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 .1
Status of Claims and Priority
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-19 are pending. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Attorney Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of claims 17 and 19, filed Feb 25 2026 have overcome the duplicate claim objection.
Applicant’s arguments and amended claims, filed Feb 25, 2026 with respect to the rejections of
claims 6-9 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by KR 2006/112083 and
claims 6-9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Rasheed, et. al. Poultry Science, 99:914-925 (2020)
have been fully considered. The amended claims remain rejected by KR 083 and Rasheed below.
Applicant’s arguments, filed Feb 25, 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of
claims 1, 11-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Rasheed in view of Mishra, et. al. Front. Vet. Sci. 6:60, pages 1-5, Mar 2019
claims 1-5, 10-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Rasheed in view of Mishra in further view of Tirawattanawanich et al. Journal of Applied Poultry Research Volume 20, Issue 4, 1 December 2011, Pages 409-420
have been fully considered and as necessitated by the amended claims, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rasheed in view of Mishra et al. and Lin, and Rasheed in view of Mishra and Lin in further view of Tirawattanawanich (respectively).
Claim Interpretation
With regard to claim 6, the term diet is generally under stood by its plain language meaning to mean a total nutritional profile of a subject.
Along these lines, the specification defines the term “diet” in context of a “low protein diet,” such as a “diet with low amount of digestible lysine.” See for example page 5, lines 28-30. “Preferably, the said diet nevertheless has an ideal amino acid profile in order to avoid or at significantly reduce any negative impact on the body weight gain of poultry.” Id. The specification notes the term diet is equated with the composition % or corn-soybean based basal diets for starter, grower and finisher diets (T1-T3). See Table 2 page 16. However, despite the discrepancy of a plain language understanding of a diet vs. a food composition, in terms of prior art analysis, the term diet is being interpreted as being equivalent to a composition.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 and 13 are objected to for the recitation of “wherein the composition is a low protein diet (claim 6) and where the “composition of claim 6, which is a diet for poultry (claim 13).” The claimed limitations that the composition is a “diet” is objected to because the plain language meaning of a diet, is that of a total nutritional picture consumed by a subject. While a diet can “comprise” or “consist” of the claimed composition, a composition is not a diet. Further the specification’s usage and definition of diet does not correct or contradict the plain language meaning as detailed in the claim interpretation section above, noting the specification at page 5, lines 28-30. Amendment of the claim(s) to recite an intended use (MPEP 2111.02) of the composition, where the composition “comprises” or “consists of” a diet for poultry will overcome this rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by KR 2006112083 A1 (KR 083) (abstract only), previously cited by the Examiner.
Claim 6 is a composition comprising dimethyl sulfone (MSM), with intended use (MPEP 2111.02) to treat heat stressed poultry, that comprises at least 0.05 wt.% MSM, based on total composition weight, wherein the composition is a low protein diet.
In terms of claim interpretation, the limitation of treating heat stressed poultry is an intended use of the composition invention per se. Because the body of the claim defines the invention as a composition comprising at least 0.05 wt.%, prior art teaching this composition will render claim 6 known, whether or not the intended use is recited or not in the prior art.
Regarding claims 6 and 13-14, KR 083 teaches
a nutrition solution [i.e. part of a chicken/poultry diet] for chicken raising comprising natural sulfur which allows the natural sulfur to be accumulated in flesh of chickens and in egg yellows . . . and improves growth of chickens and productivity of eggs. See Abstract; Novelty.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 13-14, KR 083 teaches the solution (aqueous as per claim 14) comprises MSM (contained in the in natural sulfur) and natural mineral water. See Abstract, Description. Regarding claim 6 and the limitation of at least 0.05 wt. % MSM, KR 083 teaches its composition comprises 0.01-2 parts by weight of natural sulfur, where the natural sulfur contains 30-70% MSM. See Abstract; Description. The taught KR 083 range overlaps and anticipates the claimed ranges of claims 6-7, (claim 6 at least 0.05 wt.%, claim 7 recites 0.05 to 0.3 wt.%). Note that KR 083 teaches the intended use of the claims, i.e. being a solution (composition) with intended use for a poultry diet.
Claims 8-9 recite the intended use (MPEP 2111.02) of the composition where the poultry are exposed to a temperature of more than 27 °C, for at least 5 hours a day and/or a relative humidity of at least 40% on average, or some combination of these thereof. Claim 13 recites an intended use of the composition as poultry diet.
In terms of claim interpretation, the limitations of a poultry diet (an intended use of the claimed composition), the poultry exposure to the claimed temperatures, hours of exposure and relative humidity are intended uses of the composition invention. Because the body of the claim defines the invention as a composition comprising at least 0.05 wt.%, prior art teaching this composition will render claims 8-9 and 13 known, whether the intended uses are taught or not. As KR 083 teaches the claimed composition, therefore, the claims are anticipated.
Claims 6-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasheed et al. Poultry Science 99:914-925 (2020), previously cited.
In terms of claim interpretation, the limitation of claim 6 of treating heat stressed poultry is an intended use (MPEP 2111.02) of the composition invention per se. Because the body of the claim defines the invention as a composition comprising at least 0.05 wt.%, prior art teaching this composition will render claim 6 known, whether or not the intended use is recited or not in the prior art.
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation of composition comprising 0.05 wt % MSM, Rasheed teaches the administration of MSM, as a dietary supplement composition to poultry (broiler chickens). See Abstract.
Rasheed teaches feeding 0.05% MSM [a feed composition] to broilers (poultry chicken subjects) to study induced oxidative stress on tissue MSM distribution, growth performance, oxidative stress biomarkers and immune responsivity. See abstract. Blood and tissue were collected to analyze MSM concentrations and various oxidative stress biomarkers. Id. “In conclusion, 0.05% dietary MSM supplementation partially protected birds form oxidative stress.” See abstract. Claim 7 notes a range of from 0.05 to 0.3 wt.% for a total liquid and/or solid matrix. The taught Rasheed range overlaps and anticipates the claimed ranges of claims 6-7.
Claims 8-9 recite the intended use (MPEP 2111.02) of the composition where the poultry are exposed to a temperature of more than 27 °C, for at least 5 hours a day and/or a relative humidity of at least 40% on average, or some combination of these thereof. Claim 13 recites an intended use of the composition as poultry diet.
In terms of claim interpretation, the limitations of a poultry diet (an intended use of the claimed composition), the poultry exposure to the claimed temperatures, hours of exposure and relative humidity are intended uses of the composition invention. Because the body of the claim defines the invention as a composition comprising at least 0.05 wt.%, prior art teaching this composition will render claims 8-9 and 13 known, whether the intended uses are taught or not. As Rasheed teaches the claimed composition, therefore, claims 8-9 and 13 are anticipated.
RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY ARGUMENTS:
The Attorney response states the anticipation rejections over KR 083 and Rasheed cannot be sustained in light of amended claim 6. In response, anticipation rejections over both references are in place as detailed above.
Claim Rejections Necessitated by Amendment - 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.
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 1, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed et al. Poultry Science 99:914-925 (2020) in view of Mishra et al. Front. Vet. Sci. 6:60. Pages 1-5 Mar 2019 and Lin et al. Strategies for preventing heat stress in poultry, World’s Poultry Science Journal, Vol. 62, March 2006. Lin is cited on the PTO 892 form. Rasheed and Mishra were previously cited.
The method of claim 1 requires the elements of
Oral administration of MSM, during the grower phase
To the claimed heat stressed poultry subject.
As required claim 1, Rasheed teaches the administration of MSM, as a dietary (i.e. oral administration) supplement to poultry (broiler chickens). See Abstract. Rasheed teaches feeding 0.05% MSM [a feed composition] to broilers (poultry subject chickens) to study induced oxidative stress on tissue MSM distribution, growth performance, oxidative stress biomarkers and immune responsivity. See abstract. Blood and tissue were collected to analyze MSM concentrations and various oxidative stress biomarkers. Id. “In conclusion, 0.05% dietary MSM supplementation partially protected birds from oxidative stress.” See abstract.
While Rasheed teaches the claimed step of orally administering MSM to oxidative stressed poultry subjects, it does not teach the subjects are heat stressed. Rasheed does not teach the limitation where the oral administration is performed only during the grower phase.
To address this, Mishra teaches that heat stress is a major source of systemic oxidative stress since it causes a redox imbalance between the pro- and anti-oxidants in favor of prooxidants. See page 2, column 1, last paragraph.
Mishra teaches oxidative stress associated with “[h]eat stress has been shown to alter the feed intake, poor growth performance immunosuppression, hypoxia, and high mortality (9, 10). Heat stress also deteriorates the meat quality of chicken.” See page 2, bridging column 1 to column 2.2
To address the limitation where the oral administration is performed during a grower phase, it is noted that Applicant’s claimed method involves embodiments of “low protein” diet (interpreted to be a composition, as noted above), exemplified by Table 1. Lin teaches for heat-stressed poultry subjects’, their “protein requirement is decreased because of the suppression in production performance.” See Lin, page 74, Section Nutritional Strategies, subtitle Dietary Protein Level and Amino Acid. Lin discloses:
It has been shown that both protein synthesis and breakdown are affected by chronic heat stress, and protein synthesis is more affected than breakdown, leading to reduced protein deposition. The decreased protein synthesis cannot be restored by high dietary protein level (Temin et al., 2000). Moreover, a high protein diet even has a harmful influence on growing performance. The growth rate and meat yield of commercial fast growing broiler chickens is suppressed by high dietary protein level at high temperature (Cahaner et al., 1995).
Based on the teachings of Lin, the need to reduce protein levels of growing heat-stressed protein would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), administering a low protein diet/composition, where Lin notes a high protein diet has a harmful influence on growth of heat-stressed poultry, thus necessitating a low protein feed composition as claimed.
Prior to the filing of the present patent application, it would have been prima facie obvious to a PHOSITA following the teachings of the primary reference Rasheed to treat oxidatively stressed Poultry subject with orally administered MSM and as modified to treat heat stressed poultry with MSM as taught by secondary references Mishra and Lin with a low protein feed composition, in order to feed heat stressed poultry, as oxidative stress in poultry is associated with environmental heat stress, resulting in poultry health issues, especially during a growth phase.
The PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination of prior art discloses the claimed elements of treating oxidative stressed poultry with MSM administered orally (Rasheed), where it is known environmental heat stress results in oxidative stress in poultry (Mishra), where such administration occurs during the growth phase of the poultry, along with the necessity to use a low protein feed/composition per Lin. The rationale to do so is combination of a known method per Rasheed treating oxidative stress with oral MSM combined with a known prior art element of heat induced oxidative stress.
With regard to claim 6 (amended to be a low protein diet, interpreted as a low protein composition), Rasheed teaches the claimed MSM, where Lin teaches the necessity of avoiding high protein feed (i.e. use a low protein feed/composition), and Mishra and Lin teach the claimed subject in need, heat stressed poultry.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 13, (intended uses of the claimed composition for a diet of poultry exposed to the claimed conditions, because the body of the claim defines the invention as a composition comprising at least 0.05 wt.%, prior art teaching this composition will render the claims known, whether the intended uses (MPEP 2111.02) are taught or not.
Claim 15 is a method of reducing moisture in litter comprising administering MSM and/or the dimethyl sulfone and/or claim 6’s composition to chronically heat stressed poultry.
In terms of claim interpretation, the specification notes that heat stressed poultry will drink more water when environmental temperatures rise. See page 7, lines 14-20. The specification notes that as the poultry subjects drink more water, they will increase the quantity of liquid excreta in the pens, which will increase the moisture in the litter, where such wet litter is detrimental to poultry health in the poultry pens. Id.
Accordingly, as the claimed property of reducing moisture in litter will occur with the claimed method, such reduction in moisture will occur with the teachings of Rasheed and Mishra that teach the method of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15, which depends from claim 1, is also obvious over Rasheed in view of Mishra and Lin.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed et al. Poultry Science 99:914-925 (2020) in view of Mishra et al. Front. Vet. Sci. 6:60. Pages 1-5 and Lin et al., World’s Poultry Science Journal, Vol. 62, March 2006 in further view of Tirawattanawanich et al. Journal of Applied Poultry Research Volume 20, Issue 4, 1 December 2011, Pages 409-420. Rasheed, Mishra and Tirawattanawanich were previously cited. Lin is cited on the PTO-892 form.
It is noted that while Rasheed in view of Mishra and Lin teach the method of claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13 and 15, this cited combination does not teach the particular species of claims 2-4, 10 and 16-19, in terms temperature, exposure for at least 5 hours and/or a relative humidity of at least 40% on average, or some combination thereof.
Claims 2-4, 17 and 19 recite limitations of where the subject poultry, are exposed to a temperature of more than 27 °C, for at least 5 hours a day and/or a relative humidity of at least 40% on average, or some combination of these thereof.
Claim 10 discloses where the subject poultry is exposed to a relative air humidity of at least 40% on average.
Claims 16 and 18 are noted to recite a poultry exposure temperature of at least 30°C, with an exposure of at least 5 hours per day.
Regarding claims 2-5, 10, 17 and 19 at the temperature limitations of more than 27 °C, claim 10 and relative air humidity of at least 40% average, and claims 16 and 18 with poultry exposure of at least 30°C, Tirawattanawanich teaches a study comparing standard broiler chickens (B line), a native Thai breed (T) and a crossbred line (C) raised in tropic (Thailand) conditions to study the effects of heat stress and humidity upon them. See Abstract. Tirawattanawanich teaches various response to heat and humidity stress were studied between the three lines in three different Thailand seasons (monsoon, summer and winter). See Abstract.
The temperatures and average humidities studied meet the claimed limitations of more than 27 °C and at least 30 °C as claimed. See Figures 1 and 2 reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also note Tirawattanawanich teaches 3 day periods over a period of months, in the monsoon, winter and summer seasons, thus meeting the at least 5 hour limitations of the claims.
Tirawattanawanich teaches that the B line of chickens had significantly lower innate and humoral immunities than the hardier T and C lines of chicken, demonstrating the effects of the claimed temperatures and relative humidities upon the B line breed of chickens. See Abstract. Accordingly, prior to the filing of the claimed invention, a PHOSITA would look to treat these heat and humidity stressed chickens of Tirawattanawanich as claimed, with the method taught by Rasheed and Mishra. The PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Tirawattanawanich teaches the heat and humidity stressing conditions claimed, resulting in heat stressed poultry, where Rasheed and Mishra teach a method of treating heats tressed poultry with MSM as claimed.
RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY ARGUMENTS:
The Attorney response states the rejections cannot be sustained in light of the
amendments to Claim 1 herein.
In response, as detailed above, the previous rejections have been withdrawn and new rejections issued as detailed above.
Conclusion and Correspondence
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Adam C. Milligan can be reached at (571) 270-7674. 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.
/WILLIAM Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1623
/ADAM C MILLIGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1623
1 CONTINUING DATA
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/066857 06/21/2021
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
EP 20182483.6 06/26/2020
2 Mishra also teaches heat stress has negative impacts on nutrient absorption; it causes intestinal epithelial cell injury and intestinal hyperpermeability, which causes an influx of bacterial products from the gut lumen into the produce circulation that affects the organ systems. See page 2, column 2. Mishra lists other detrimental effects of heat stress to poultry, including cell death, detrimental changes to the pituitary adrenal axis; as well susceptibility to bacteria due to an altered intestinal-immune barrier, as well intestinal inflammation. Id.
Prosecution Insights