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 .
Claim Status
The amendment of 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 19-22, 24-25, 27-34, 36-38 are pending (claim set as filed on 11/13/2025). Claims 36-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 25 and 32-33 are withdrawn since the claims do not read on the elected species. Election of group I, drawn to a method comprising administering to a fish in need thereof, a probiotic ingredient, was made with traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2025. Applicant elected the probiotic species Chryseobacterium massiliae and the teleostean fish species tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) and channel catfish in the reply filed on 02/26/2025.
Claims 19-22, 24, 27-31, 34 are currently under examination and were examined on their merits.
Priority
This application filed on 10/13/2022 claims priority to PCT application no. PCT/IB2021/000280, filed on 04/15/2021. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application EP 20169704.2, filed on 04/15/2020. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 20169704.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objections of Figure 8-11 and of claim 26, as set forth in the previous Office action, are withdrawn in light of the amendment filed on 11/13/2025.
The rejections of claims 19-24, 26-31 and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and of claims 24, 26-27, 31 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth in the previous Office action, are withdrawn in light of the amendment filed on 11/13/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 19-20, 22, 24, and 27-31 are newly rejected as necessitated by amendment under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cain et al. (US 2012/0258138 A1, published on 10/11/2012) hereinafter ‘Cain’, in view of Patel et al. (“Antibacterial Activity of Marine Bacterial Pigments Obtained from Arabian Sea Water Samples”, published on 02/25/2020, J. Pure Appl. Microbiol., 14(1), pages 517-526), hereinafter ‘Patel’.
Cain’s general disclosure relates to “protection of fish from disease caused by bacteria” (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 19, pertaining to a method comprising administering to a fish probiotic active ingredient(s), Cain teaches a method comprising administering to a fish in need thereof a probiotic active ingredient, wherein the probiotic active ingredient(s) is(are) a bacterial strain or combination of bacterial strains, (“the invention pertains to the protection of fish from disease caused by bacteria by administering to the fish one or more probiotic organisms”, “Either of strain C6-6 or strain C6-8 may be introduced into the fish or both strains C6-6 and C6-8 may be introduced in combination into the fish in accordance with the method of the present application.”; paragraphs [0003], [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, pertaining to a carrier, Cain teaches wherein the bacterial strain is associated with an acceptable carrier within a single composition (“administering to the fish one or more probiotic organisms” ,“Spraying or top dressing the feed with the strains”; paragraphs [0003], [0015]). It is noted that the instant specification teaches wherein an acceptable carrier may be food (“They may be food”; see page 26, lines 19-27).
Regarding claim 22, pertaining to a method without the use of a carrier, Cain teaches wherein a bacterial strain is administered to a fish in need thereof without acceptable carrier or delivery vehicle(s) (“The deposited bacterial strains are useful, individually or in combination with each other or with one or more other bacterial strains, as a probiotic for the treatment and prophylaxis or prevention of infectious diseases.”, “The bacterial strains of the present application may be administered to the fish in various ways.”, “strains may be introduced into susceptible fish by immersion of the fish into water containing high levels of the strains.”; paragraphs [0010]).
Regarding claim 24, pertaining to the method, Cain teaches wherein a bacterial strain is administered to: a teleostean fish (“Examples of suitable fish for the method of invention include salmonids (Oncorhynchus sp. and Salmo sp.), …, tilapia (Oreochromis sp.), …, channel catfish (Ictalurus punctutus),”; paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the transitional phrase “consists essentially of”. The MPEP states:
“For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.").” (See MPEP 2111.03)
The Examiner interprets the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ according to the instant specification (“The term "essentially consisting of” is a partially open term, which does not exclude additional, unrecited element(s), step(s), or ingredient(s), as long as these additional element(s), step(s) or ingredient(s) do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the application.”; page 29, lines 5-7).
Pertaining to a composition, Cain teaches wherein the composition consists essentially of at least one bacterial strain (“The deposited bacterial strains are useful, individually or in combination with each other or with one or more other bacterial strains, as a probiotic for the treatment and prophylaxis or prevention of infectious diseases.”; paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 28, pertaining to reducing mortality of treated host fish, Cain teaches wherein said method reduces the mortality of treated fish (“administering to the fish one or more probiotic organisms. In a particular embodiment, the invention pertains to the field of the use of probiotic organisms to protect fish from disease caused by bacteria such as Flavobacterium psychrophihun and F. columnare”; “use of a probiotic to decrease morbidity and mortality due to infectious disease”; paragraphs [0003],[0005])
Regarding claims 29, pertaining to infections caused by a Flavobacterium columnare pathogen, Cain teaches wherein the method prevents diseases caused by infections due to Flavobacterium columnare (“the invention pertains to the field of the use of probiotic organisms to protect fish from disease caused by bacteria such as Flavobacterium psychrophihun and F. columnare; paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 30, pertaining to columnaris disease, Cain teaches wherein the disease is columnaris disease (“F. columnare, the causative agent of Columnaris Disease.”; see paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 31, pertaining to the fish species, Cain teaches wherein the teleostean fish is selected from the group consisting of: tilapia (Orechromis sp.) and channel cat fish (“Examples of suitable fish for the method of invention include tilapia (Oreochromis sp.), …, channel catfish (Ictalurus punctutus); paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0014], and [0016]). Please note Applicant’s election of the teleostean fish species tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) and channel catfish (see under Claim Status above).
Cain does not teach wherein the bacterial strain or at least one bacterial strain of the combination is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain whose genome has at least 96% Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2 (instant claim 19). Please note Applicant’s election of Chryseobacterium massiliae as probiotic species under Claim Status above.
Patel’s general disclosure relates to assessing the antibacterial activity of pigments extracted from marine bacteria of Arabian Sea water samples and to characterize the potent antibacterial pigment producing isolate (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 19, please note Applicant’s election of Chryseobacterium massiliae as probiotic species (see Claim Status above).
Pertaining to a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain, Patel teaches a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain which produces a compound with potent antibacterial properties (“study suggests that Candidatus chryseobacterium massiliae strain produces red pigment with potent antibacterial activity”; “Candidatus chryseobacterium massiliae (MK213063), which exceptionally produces red pigment and possess higher and diverse anti-bacterial activity among the other isolates and may be employed in various pharmaceutical applications”; page 523, right column, paragraph 1; see abstract). Additionally, Patel teaches wherein the pigment isolated from Chryseobacterium massiliae strain has antibacterial effects against pathogens (“the extracted pigments were subjected to assessment of antibacterial activity against different bacterial pathogens (Table 2).”; “Out of the 9 pigmented bacterial isolates, 4 pigment producing isolates namely NP5, NP6, NP8 and NP9 showed inhibitory activity towards the test pathogens as suggested by zone of inhibition (Fig. 3).”; page 522, left column, paragraph 3; see Table 2 and Figure 3).
While Cain does not teach wherein the bacterial strain or at least one bacterial strain of the combination is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain whose genome has at least 96% Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2 (instant claim 19), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cain’s method with the Chryseobacterium massiliae strain taught by Patel and with Cain’s teachings on probiotic modes of action including the production of inhibitory compounds, in order to have created a method wherein the probiotic active ingredient(s) is(are) a bacterial strain or combination of bacterial strains, wherein the bacterial strain or at least one bacterial strain of the combination is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to develop a superior method that allows for inhibiting pathogens in a fish, since Patel’s Chryseobacterium massiliae strain produces an antibacterial substance (see Patel above). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in the combination of Cain’s and Patel’s teachings since both references are directed to inhibiting pathogens (see above).
Modified Cain does not teach wherein the bacterial strain Chryseobacterium massiliae has a genome that has at least 96% or more Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2 (instant claim 19).
The instant specification states the use of Chryseobacterium massiliae as a probiotic (“According to a particular embodiment, the invention relates to a Chryseobacterium massiliae bacterial strain, especially the Chryseobacterium massiliae strain identified by Accession Number No 1-5479 deposited at the CNCM on January 24, 2020 (SEQ ID NO:2), for use as a probiotic.”; specification, page 18 lines 19-22), and further states wherein “[p]robiotics are live microorganisms conferring health benefit on the host via mechanisms, including promotion of growth, immunostimulation or direct inhibition of pathogenic microorganisms.” and wherein “"probiotic" or "probiotic effect" means the capability to confer increased survival of the host or population of hosts after administration of the bacterial strains of the invention.”, specification, page 2, lines 24-25 and page 13, lines 7-9). Applicant further discloses wherein Chryseobacterium massiliae protects fish from pathogens (“C. massiliae could be a promising probiotic candidate to prevent columnaris diseases as it provided full and robust protection against all tested virulent F. columnare genomovars and was also able to significantly increased survival of adult conventional zebrafish exposed to this pathogen.”; specification, page 55, lines 9-12). The Examiner notes that many genes comprised by a genomic sequence, do not contribute to the probiotic effects of a bacterial strain, and that the instant specification does not identify any specific genes in the genome of C. massiliae that are responsible for the probiotic properties of said strain. Therefore, no patentable weight is given to the genome sequence SEQ ID NO: 2.
Based on the description of the instant C. massiliae strain, it is highly likely that modified Cain’s C. massiliae strain and the instant C. massiliae strain are the same, since modified Cain’s C. massiliae strain produces an antibacterial compound and therefore has the ability to be used as a probiotic.
Still, modified Cain does not teach wherein the C. massiliae strain has a genome that has at least 96% or more Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2. However, even if there should be a slight variation between modified Cain’s C. massiliae strain and the instant C. massiliae strain, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the instant strain in a method comprising administering to a fish in need thereof, a probiotic active ingredient, wherein the probiotic active ingredient is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain, since both, modified Cain’s strain and the instant strain, share the ability to be used as a probiotic.
Claims 19 and 34 are newly rejected as necessitated by amendment under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alarcon Lopez et al. (ES2390428A1, published on 11/13/2012), hereinafter ‘Alarcon Lopez’, in view of Patel et al. (“Antibacterial Activity of Marine Bacterial Pigments Obtained from Arabian Sea Water Samples”, published on 02/25/2020, J. Pure Appl. Microbiol., 14(1), pages 517-526), hereinafter ‘Patel’.
Alarcon Lopez’s general disclosure relates to “a preparation for the oral administration of the probiotic [S]hewanella pdp11 to fish” (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 19, pertaining to a method comprising administering to a fish a probiotic active ingredient, Alarcon Lopez teaches a method comprising administering to a fish in need thereof, a probiotic active ingredient, wherein the probiotic active ingredient is a bacterial strain (“oral administration of the probiotic shewanella pdp11 to fish”; see abstract).
Regarding claim 34, pertaining to administration of encapsulated bacterial strain, Alarcon Lopez teaches wherein the bacterial strain is introduced into the fish environment or introduced into the fish commensal microbial community by administration of encapsulated bacterial strain (“a preparation has been prepared based on the encapsulation of the probiotic Shewane/PDP11 in alginate hydrogels as a vehicle for its oral administration to cultured fish, which i) …, ii) can be administered independently of the feed, ii) maintains the quantity and vitality of the probiotic cells in the aquatic environment until the fish ingest it, iii) the animals are attracted to it and ingest it, iv) protects the probiotic during its transit through the gastro-intestinal tract of the fish, and v) it allows viable bacteria to be transported to later sections of the digestive tract of fish.”; paragraph [0048]-[0049]). The Examiner notes that a fish ingesting a bacterial strain intrinsically introduces the bacterial strain to the commensal microbial community of the fish.
Additionally, Alarcon Lopez teaches “ Infectious diseases in aquaculture are one of the main problems affecting this sector, and are usually addressed through prevention (…) or through control once the pathogen is present in the facilities (based mainly on the use of antibiotics).” (paragraph [0013]), and that “the use of antibiotics is not without its drawbacks, and thus, the massive use of these substances has produced a notable increase in the appearance of bacteria resistant to them” (paragraph [0013]). Alarcon Lopez discloses “to be of interest as probiotics, microorganisms must possess certain specific biological characteristics, such as: i) …; ii) …; iii) inhibiting the growth of pathogenic bacteria;” (paragraph [0018]).
Alarcon Lopez does not teach wherein the bacterial strain is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain whose genome has at least 96% Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2 (instant claim 19). Please note Applicant’s election of Chryseobacterium massiliae as probiotic species under Claim Status above.
Patel’s general disclosure relates to assessing the antibacterial activity of pigments extracted from marine bacteria of Arabian Sea water samples and to characterize the potent antibacterial pigment producing isolate (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 19, please note Applicant’s election of Chryseobacterium massiliae as probiotic species under Claim Status above.
Pertaining to a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain, Patel teaches a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain which produces a compound with potent antibacterial properties (“study suggests that Candidatus chryseobacterium massiliae strain produces red pigment with potent antibacterial activity”; “Candidatus chryseobacterium massiliae (MK213063), which exceptionally produces red pigment and possess higher and diverse anti-bacterial activity among the other isolates and may be employed in various pharmaceutical applications”; page 523, right column, paragraph 1; see abstract). Additionally, Patel teaches wherein the pigment isolated from Chryseobacterium massiliae strain has antibacterial effects against pathogens (“the extracted pigments were subjected to assessment of antibacterial activity against different bacterial pathogens (Table 2).”; “Out of the 9 pigmented bacterial isolates, 4 pigment producing isolates namely NP5, NP6, NP8 and NP9 showed inhibitory activity towards the test pathogens as suggested by zone of inhibition (Fig. 3).”; page 522, left column, paragraph 3; see Table 2 and Figure 3).
While Alarcon Lopez does not teach wherein the bacterial strain is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain whose genome has at least 96% Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2 (instant claim 19), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alarcon Lopez’s method with the Chryseobacterium massiliae strain taught by Patel and with Alarcon Lopez’s teachings on the requirement of a probiotic to inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria, in order to have created a method, wherein the bacterial strain is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to develop a superior method that allows for inhibiting pathogens in fish, since Patel’s Chryseobacterium massiliae strain produces an antibacterial substance (see Patel above). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in the combination of Alarcon Lopez’s and Patel’s teachings since both references are directed to inhibiting pathogens (see above).
Modified Alarcon Lopez does not teach wherein the bacterial strain Chryseobacterium massiliae has a genome that has at least 96% or more Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2 (instant claim 19).
The instant specification states the use of Chryseobacterium massiliae as a probiotic (“According to a particular embodiment, the invention relates to a Chryseobacterium massiliae bacterial strain, especially the Chryseobacterium massiliae strain identified by Accession Number No 1-5479 deposited at the CNCM on January 24, 2020 (SEQ ID NO:2), for use as a probiotic.”; specification, page 18 lines 19-22), and further states wherein “[p]robiotics are live microorganisms conferring health benefit on the host via mechanisms, including promotion of growth, immunostimulation or direct inhibition of pathogenic microorganisms.” and wherein “"probiotic" or "probiotic effect" means the capability to confer increased survival of the host or population of hosts after administration of the bacterial strains of the invention.”, specification, page 2, lines 24-25 and page 13, lines 7-9). Applicant further discloses wherein Chryseobacterium massiliae protects fish from pathogens (“C. massiliae could be a promising probiotic candidate to prevent columnaris diseases as it provided full and robust protection against all tested virulent F. columnare genomovars and was also able to significantly increased survival of adult conventional zebrafish exposed to this pathogen.”; specification, page 55, lines 9-12). The Examiner notes that many genes comprised by a genomic sequence, do not contribute to the probiotic effects of a bacterial strain, and that the instant specification does not identify any specific genes in the genome of C. massiliae that are responsible for the probiotic properties of said strain. Therefore, no patentable weight is given to the genome sequence SEQ ID NO: 2.
Based on the description of the instant C. massiliae strain, it is highly likely that modified Alarcon Lopez’s C. massiliae strain and the instant C. massiliae strain are the same, since modified Alarcon Lopez’s C. massiliae strain produces an antibacterial compound and therefore has the ability to be used as a probiotic.
Still, modified Alarcon Lopez does not teach wherein the C. massiliae strain has a genome that has at least 96% or more Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) with SEQ ID NO:2. However, even if there should be a slight variation between modified Alarcon Lopez’s C. massiliae strain and the instant C. massiliae strain, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the instant strain in a method comprising administering to a fish in need thereof, a probiotic active ingredient, wherein the probiotic active ingredient is a Chryseobacterium massiliae strain, since both, modified Alarcon Lopez’s strain and the instant strain, share the ability to be used as a probiotic.
Claims 19-21 are newly rejected as necessitated by amendment under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cain et al. (US 2012/0258138 A1, published on 10/11/2012), hereinafter ‘Cain’, in view of Patel et al. (“Antibacterial Activity of Marine Bacterial Pigments Obtained from Arabian Sea Water Samples”, published on 02/25/2020, J. Pure Appl. Microbiol., 14(1), pages 517-526), hereinafter ‘Patel’, and in view of Guotuo et al. (CN110810667A, published on 02/21/2020), hereinafter ‘Guotuo’.
Cain and Patel’s teachings have been set forth above.
Modified Cain does not teach wherein the bacterial strain(s) is(are) further associated with adjuvant component(s) (instant claim 21).
Guotuo’s general disclosure relates to a mixed fish additive (see entire document, including paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 21, pertaining to an adjuvant component, Guotuo teaches wherein the bacterial strains are associated with an adjuvant component (“A mixed fish feed additive comprises the following raw materials in mass fractions: the additive comprises the following raw materials in mass fractions: 55% of a carrier, 19% of a probiotic agent, 6% of a biological enzyme agent, 12% of a Chinese herbal medicine powder, and 8% of an adjuvant.”; paragraph [0044], “The probiotic agent is composed of Enterococcus faecalis, Bacillus subtilis, photosynthetic bacteria and Clostridium butyricum; paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Additionally, Guotuo teaches wherein the fish feed improves survival rate of fish (“The present invention has the effects of … improving the survival rate of fish”; paragraph [0023]).
While modified Cain does not teach wherein the bacterial strain(s) is(are) further associated with adjuvant component(s) (instant claim 21), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Cain’s method with Guotuo’s adjuvant, in order to create an improved method wherein the bacterial strain(s) is(are) further associated with one or more adjuvant components. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve the effectiveness of the probiotic ingredient(s). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining modified Cain’s and Guotuo’s teachings since both references are directed to promoting fish health (see above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has traversed the previous rejections of claims 19-24, 26-31, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 claims in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 (remarks, pages 10-13). Claims 23, 26, and 35 are canceled, rendering Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 23, 26, and 35 moot. Applicant's arguments regarding claims 19-22, 24, 27-31, and 34, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Applicant’s reply, Applicant states that neither Cain, Alarcon Lopez, nor Patel teach administering Chryseobacterium massiliae to a fish (remarks, pages 10-12), that based on the combinations Cain and Patel, or Alarcon Lopez and Patel, “the skilled artisan would have been unable to predict whether the Chryseobacterium massiliae of Patel et al. could be used as a probiotic for fish” (remarks, pages 11 and 12).
The Examiner responds that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Cain and Alarcon Lopez each teach administering a probiotic bacterial strain to a fish. Patel teaches the bacterial strain Chryseobacterium massiliae which produces a pigment that has antibacterial properties against bacterial pathogens. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have combined Cain’s and Patel’s teachings, or Alarcon Lopez’s and Patel’s teachings, to have administered the bacterial strain Chryseobacterium massiliae to a fish for the benefit of inhibiting pathogens in the fish, thereby reducing disease and death caused by pathogens.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA ZINGARELLI whose telephone number is (703)756-1799. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/SANDRA ZINGARELLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653