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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 13-18 are under examination. Claims 1-12 and 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajie et al., JP 2000281568.
Please note the rejection below is based off of paragraph numbers from the Espacenet English Translation of Kajie.
Regarding claim 13, Kajie teaches a method of preventing and/or treating ectoparasite infections in aquatic animals (applying a preventing and curing agent to an aquatic animal for preventing and curing parasitic diseases; Abstract, [0023]).
Kajie differs from claim 13 in that the animal can be any aquatic animal, in particular farmed fish [0002] and is not specifically limited to salmon. Kajie does teach that in particular examples the aquatic animal may be salmon [0023]. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kajie to have the animal be salmon because Kajie recognizes that the composition can be administered to aquatic animals, including salmon [0023].
Kajie teaches (a) mixing a capsaicin containing product with at least one fish feed ingredient, producing a fish feed (capsaicin containing composition is added to a useful aquatic animal nontoxic carrier or an appropriate stabilizer or suitable carrier such as feed to prepare a mixed animal feed for aquatic animals such as salmon; [0019-0021], [0023], Claims 6-7).
Kajie teaches (b) feeding the fish feed to the salmon such that an ectoparasite infection is treated, reduced or prevented in the salmon (administering the capsaicin containing composition that is added to the feed to prevent and treat parasitic disease, where the feed is administered and is useful to the targeted aquatic animal, specifically salmon; [0019], [0023], [0034], Claim 8).
Kajie gives examples of different types of ectoparasite infections that can be treated with their method (parasitic disease; [0003], [0024]) and does not limit their invention to the examples given [0025] allowing for other infections/parasites to be treated. Additionally, Kajie teaches a substantially identical method to the claimed method, with a substantially identical fish feed to the claimed fish feed, as shown by the above rejection. Therefore, the method of Kajie is considered to have the same effect on sea lice. Specifically, the method of Kajie is considered to prevent and/or treat sea lice such that the sea lice infection is treated, reduced, or prevented in the salmon. Thus, the method of Kajie is considered to have the effects as claimed. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 14, Kajie discloses the method of claim 13, as described above. Kajie teaches the method further comprises mixing a glucosamine containing product with the fish feed (mixing with a non-toxic carrier for aquatic animals, such as yeast; [0022], Claim 2). Regarding yeast as a glucosamine containing product, the instant specification recognizes yeast as a glucosamine containing product [0049]. Thus, yeast from Kajie is considered to meet the claim limitation as a glucosamine containing product.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Kajie discloses the method of claim 14, as described above. Kajie teaches the glucosamine containing product comprises yeast, as described in claim 14. Kajie does not specify the specific genus of the yeast (Abstract, [0022], Claim 2), where the yeast is of Pichia origin as required by claims 15 and 17. However, 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 Kajie to use any genus of yeast, including Pichia, with the method as taught by Kajie. See MPEP 2144.08.
Regarding claim 16, by meeting claim 13 with capsaicin, claim 16 is also considered to be met.
Regarding claim 18 Kajie discloses the method of claim 13, as described above. Kajie teaches feeding the fish feed to the fish for a period of 30 days or more [0034]. This encompasses the claimed range of feeding the fish feed to the fish for a period of at least six weeks. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the amendments and rejection(s) of claim(s) 13-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Kajie.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pg. 6 of their remarks, that claims 15 and 17-18 are not obvious as they depend from the nonobvious independent claim 13. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
As shown by the obviousness rejection above, the method recited in claim 13 and dependent claims 14-18 is rendered obvious by Kajie. Thus, claims 13-18 are considered obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Wed. and Fri. 7-12 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights