of…docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The DHA level is at least about 0.05%, alternatively at least about…0.15% of the animal food composition, all on a dry matter basis.” ([0064]). The claimed range of about 0.5 to about 2.5 wt. % lies inside the disclosed range of at least about 0.15%. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 12 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 15-18, Altom also teaches the animal food comprising from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight of pecan nut shell ([0038]), which encompasses and thereby renders obvious the claimed ranges of pecan nut shell. Altom further teaches citrus pulp and beet pulp as supplemental fiber sources ([0046]), and teaches that the total supplemental fiber source is present from about 5%-20% by weight of the animal food ([0043]). Specific dry food examples in Altom teach animal food comprising 1.0 and 3.0 % by weight beet pulp and 5.0 % by weight pecan shell (p. 6, Examples 2, 4 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the citrus pulp and beet pulp in amounts as claimed, as the total of the amounts for additional fiber claimed is consistent with the amounts taught by Altom, and the claimed amounts would have been achievable by no more than routine experimentation. Furthermore, Altom provides motivation to adjust the amount of supplemental fiber to promote intestinal health and modulate intestinal bacteria ([0041]).
The cited prior art does not each that the animal food comprises flax seed.
However, Altom teaches various other types supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), and Yamka teaches flax seed as a source of fiber known to be included in pet foods, along with citrus pulp, beet pulp, and cranberry (col. 7, lines 1-15).
Therefore, since Altom teaches several types of supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), and that the total supplemental fiber source is present from about 5%-20% by weight of the animal food ([0043]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Altom with the teachings of Yamka to substitute flax seed for one of the additional supplemental fiber sources to provide the total supplemental fiber in an amount falling within the claimed range and where the total of beet pulp, citrus pulp, and flax seed is within the range taught by Altom. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding the cranberry pomace, the examples of Capodieci teach cranberry pomace as a source of fiber in pet food at amounts of 0, 1.82, and 2.00 % by weight of the pet food (p. 5, SWP Formula 1, p. 10, SWP Formula 7, and p. 6, SWP Formula 2, respectively). These amounts fall within the range of claim 15, and as an optional component in the prior art constitute a range of 0-2.00 % by weight. The range of 0-2.00% by weight of cranberry pomace encompasses and renders obvious the amounts of claims 16-18. Since Capodieci teaches the cranberry pomace provides fiber, and since Altom teaches the adjustment of the amounts of fiber in the pet food ([0038], [0043]) and speaks to the effects imparted by both the insoluble and soluble fibers ([0032], [0041]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the amount of the fiber sources to have arrived at amounts as claimed through no more than routine experimentation. Furthermore, given that the components in claims 16-18 are taught in the prior art as sources of fiber known to be included in pet foods, the claimed amounts are not considered to represent an unobvious contribution over the prior art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altom et al. in view of Perth Cat Hospital, Capodeici, Yamka et al., and Perlman et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 8691792 B2, cited on the IDS filed on 27 October 2022).
Regarding claim 3, Altom, Perth Cat Hospital, Capodieci, Yamka, and Perlman teach the method of claim 1.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the high solubility fiber source comprises oat bran.
However, Xu teaches compositions suitable for maintaining or improving the gastrointestinal heath of an animal, wherein the total dietary fiber of the compositions contains from about 10 to about 40% soluble fiber and from a bout 90 to about 60% insoluble fiber. Xu teaches that any soluble fiber suitable for consumption by an animal can be used, and that preferred soluble fibers include oat bran (col. 4, lines 17-25).
MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”. Since Xu discloses that the claimed oat bran is a suitable soluble fiber for use in a food composition suitable for maintaining or improving the gastrointestinal health of an animal, it would have been prima facie obvious to select oat bran as a soluble fiber in the animal food of Altom, which is also suitable to promote the gastrointestinal health of the pet ([0010]).
Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altom et al. in view of Perth Cat Hospital, Capodeici, Yamka, et al., and Perlman et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and as further evidenced by White et al. (White, B.L., Howard, L.R., and Prior, R.L. (2010) “Proximate and Polyphenolic Characterization of Cranberry Pomace”. J Agric Food Chem. 58(7), 4030-4036, cited on the IDS filed 27 October 2022).
Regarding claims 7-8, Altom, Perth Cat Hospital, Capodieci, Yamka, and Perlman teach the method of claim 1.
The cited prior art, with evidence from White, also teaches that the polyphenol source comprises a flavonoid or a phenolic acid (re: claim 7) and that the polyphenol source provides a polyphenol selected from: quercetin, catechin, cyanidin, and a combination of two or more thereof (re: claim 8) – As the animal food composition of Altom modified by Perlman as described regarding claim 1 teaches the use of cranberry pomace as the polyphenolic antioxidant source, and White evidences that cranberry pomace comprises flavonols, a class of flavonoids, comprising quercetin (p. 4030, col. 2, ¶ 2), as well as catechin (p. 4033, col. 2, ¶ 2) and cyanidin (p. 4030, cols. 1-2, bridging sentence), these claims are also rendered obvious.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altom et al. in view of Perth Cat Hospital, Capodeici, Yamka et al., and Perlman et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Josephson et al. (US 2008/0299286, cited on IDS filed on 27 October 2022).
Regarding claims 9-11, Altom, Perth Cat Hospital, Capodieci, Yamka, and Perlman teach the method of claim 1.
Altom also teaches that the animal food comprises animal protein at 20-50% by weight of the animal food, and that the animal protein may include protein from chicken ([0054]).
The cited prior art does not teach that the pet food further comprises a source of hydrolyzed animal or plant protein comprising an amino acid profile (re: claim 9), that the source of hydrolyzed animal or plant protein comprises chicken liver (re: claim 10), and that the source of hydrolyzed animal or plant protein is present in an active content of from about 25 to about 45 wt.% (re: claim 11).
However, Josephson teaches a pet food composition comprising an animal protein, where the animal protein is a hydrolyzed chicken livers present at 25% by weight of the composition (p. 3, Formula 2). Josephson also teaches hydrolyzed liver as palatability enhancing ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the hydrolyzed chicken liver of Josephson as the animal protein component in the modified animal food of Altom. First, Altom teaches the animal food comprising an animal protein derived from chicken at an amount from 20-50% by weight of the animal food ([0054]), but is silent as to a specific animal protein product. Since Josephson teaches that hydrolyzed chicken livers were known to be contained in pet foods in amounts falling within in the range disclosed by Altom, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate hydrolyzed chicken liver protein in the animal food at 25% as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because the amount is consistent with amounts reported in the prior art, and hydrolyzed chicken liver is also taught to be palatability enhancing ([0009]).
Claims 9-11 are therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altom et al. in view of Perth Cat Hospital, Capodeici, Yamka et al., and Perlman et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frank (Frank, J. (2015, October 2). Ancient Grains in Depth: Bulgur, Buckwheat, Millet, Spelt & Teff. UL Prospector. Retrieved December 15, 2025, from https://www.ulprospector.com/knowledge/3130/fbn-ancient-grains-in-depth-bulgur-buckwheat-millet-spelt-teff/) and Knutson (Knutson, J., (2015, July 30). Buckwheat: Old crop finds new life. Agweek. Retrieved December 16, 2025, from https://www.agweek.com/news/buckwheat-old-crop-finds-new-life).
Regarding claim 19, Altom, Perth Cat Hospital, Capodieci, Yamka, and Perlman teach the method of claim 1.
Altom also teaches that the pet food may also comprise peas ([0059]), barley ([0065]), and tomato pomace ([0046]). “Peas” as disclosed by Altom are seen as whole peas, which comprise pea bran. Where Altom discloses these ingredients in the pet food composition, and these ingredients inherently comprise soluble fiber, Altom’s disclosure reads on “pea bran, barley, and tomato pomace” as claimed.
The cited prior art does not discuss that the high solubility fiber source comprises buckwheat groats.
However, Frank teaches that “buckwheat features more fiber than oatmeal” (p. 2, ¶ 3), and that in in 2014, a dry adult dog food containing buckwheat was introduced in Germany (p. 2, ¶ 4). Additionally, Knutson teaches that buckwheat groats also make a high-quality dog food (p. 3, ¶ 8).
MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”. Since Frank and Knutson disclose that the claimed buckwheat groats is a suitable source of fiber for use in a dog food, it would have been prima facie obvious to select buckwheat groats as a fiber source in the animal food of Altom, which is also suitable for dogs ([0029]; claim 2).
Claim 19 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altom et al. (US 2007/0202154 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 27 October 2022) in view of Perth Cat Hospital (Perth Cat Hospital. (2015, December 23). Chronic Intestinal Disease in Cats. Retrieved December 15, 2025, from https://web.archive.org/web/20191023200544/ http://www.perthcathospital.com.au/chronic-intestinal-disease-cats/), Capodieci (US 2010/0040745 A1), Yamka et al. (US 8057828 B2, cited on the IDS filed on 27 October 2022) and Perlman et al. (US 2008/0044539 A1, cited on IDS filed on 27 October 2022), and as evidenced by Kureck et al. (Kureck, I., de Brito Policarpi, P., Toaldo, I. M., et al. (2018). Chemical Characterization and Release of Polyphenols from Pecan Nut Shell [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh) C. Koch] in Zein Microparticles for Bioactive Applications. Plant Food Hum Nutr, 73, 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-018-0667-0), and Quirós-Sauceda et al. (Quirós-Sauceda, A. E., Palafox-Carlos, H., Sáyago-Ayerdi, S. G., et al. (2014). Dietary fiber and phenolic compounds as functional ingredients: interaction and possible effect after ingestion. Food Funct, 5, 1063-1072. http://doi.org/ 10.1039/c4fo00073k).
Regarding claim 20, Altom teaches a method comprising: delivering a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of a companion animal by administering an effective amount of a controlled release pet food composition – Altom teaches a process of feeding to at least a dog or cat (i.e., companion animal) ([0018]) a food ([0019]) containing soluble ([0041], “fermentable”) and insoluble fiber ([0032], “nut shell”), to promote gastrointestinal health and the overall health of the pet ([0010]-[0011], [0014]). Altom further teaches that the process of feeding an animal an animal food comprising a nut shell aids in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair by trapping or binding ingested hair, increasing gastric emptying and allowing the ingested hair to pass out through the feces more frequently, thereby reducing the chronic formation of hairballs ([0031]).
Regarding delivering a polyphenol to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal, Kureck evidences that “pecan nut shells are characterized by higher amounts of polyphenols than the nuts” (p. 138, col. 1, ¶ 1). Therefore, where Altom discloses that the animal food comprising a nut shell, which may be pecan nut shell ([0036]), aids in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair by trapping or binding ingested hair, increasing gastric emptying and allowing the ingested hair to pass out through the feces more frequently ([0031]), Altom discloses that the polyphenol source (i.e., pecan nut shell) is delivered to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the animal.
Regarding the claimed “effective amount”, Altom discloses that “administration may be continuous or intermittent, depending, for example, upon the recipient’s physiological condition, whether the purpose of the administration is therapeutic or prophylactic, and other factors known to skilled practitioners ([0030]). Therefore, Altom discloses administering an effective amount of the pet food composition to have a therapeutic or prophylactic effect.
Altom does not explicitly discuss that the method is a method for ameliorating a symptom of an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder in a companion animal suffering from an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder.
However, the instant specification provides inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder to be ameliorated by the claimed method of administering the claimed pet food ([0025]). Perth Cat Hospital teaches, “A significant number of cats that vomit hairballs have underlying stomach and intestinal disease. IBD and lymphoma often lead to a motility disorder of the gastrointestinal tract. The thickened stomach wall and intestinal loops are unable to move hair through the digestive tract at its normal speed. This slower movement results in abnormal hair collection in the stomach or intestines, resulting in hairball formation.” (p. 3, ¶ 9). Therefore, Perth Cat Hospital teaches that frequent hairballs are a symptom of IBD.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to administer the animal food of Altom to a companion animal suffering from an inflammatory disease (i.e., IBD) to ameliorate a symptom (i.e., chronic hariballs) of an inflammatory disease, condition or disorder in the companion animal. Where Altom teaches administering the animal food to an animal to decrease chronic formation of hairballs ([0031]), and where Perth Cat Hospital teaches that frequent (i.e., chronic) hairballs are a symptom of IBD, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer the food of Altom to an animal with IBD experiencing chronic hairballs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Altom teaches that the nut shells and supplemental fibers of the animal food aid in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair and their subsequent excretion, thereby decreasing chronic formation of hairballs ([0031]).
the controlled release pet food composition comprising about 7 wt.% of pecan shells, about 3 wt.% of flax seed, about 2.5 wt.% of citrus pulp, about 2.5 wt.% of beet pulp, and about 1 wt.% of cranberry pomace – Altom also teaches the animal food comprising from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight of pecan nut shell ([0038]), which encompasses and thereby renders obvious the claimed about 7 wt.% of pecan nut shell, see MPEP 2144.05(I). Altom further teaches citrus pulp and beet pulp as supplemental fiber sources ([0046]), and teaches that the total supplemental fiber source is present from about 5%-20% by weight of the animal food ([0043]). Specific dry food examples in Altom teach animal food comprising 1.0 and 3.0 % by weight beet pulp and 5.0 % by weight pecan shell (p. 6, Examples 2, 4 and 6). The disclosure of 1.0 and 3.0 % by weight beet pulp teaches a range of 1.0 to 3.0 weight % beet pulp, which encompasses and thereby renders obvious the claimed about 2.5 wt.%, see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the citrus pulp and beet pulp in amounts as claimed, as the total of the amounts for additional fiber claimed is consistent with the amounts taught by Altom, and the claimed amounts would have been achievable by no more than routine experimentation, see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Furthermore, Altom provides motivation to adjust the amount of supplemental fiber to promote intestinal health and modulate intestinal bacteria ([0041]).
The cited prior art does not each that the animal food comprises flax seed.
However, Altom teaches various other types supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), and Yamka teaches flax seed as a source of fiber known to be included in pet foods, along with citrus pulp, beet pulp, and cranberry (col. 7, lines 1-15).
Therefore, since Altom teaches several types of supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), and that the total supplemental fiber source is present from about 5%-20% by weight of the animal food ([0043]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Altom with the teachings of Yamka to substitute flax seed for one of the additional supplemental fiber sources to provide the total supplemental fiber in an amount falling within the claimed range and where the total of beet pulp, citrus pulp, and flax seed is within the range taught by Altom, including the claimed amount of about 3 wt.% of flax seed. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding the cranberry pomace, the examples of Capodieci teach cranberry pomace as a source of fiber in pet food at amounts of 0, 1.82, and 2.00 % by weight of the pet food (p. 5, SWP Formula 1, p. 10, SWP Formula 7, and p. 6, SWP Formula 2, respectively). As an optional component in the prior art Capodieci teaches cranberry pomace in a range of 0-2.00 % by weight. The range of 0-2.00% by weight of cranberry pomace encompasses and renders obvious the claimed amount of about 1 wt.% of cranberry pomace, see MPEP § 2144.05(I). Since Capodieci teaches the cranberry pomace provides fiber, and since Altom teaches the adjustment of the amounts of fiber in the pet food ([0038], [0043]) and speaks to the effects imparted by both the insoluble and soluble fibers ([0032], [0041]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the amount of the fiber sources to have arrived at amounts as claimed through no more than routine experimentation, see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Furthermore, given that the claimed components are taught in the prior art as sources of fiber known to be included in pet foods, the claimed amounts are not considered to represent an unobvious contribution over the prior art.
the controlled release pet food composition comprising: a controlled release matrix form of:
a fiber component comprising a high solubility fiber source and a low solubility fiber source, and an inert, non-fermentable fiber source – Altom teaches that the pet food comprises soluble ([0041], “fermentable”) and insoluble fiber ([0032], “nut shell”). It is noted that the instant specification at paragraph [0019] states, “In some embodiments, the terms "high solubility fiber" and "soluble fiber" may be used interchangeably. In some embodiments, the terms "low solubility fiber" and "insoluble fiber" may be used interchangeably.” Altom teaches an animal food comprising pecan shells as insoluble (i.e., inert, non-fermentable) fiber ([0032]), as well as other nut shells, including those from walnut, filbert nut, hickory nut, hazelnut, chestnut, and combinations thereof ([0036]). Accordingly, this limitation is met by Altom.
wherein the fiber component comprises a combination of the pecan shells, the flax seed, the citrus pulp, the beet pulp, and the cranberry pomace – Altom teaches an animal food composition that comprises a nut shell ([0031]). “The nut shell is low in calories, rich in insoluble fiber and lignins…” ([0032]). The nut shell is selected from the group consisting of pecan nut shell…” ([0036]). Altom also teaches, “Fermentable fibers [i.e., soluble fiber] which are useful in the present invention include beet pulp,…citrus pulp,…and combinations thereof.” ([0046]). Altom further teaches that the composition may comprise a fruit, including cranberries ([0063]).
Altom does not teach that the fiber component comprises flax seed and cranberry pomace.
However, Altom teaches various other types supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), the examples of Capodieci teach cranberry pomace as a source of fiber in pet food (p. 10, SWP Formula 7, and p. 6, SWP Formula 2), and Yamka teaches flax seed as a source of fiber known to be included in pet foods, along with citrus pulp, beet pulp, and cranberry (col. 7, lines 1-15).
Therefore, since Altom teaches several types of supplemental fibers ([0046] – [0047]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Altom with the teachings of Capodeici to substitute cranberry pomace for one of the disclosed supplemental fiber sources, and with the teachings of Yamka to substitute flax seed and for another of the additional supplemental fiber sources to provide a total supplemental fiber comprising flax seed, citrus pulp, beet pulp, and cranberry pomace in addition to the pecan shell. Substitution of these known ingredients would yield the predictable result of providing supplemental fiber from known sources to the animal food. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The limitation of the fiber component is therefore obvious.
a polyphenol source comprising cranberry pomace and optionally one or more of pomegranate extract, or green tea extract – Altom teaches that the pet food may comprise antioxidants ([0058]), but is silent as to the type or source of the antioxidants.
However, Perlman teaches cranberry pomace as a source of polyphenolic antioxidants ([0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include cranberry pomace as a source of polyphenolic antioxidants as taught by Perlman in the animal food composition of Altom. First, Altom teaches that their pet food may comprise antioxidants. Since Perlman teaches that cranberry pomace is a source of polyphenolic antioxidants and Altom teaches that their animal food may also comprise cranberries ([0063]), one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select cranberry pomace as the polyphenolic antioxidant source and would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so since cranberries and antioxidants are disclosed by Altom as ingredients of the animal food. The limitation of a polyphenol source is therefore obvious.
wherein the fiber component comprises a weight ratio of the high solubility fiber source to the low solubility fiber source of about 1:15 to about 1:2 – the nut shell (i.e., insoluble fiber) is present at up to 20 or 30 or 50% by weight of the pet food composition ([0038]), while the supplemental fiber, which includes the soluble fiber, is present from about 5-20% by weight of the pet food ([0043]). These amounts for ranges constitute amounts that render the claimed ratio obvious. For example, 5% by weight of soluble fiber : 50% by weight of insoluble fiber is a ratio of 1:10. Furthermore, Altom speaks to the effects imparted by both the insoluble and soluble fibers ([0032], [0041]). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the fiber sources and arrive at ratios of about 1:15 to about 1:2 as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
wherein the inert, non-fermentable fiber source has polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto, such that the controlled release matrix is adapted to deliver the polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal after ingestion by the companion animal – As described above, Altom teaches an animal food comprising pecan shells as insoluble (i.e., inert, non-fermentable) fiber ([0032]), and Kureck evidences that “pecan nut shells are characterized by higher amounts of polyphenols than the nuts” (p. 138, col. 1, ¶ 1). Altom as modified by Capodeici and Perlman teaches cranberry pomace as a source of insoluble fiber (as the fraction of total fiber that is not soluble fiber) (Capodieci, p. 6, SWP Formula 2, Total Fiber 75.30%, Soluble Fiber 4.5%) comprising polyphenol antioxidants (Perlman, [0096]). As evidenced by Quirós-Sauceda, phenolic compounds are ubiquitous in fruits and nuts (p. 1064, col. 2, ¶ 1), and phenolic compounds are chemically associated, or linked, to dietary fiber in the fruit matrix forming “antioxidant dietary fiber” (p. 1064, col. 2, ¶ 3; p. 1065, Fig. 1). Additionally, Altom discloses that the animal food comprising a nut shell aids in gastric and intestinal passage of ingested hair by trapping or binding ingested hair, increasing gastric emptying and allowing the ingested hair to pass out through the feces more frequently ([0031]). Finally, the instant specification provides “The composition is produced by extrusion, dried, and then coated with a palatant. The process used to manufacture the composition described in Table 8 (below), ensures the creation of the inventive matrix of present invention.” ([0052]). Altom teaches that dry animal food compositions are made by mixing the ingredients, extruding the mixture into kibbles, and drying the kibbles ([0085]).
Where this combination of references discloses the same ingredients as in the claimed matrix, where Quirós-Sauceda provides evidence that polyphenols are chemically linked to dietary fiber, where Altom discloses delivery of the nut shell/insoluble fiber through the digestive tract, and where the dry animal food of Altom is produced by extrusion and drying, and the instant specification provides that such a method ensures the creation of the inventive matrix, the limitation of a “controlled release matrix wherein the inert, non-fermentable fiber source has polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto, such that the controlled release matrix is adapted to deliver the polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal after ingestion by the companion animal” has been met by the prior art. The limitation of a “controlled release pet food composition” is likewise met.
For these reasons, claims 20 is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant has overcome the objection to claim 1 by amendment. Accordingly, the objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 6 and 12 based on amendment to or cancellation of the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejections of claims 2-6 and 14 based on amendment to or cancellation of the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 September 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that the applied art does not disclose or teach a method of ameliorating a symptom of an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder in a companion animal by delivering a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal using a controlled release pet food formulation (p. 9, ¶ 1). Applicant argued that the primary reference, Altom, is directed to animal food compositions that help control the amount of hairballs and fecal hair produced by cats, and nowhere does Altom disclose or teach the method of ameliorating a symptom of an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder in a companion animal by delivering a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal using a controlled release pet food composition (pp. 8-9, bridging paragraph). Applicant argued that the evidentiary reference “Animal Biome” does not provide evidence that hairballs were known to be a symptom of inflammatory diseases and does not provide any evidence of knowledge at the time of filing the present application since the reference was published in 2025 and uses the terms “may” and “can” to imply that excessive hairballs may potentially be a sign of gut health imbalance (p. 9, ¶¶ 2-3).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. Without acquiescing to Applicant’s arguments, the rejection has been modified to no longer rely on Animal Biome, and instead relies on Perth Cat Hospital to demonstrate obviousness for the claimed method of ameliorating a symptom of an inflammatory disease, condition, or disorder in a companion animal by delivering a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal using a controlled release pet food formulation. Applicant’s arguments over Animal Biome are therefore moot.
Applicant next argued that Altom as evidenced by Kureck does not teach the delivery of a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract, but rather Altom teaches that the delivery of fiber sources, including nut shell fiber sources, helps to physically trap and move ingested hair out of the lower gastrointestinal tract, and Altom does not teach the need for a polyphenol source. Applicant argued that while Kureck teaches that pecan nut shells have polyphenols, Kureck was published in 2018, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had the knowledge from Kureck at the time of filing the instantly claimed invention (p. 10, ¶ 2 – p. 11, ¶ 1).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. As stated in the rejection of claim 1, Altom teaches that the nut shells are delivered to the lower gastrointestinal tract and “[t]he nut shell is selected from the group consisting of pecan nut shell…” ([0036]). Kureck evidences that “pecan nut shells are characterized by higher amounts of polyphenols than the nuts” (p. 138, col. 1, ¶ 1). Therefore, where Altom provides pecan nut shells as the nut shell of the composition, Altom also necessarily provides a polyphenol source, regardless of teaching the need for a polyphenol source, and the shells (comprising polyphenols) are delivered to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the animal.
Regarding the date of evidentiary reference Kureck, MPEP § 2124 states, “In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 135 USPQ 442 (CCPA 1962). Such facts include the characteristics and properties of a material or a scientific truism.” The polyphenol content of pecan nut shells is a property of a material. Therefore, the publication date of Kureck is not required to be before the effective filing date of the instant application.
Applicant also argued that evidentiary references Animal Biome and Kureck do not provide any reasonable rationale to specifically select the specifically claimed components and amounts and modify the compositions of Altom with selectively chosen sections of Capodieci and further modify the compositions with selectively chosen sections of Perlman in order to further derive the instantly claimed methods absent improper use of the present invention as a blue print, and that the Office Action appears “plagued with improper hindsight”, whereby the alleged teachings are not substantiated by the cited art, absent an interpretation of the art in view of knowledge gleaned from the present application (p. 11, ¶¶ 2-3).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The teachings of Altom and the cited evidence and prior art provide sufficient motivation to modify the method of Altom as described in the rejections, thereby arriving at the claimed method.
Applicant next argued that because Altom does not teach the importance of a polyphenol source in the pecan nut shells, and only teaches nut shells as a fiber source, the disclosed processing steps involved in the preparation of the pet food compositions of Altom cannot ensure that any non-fiber in the fiber sources will remain in the final composition in a useable form. Therefore, Altom does not disclose delivering a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal using the instantly claimed controlled release pet food composition (pp. 11-12, bridging ¶).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument is speculative at best, and provides no evidence that the processing methods of Altom would cause the polyphenols of the nut shells to not be delivered to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the animal. Moreover, the processing methods of Altom (i.e., extrusion and drying ([0085])) are the same as disclosed in the examples of the instant specification, for example in paragraph [0052], which are described as ensuring the creation of the inventive matrix.
Applicant next argued that the applied art also fails to teach the instantly claimed methods wherein controlled release matrix comprises an inert, non-fermentable fiber source having polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto. Applicant cited case law from W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. stating “[a] prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. Applicant applied the cited case law to evidentiary reference Quirós-Sauceda, stating Quirós-Sauceda teaches that, while polyphenols are bound to dietary fiber, it is the overall composition of the food matrix that matters for the delivery of the polyphenolic compounds to the digestive tract (p. 12, ¶ 2 – p. 13, ¶ 1).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. First, it is noted that Quirós-Sauceda is an evidentiary reference to demonstrate that polyphenolic compounds are ubiquitous in fruits and nuts and that polyphenolic compounds are chemically associated or linked to dietary fiber in the fruit matrix, not a prior art reference whose teachings are used to modify the primary reference. Therefore, the cited case law is not applicable to Quirós-Sauceda. Additionally, Quirós-Sauceda states in the sentence following Applicant’s citation, “However, some evidence suggests that phenolic compounds entrapped into dietary fiber can reach the colon and exert a biological effect, playing an important role in intestinal health” (p. 1068, col. 1 – col. 2, Bridging sentence). Therefore, Quirós-Sauceda does not lead away from the invention. Finally, the combination of the cited references disclose the same ingredients as in the claimed controlled release matrix, Quirós-Sauceda provides evidence that polyphenols are chemically linked to dietary fiber, and Altom discloses delivery of the nut shell/insoluble fiber through the digestive tract. Therefore, the limitation of a controlled release matrix comprising an inert, non-fermentable fiber source having polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto has been met, and the matrix is therefore adapted to deliver the polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal after ingestion by the companion animal.
Applicant further argued that the applied art also fails to teach instantly claimed methods wherein the fiber component comprises a weight ratio of the soluble fiber source to the insoluble fiber source of about 1:20 to about 1:1, wherein the controlled release matrix comprises an inert, non-fermentable fiber source having polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto, such that the controlled release matrix is adapted to deliver the polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of a mammal after ingestion by the mammal. Applicant asserted that Altom does not teach the weight ratios of fiber sources of about 1:20 to about 1:1 as presently claimed and the Office indicates that Altom discloses large ranges of weight percents of the fiber sources and constructs formulations not disclosed in Altom by picking and choosing and improper hindsight reconstruction that would have the presently claimed weight ratio (p. 13, ¶ 2).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. The Examiner has responded above to the arguments regarding delivering a polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of the companion animal and wherein the controlled release matrix comprises an inert, non-fermentable fiber source having polyphenols chemically or physically bound thereto, such that the controlled release matrix is adapted to deliver the polyphenol source to the lower gastrointestinal tract of a mammal after ingestion by the mammal.
Regarding the instantly claimed controlled release composition having the particularly recited components and ingredients, and a weight ratio of the soluble fiber source to the insoluble fiber source of about 1:20 to about 1:1, these elements are made obvious as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Altom as modified by Capodeici and Perlman discloses the requisite ingredients as claimed. Altom discloses that the nut shell (i.e., insoluble fiber) is present at up to 20 or 30 or 50% by weight of the pet food composition ([0038]), while the supplemental fiber, which includes the soluble fiber, is present from about 5-20% by weight of the pet food ([0043]). These amounts for ranges constitute amounts that render the claimed ratios obvious. For example, 20% by weight of soluble fiber : 20% by weight of insoluble fiber is a ratio of 1:1, and 5% by weight of soluble fiber : 50% by weight of insoluble fiber is a ratio of 1:10. Furthermore, Altom speaks to the effects imparted by both the insoluble and soluble fibers ([0032], [0041]). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” As such, one of ordinary skill would have been able to adjust the amount of the fiber sources within the ranges disclosed by Altom and arrive at ratios as claimed through no more than routine experimentation. The percentages in the provided examples are the upper and lower ends of the ranges disclosed by Altom, and serve to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to arrive at the claimed ratios by routine experimentation within the disclosed ranges, requiring no hindsight reconstruction.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive. Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as presented hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793