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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment of 5 June 2026, in which claims 1, 2, 10, 13 have been amended, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18 are examined on their merits herein.
Response to arguments of 5 June 2026
Applicant argues (Remarks of 5 June 2026, page 6) against the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Applicant has amended claim 10 to recite that the method reduces the odor associated with the isoacids. Applicant argues that the Specification teaches that the method reduces perceptible odor through the process of combining the isoacid with feed in a sealed container, so that the odors associated with isoacids are contained, not chemically eliminated. In response, the examiner maintains that the odor is inherent to the isoacids and the method does not reduce the odor; it rather minimizes the release in the atmosphere of the unpleasant odor characteristic of isoacids.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks of 5 June 2026, pages 6-8) against the rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hefner, in view of Andries, in further view of QLF Dairy Equipment, have been considered.
On 5 June 2026, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 13 to recite “wherein the liquid neat isoacid is not a salt and/or does not comprise additional pendant groups when it is combined with the animal feed”. New rejections are made below, based on Applicant’s amendment of 5 June 2026.
Applicant argues (page 7) that Hefner describes one diet as U (urea) + M (molasses) + BCFA (isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid, 2-methylbutyric acid, and phenyl acetic acids). However, the very next sentence in that paragraph in Hefner states that the "BFCA were mixed with an equal weight of a 50% sodium hydroxide solution and then mixed with molasses before being fed."
Applicant argues that Hefner explicitly teaches combining the volatile fatty acids with a 50% sodium hydroxide solution and thereafter mixing with molasses before being fed to the animal, and mixing a neat isoacid with a 50% sodium hydroxide solution creates an isoacid salt. Thus, Hefner does not disclose or suggest combining a liquid neat isoacid with an animal feed as required by claims 1 and 13, but instead explicitly teaches combining fatty acid salts with an animal feed.
In response, the claims of 5 June 2026 do not exclude the presence of isoacid salts in the supplemented feed. The claims, as amended, present the reader with the following possibilities: (1) the liquid neat isoacid is not a salt when it is combined with the animal feed; OR
(2) the liquid neat isoacid does not comprise additional pendant groups when it is combined with the animal feed; OR
(3) the liquid neat isoacid is not a salt and does not comprise additional pendant groups when it is combined with the animal feed.
Applicant seems to argue possibility (1).
Even if the claims were written as (1) being the only possibility (which is not the case), the claims do not exclude (“comprising” language) an additional step of combining/mixing/blending a 50% sodium hydroxide solution with the animal feed (with in situ formation of isoacid salts) before delivering the feed to the animal for oral consumption. In this scenario, the order of steps would be different from that in Hefner, since Hefner first adds the 50% sodium hydroxide solution to the mixture of isoacids, and thereafter mixes with molasses, while the instant claims could encompass a scenario in which the neat isoacids are mixed with molasses, and then mixed with 50% sodium hydroxide solution. The change in the order of steps is obvious, and both scenarios would result in isoacid salts being formed in the supplemented animal feed.
Since the amendment of 5 June 2026 does not require that the liquid neat isoacid is not a salt when it is combined with the animal feed, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hefner, in view of Andries, in further view of QLF Dairy Equipment, is herein maintained.
However, solely in the interest of compact prosecution, new rejections are presented below, specifically addressing Applicant’s argument above focused on liquid, neat isoacid in acid form, not as salt, being added to animal feed.
Applicant’s amendment of 5 June 2026 necessitated the following new rejections.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the method reduces the odor associated with the isoacids by at least 50%. Claim 10 is unclear because odor is a property inherent to a chemical compound, in this case an isoacid. As long as the isoacid is not chemically modified, its odor stays unchanged. In this case, claim 1 (upon which claim 10 depends) recites combining a liquid neat isoacid with animal feed. The Specification teaches [0033] combining the isoacid with a solid animal feed […] to form a blended animal feed, which means combining is synonymous with blending/mixing, and does not include a chemical reaction. Since the liquid neat isoacids are not chemically modified in the method, the odor of the isoacids will be unchanged. As such, it is unclear how a method of blending/mixing liquid neat isoacids and delivering the mixture can reduce the odor associated with the isoacids by 50%, as instantly claimed. Further, it is unclear how the decrease or reduction is to be measured, as the claim fails to establish a standard or threshold level. In other words, it appears that claim 10 is directed towards measuring levels of odor in (two) nutritional animal supplements and comparing said odor levels between (two) different samples; however, the claim fails to clearly establish the reference or standard in the comparison.
One wishing to practice the instantly claimed invention would thus not recognize the metes and bounds for which Applicant seeks protection.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13 are indefinite because they recite that “the liquid neat isoacid is not a salt and/or does not comprise additional pendant groups when combined with the animal feed”. The claims are indefinite for a number of reasons. First, what are such pendant groups? How are they defined, what do they represent, structurally? There is no definition in the Specification for the term “pendant group”. In IUPAC nomenclature of chemistry, a pendant group or side group is a group of atoms attached to a backbone chain of a long molecule; pendant groups are an offshoot, neither oligomeric nor polymeric. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the term “pendant group” to be any group of atoms. The term "pendant groups" in claims 1, 13 renders their scope unclear, since it is not known to the skilled reader which structures are intended to be encompassed by this term.
Further, the recitation “additional pendant groups” implies that (such undefined, see reasons above) pendant groups already exist in the liquid isoacid.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim interpretation: the term “about” in claims 8, 10, 18 is interpreted, based on [0023], to be within experimental error.
Claim interpretation: the term “isoacid” in claims 1, 13 is interpreted to be isobutyric acid, 2-methylbutyric acid, isovaleric acid, valeric acid, butyric acid, and combinations thereof (Specification [0037]).
The term “neat isoacid” in claims 1, 13 is isoacid in the original acid form (referred to as “neat”), without processing into a salt (Specification [0037]).
The term “combining” in claims 1, 13 is interpreted, based on the Specification [0033], to be blending/mixing.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 13-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner et al. (Journal of Animal Science 1985, 61 (5), 1264-1276, cited in PTO-892 of 10 September 2024), in view of Andries et al. (Animal Feed Science and Technology 1987, 18, 169-180, cited in IDS), in further view of QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS).
Hefner teaches a method of supplying nutritional supplements to an animal (sheep) for oral consumption (diet (3), page 1265, left column, second paragraph, also Table 1, under Treatment U + M +BCFA) comprising:
combining a liquid isoacid as molasses-BCFA mix with an animal feed (see ingredients, Table 1) to form a supplemented feed; and
delivering the supplemented feed to the animal for oral consumption.
The liquid isoacid BCFA as molasses-BCFA mix (diet (3), page 1265, left column, second paragraph, also Table 1, note b)) comprises “neat isoacid” as a mixture of isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid, 2-methylbutyric acid, as in instant claims 2, 14, each acid at 0.25% of diet dry matter (total 0.75%), which is within the range in instant claims 8, 18.
The neat isoacid mixture does not comprise additional pendant groups (interpreted as being functional groups beyond the carboxylic acid group), as in instant claims 1, 13.
The animal diet is offered as 600 g of DM daily diet containing ground corn cobs and cornstarch grits plus supplement (4) U + M + BCFA (Table 2, also page 1265, right column second paragraph), which is consistent with the animal feed comprising a solid animal feed wherein the supplemented feed is a blended animal feed, as in instant claim 4, and the animal feed comprises a TMR, as in instant claim 5. The animal feed comprises molasses BCFA as a liquid animal feed, as in instant claim 3.
The animals fed are sheep, which are ruminants, as in instant claims 15, 16.
Hefner does not teach combining the isoacid with animal feed in a sealed container, as in the instant claims.
Hefner does not teach that the supplemented feed is delivered to the animal via a lick tank, pipes and/or pumps, as in instant claim 1, nor does he teach that the supplemented feed is stored in a container prior to delivery to the animal, as in instant claim 11.
Hefner does not teach that the supplemented feed remains sealed until delivery to the animal, as in instant claim 13.
Andries et al. (Animal Feed Science and Technology 1987, 18, 169-180) teach that a nutritional supplement of isoacids has a positive influence on milk production, which is relevant to instant claims 9, 17.
QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS) teaches commercially available (QLF) dairy equipment including sealed containers/tanks of different capacities (2000 Gal for up to 100 cows, 3000 Gal for up to 250 cows, or 6000 Gal for up to 500+ cows), connected to pipes and pumps. It describes how a simple toggle of an on/off switch allows liquid supplements to be easily and accurately applied to a ration batch, which is consistent with combining/blending/mixing liquid supplements with animal feed comprising TMR in a tank/sealed container. The system allows for storage of the supplemented feed in a container prior to delivery to animals, as in instant claim 11.
QLF Dairy Equipment teaches equipment for mixing, storage and delivery of supplemented feed to dairy cows.
QLF Dairy Equipment teaches lick tanks available for delivery of supplemented feed to dairy cows.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hefner and QLF Dairy Equipment to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to scale-up the protocol taught by Heifner for feeding over 100 cows, and combine liquid isoacid VFA comprising isobutyric acid, valeric acid, isovaleric acid and 2-methylbutyric acid, as free acids, with an animal feed which is dry hay, or alfalfa, or wheat bran suspended in an aqueous solution (thus liquid animal feed, as in instant claim 13), to form a supplemented feed, in a QLF sealed container/tank, in which liquid supplements are applied to a ration batch; store the supplemented feed in the sealed container until delivery to the animal; and deliver the supplemented feed via pipes and pumps, to lick tanks, because scaling up the preparation and delivery of supplemented animal feed using commercially available equipment, in order to feed a large number of animals is obvious, well within the skill of the artisan. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined/mixed liquid isoacid BCFA (as a mixture of isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid, 2-methylbutyric acid, as in Hefner) with molasses to obtain a molasses-BCFA mix, in a commercially available 2000 Gal+ sealed container/tank, stored the supplemented feed in the container, and would have used pipes and pumps to deliver said supplemented feed to lick tanks for oral consumption by ruminants, with a reasonable expectation that the nutritional supplement for oral consumption of an animal is efficiently supplied to a large number of animals.
Regarding claims 9, 17, it would have been obvious to evaluate the effect of the supplemented feed on the milk production in the ruminant, because Andries teaches the positive influence of isoacids non milk production in ruminants.
As such, claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 13-18 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefner et al. (Journal of Animal Science 1985, 61 (5), 1264-1276, cited in PTO-892 of 10 September 2024), in view of QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Riemenschneider, W. (Carboxylic acids, Aliphatic, in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol. 7, p. 99-112, 2012, cited in PTO-892 of 6 March 2026).
Hefner teaches a method of supplying nutritional supplements to an animal (sheep) for oral consumption (diet (3), page 1265, left column, second paragraph, also Table 1, under Treatment U + M +BCFA) comprising:
combining a liquid isoacid as molasses-BCFA mix with an animal feed (see ingredients, Table 1) to form a supplemented feed; and
delivering the supplemented feed to the animal for oral consumption.
The liquid isoacid BCFA as molasses-BCFA mix (diet (3), page 1265, left column, second paragraph, also Table 1, note b)) comprises “neat isoacid” as a mixture of isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid, 2-methylbutyric acid, each acid at 0.25% of diet dry matter (total 0.75%).
The animals fed are sheep, which are ruminants.
Hefner does not teach combining the isoacid with animal feed in a sealed container, as in the instant claim 1.
Hefner does not teach that the supplemented feed is delivered to the animal via a lick tank, pipes and/or pumps, as in instant claim 1.
Hefner is silent regarding the odor of the isoacids and of the supplemented animal feed, which is relevant to instant claim 10.
Riemenschneider, W. (Carboxylic acids, Aliphatic, in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol. 7, p. 99-112, 2012) teaches that isobutyric acid has a characteristically pungent and unpleasant odor (page 106, right column, 4th paragraph).
Riemenschneider teaches that isovaleric acid has a highly unpleasant odor (page 107, left column, 5th paragraph).
QLF Dairy Equipment is as above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hefner, Riemenschneider and QLF Dairy Equipment to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to scale-up the protocol taught by Heifner for feeding over 100 cows, and combine liquid isoacid VFA comprising isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid and 2-methylbutyric acid, as free acids, with an animal feed which is dry hay, or alfalfa, or wheat bran suspended in an aqueous solution, to form a supplemented feed, in a QLF sealed container/tank, and deliver the supplemented feed via pipes and pumps, to lick tanks, because scaling up the preparation and delivery of supplemented animal feed using commercially available equipment, in order to feed a large number of animals is obvious, well within the skill of the artisan. Additionally, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the feed supplement in a sealed container and deliver the supplemented feed to animals in a closed system/lick tank, because Riemenschneider teaches that isobutyric acid and isovaleric acid have characteristically pungent and unpleasant odor.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined/mixed liquid isoacid BCFA (as a mixture of isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid, 2-methylbutyric acid, as in Hefner) with molasses to obtain a molasses-BCFA mix, in a commercially available 2000 Gal+ sealed container/tank, stored the supplemented feed in the container, and would have used pipes and pumps to deliver said supplemented feed to lick tanks for oral consumption by ruminants, with a reasonable expectation that the nutritional supplement for oral consumption of an animal is efficiently supplied to a large number of animals, with the additional benefit of minimizing the release in the atmosphere of the unpleasant odor characteristic of the isobutyric and isovaleric acids.
As such, claims 1, 10 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Animal Feed Science and Technology 2018, 237, 27-34, cited in PTO-892), in view of QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS).
Liu teaches (Abstract) that forty-eight Chinese Holstein male calves (10 months of age; 345 ± 6.4 kg of body weight [BW]) were assigned randomly to treatments with 60, 120 and 180 mg BCVFA per kg BW per day for each calf, respectively. The supplement of BCVFA was a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate (analytical grade, 0.985 g/g isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate) in a ratio of 1:1:1 and hand-mixed into the top third of the daily ration. Calves were fed ad libidum a total mixed ration (page 28, under 2.1).
Liu teaches a method of supplying nutritional supplements to an animal (Chinese Holstein male calves) for oral consumption comprising:
combining a liquid neat isoacid as supplement of BCVFA, which is a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate in a ratio of 1:1:1, wherein the isoacid is not a salt, by hand-mixing into the daily ration/animal feed to form a supplemented feed; and
delivering the supplemented feed to the animal for oral consumption.
The supplement of BCVFA is a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate, as neat acids, which satisfies the limitation in claims 2, 14.
Liu teaches that the calves were fed ad libitum a total mixed ration (TMR), as in instant claim 5.
The ingredients of the TMR (g/kg DM) were corn stover (600 g/kg), corn grain (ground, 200 g/kg), wheat bran (40 g/kg), soybean meal (82 g/kg), cottonseed cake (40 g/ kg), rapeseed meal (20 g/kg), calcium carbonate (5 g/kg), salt (4 g/kg), dicalcium phosphate (3 g/kg), and mineral and vitamin mix (5 g/kg); thus, the animal feed comprises a solid animal feed and the supplemented feed is a blended animal feed, as in instant claim 4.
Liu teaches that the animal is a ruminant, as in instant claims 15, 16.
The amount of neat isoacids BCVFA supplement is 60, 120 and 180 mg BCVFA per kg BW per day per calf, which for calves weighing BW = 345 kg, corresponds to 20.7 g (60 mg/kg x 345 kg = 20.7 g), 41.4 g or 62.1 g BCVFA, respectively. The BCVFA is mixed into the daily ration TMR. Since a 345 kg Holstein calf eats about 14 to 17 kg of as-fed TMR per day, the supplemented feed comprises 0.14% (20.7 g/14 kg = 0.14%) or 0.44 % (62.1 g /14 kg = 0.44%) BCVFA, as in instant claims 8, 18.
Liu teaches (Abstract) that the supplemented feed comprises the isoacid BCVFA in an amount effective to increase the average daily gain (ADG) when fed to the ruminant, as in instant claim 17.
Liu does not teach combining the isoacid with animal feed in a sealed container, as in the instant claims.
Liu does not teach that the supplemented feed is delivered to the animal via a lick tank, pipes and/or pumps, as in instant claim 1, nor does he teach that the supplemented feed is stored in a container prior to delivery to the animal, as in instant claim 11.
Liu does not teach that the supplemented feed remains sealed until delivery to the animal, as in instant claim 13.
QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS) teaches commercially available (QLF) dairy equipment including sealed containers/tanks of different capacities (2000 Gal for up to 100 cows, 3000 Gal for up to 250 cows, or 6000 Gal for up to 500+ cows), connected to pipes and pumps. It describes how a simple toggle of an on/off switch allows liquid supplements to be easily and accurately applied to a ration batch, which is consistent with combining/blending/mixing liquid supplements with animal feed comprising TMR in a tank/sealed container. The system allows for storage of the supplemented feed in a container prior to delivery to animals, as in instant claim 11.
QLF Dairy Equipment teaches equipment for mixing, storage and delivery of supplemented feed to dairy cows.
QLF Dairy Equipment teaches lick tanks available for delivery of supplemented feed to dairy cows.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu and QLF Dairy Equipment to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to scale-up the protocol taught by Liu for feeding over 100 cows, and combine liquid isoacid BCVFA which is a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate in a ratio of 1:1:1, as free acids, with a daily ration, solid or suspended in an aqueous solution (thus liquid animal feed, as in instant claim 13), to form a supplemented feed, in a QLF sealed container/tank, in which liquid supplements are applied to a ration batch; store the supplemented feed in the sealed container until delivery to the animal; and deliver the supplemented feed via pipes and pumps, to lick tanks, because scaling up the preparation and delivery of supplemented animal feed using commercially available equipment, in order to feed a large number of animals is obvious, well within the skill of the artisan. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined/mixed liquid isoacid BCVFA as a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate in a ratio of 1:1:1, as free acids, as in Liu, with animal feed to obtain a supplemented feed , in a commercially available 2000 Gal+ sealed container/tank, stored the supplemented feed in the container, and would have used pipes and pumps to deliver said supplemented feed to lick tanks for oral consumption by ruminants, with a reasonable expectation that the nutritional supplement for oral consumption of an animal is efficiently supplied to a large number of animals.
As such, claims 1-5, 8, 11, 13-18 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Animal Feed Science and Technology 2018, 237, 27-34, cited in PTO-892), in view of QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Riemenschneider, W. (Carboxylic acids, Aliphatic, in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol. 7, p. 99-112, 2012, cited in PTO-892 of 6 March 2026).
Liu is as above.
Liu does not teach combining the isoacid with animal feed in a sealed container, as in the instant claim 1.
Liu does not teach that the supplemented feed is delivered to the animal via a lick tank, pipes and/or pumps, as in instant claim 1.
Liu is silent regarding the odor of the isoacids and of the supplemented animal feed, which is relevant to instant claim 10.
Riemenschneider, W. (Carboxylic acids, Aliphatic, in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol. 7, p. 99-112, 2012) teaches that isobutyric acid has a characteristically pungent and unpleasant odor (page 106, right column, 4th paragraph).
Riemenschneider teaches that isovaleric acid has a highly unpleasant odor (page 107, left column, 5th paragraph).
QLF Dairy Equipment is as above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu, Riemenschneider and QLF Dairy Equipment to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to scale-up the protocol taught by Liu for feeding over 100 cows, and combine liquid isoacid BCVFA which is a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate in a ratio of 1:1:1, as free acids, with a daily ration, to form a supplemented feed, in a QLF sealed container/tank, and deliver the supplemented feed via pipes and pumps, to lick tanks, because scaling up the preparation and delivery of supplemented animal feed using commercially available equipment, in order to feed a large number of animals is obvious, well within the skill of the artisan.
Additionally, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the feed supplement in a sealed container and deliver the supplemented feed to animals in a closed system/lick tank, because Riemenschneider teaches that isobutyric acid and isovaleric acid have characteristically pungent and unpleasant odor.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined/mixed liquid isoacid combined/mixed liquid isoacid BCVFA as a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate and 2-methylbutyrate in a ratio of 1:1:1, as free acids, neat, as in Liu, with animal feed to obtain a supplemented feed, in a commercially available 2000 Gal+ sealed container/tank, stored the supplemented feed in the container, and would have used pipes and pumps to deliver said supplemented feed to lick tanks for oral consumption by ruminants, with a reasonable expectation that the nutritional supplement for oral consumption of an animal is efficiently supplied to a large number of animals, with the additional benefit of minimizing the release in the atmosphere of the unpleasant odor characteristic of the isobutyric and isovaleric acids.
As such, claims 1, 10 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, 13-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felix et al. (J Dairy Sci 1980, 63, 1098-1103, cited in PTO-892), in view of QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS).
Felix teaches (Trial 1, page 1099, left column, first paragraph) a method of supplying nutritional supplements to an animal (lactating cows) for oral consumption comprising:
combining a liquid neat isoacid, comprising a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methylbutyrate, n-valerate, in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 by weight, wherein the isoacid is not a salt, by mixing into the top portion of the silage/ daily ration/animal feed to form a supplemented feed; and
delivering the supplemented feed to the animal for oral consumption.
The silage supplement comprises a mixture of 20 g each of the isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methylbutyrate, n-valerate, as neat acids, which satisfies the limitation in claims 2, 14.
Felix teaches (Trial 1, page 1099, left column, first paragraph) that the supplemented animal feed is a blended animal feed, as in instant claim 4, which contains a liquid animal feed/ molasses, as in instant claim 3, and comprises a TMR, as in instant claim 5, fed to 24 Holstein cows. The supplemented animal feed contains (c) 300 g urea plus 454 g dry molasses plus 300 g ground hay, plus 20 g each of the isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methylbutyrate, n-valerate, and phenylacetate; thus, the supplemented feed comprises 0.09% wt. of the isoacid, which satisfies the limitation in instant claims 8, 18.
Felix teaches (page 1098, right column, last paragraph) that Trial 1 tested the effects of feeding a mixture of isoacids on milk production. 24 Holstein cows, which are ruminants, as in instant claims 15, 16, were fed a supplemented feed containing isoacids.
Felix teaches (Abstract, first two paragraphs) that the isoacids in the supplemented feed improved milk production, as in instant claim 9, 17, and increased body weight when fed to the ruminant, as in instant claim 17.
Felix does not teach combining the isoacid with animal feed in a sealed container, as in the instant claims.
Felix does not teach that the supplemented feed is delivered to the animal via a lick tank, pipes and/or pumps, as in instant claim 1, nor does he teach that the supplemented feed is stored in a container prior to delivery to the animal, as in instant claim 11.
Felix does not teach that the supplemented feed remains sealed until delivery to the animal, as in instant claim 13.
QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS) teaches commercially available (QLF) dairy equipment including sealed containers/tanks of different capacities (2000 Gal for up to 100 cows, 3000 Gal for up to 250 cows, or 6000 Gal for up to 500+ cows), connected to pipes and pumps. It describes how a simple toggle of an on/off switch allows liquid supplements to be easily and accurately applied to a ration batch, which is consistent with combining/blending/mixing liquid supplements with animal feed comprising TMR in a tank/sealed container. The system allows for storage of the supplemented feed in a container prior to delivery to animals, as in instant claim 11.
QLF Dairy Equipment teaches equipment for mixing, storage and delivery of supplemented feed to dairy cows.
QLF Dairy Equipment teaches lick tanks available for delivery of supplemented feed to dairy cows.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Felix and QLF Dairy Equipment to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to scale-up the protocol taught by Felix for feeding over 100 cows, and combine a liquid neat isoacid comprising a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methylbutyrate, n-valerate, wherein the isoacid is not a salt, with the other ingredients taught by Felix, part a daily ration, to form a supplemented feed, in a QLF sealed container/tank, in which liquid supplements are applied to a ration batch; store the supplemented feed in the sealed container until delivery to the animal; and deliver the supplemented feed via pipes and pumps, to lick tanks, because scaling up the preparation and delivery of supplemented animal feed using commercially available equipment, in order to feed a large number of animals is obvious, well within the skill of the artisan. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined/mixed liquid isoacid comprising a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methylbutyrate, n-valerate, as free acids, as in Felix, with animal feed to obtain a supplemented feed, in a commercially available 2000 Gal+ sealed container/tank, stored the supplemented feed in the container, and would have used pipes and pumps to deliver said supplemented feed to lick tanks for oral consumption by ruminants, with a reasonable expectation that the nutritional supplement for oral consumption of an animal is efficiently supplied to a large number of animals.
As such, claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 13-18 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felix et al. (J Dairy Sci 1980, 63, 1098-1103, cited in PTO-892), in view of QLF Dairy Equipment (Equipment Brochure, Quality Liquid Feeds, Inc., May 4, 2010, 2 pages, cited in IDS), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Riemenschneider, W. (Carboxylic acids, Aliphatic, in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol. 7, p. 99-112, 2012, cited in PTO-892 of 6 March 2026).
Felix is as above.
Felix does not teach combining the isoacid with animal feed in a sealed container, as in the instant claim 1.
Felix does not teach that the supplemented feed is delivered to the animal via a lick tank, pipes and/or pumps, as in instant claim 1.
Felix is silent regarding the odor of the isoacids and of the supplemented animal feed, which is relevant to instant claim 10.
Riemenschneider, W. (Carboxylic acids, Aliphatic, in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, vol. 7, p. 99-112, 2012) teaches that isobutyric acid has a characteristically pungent and unpleasant odor (page 106, right column, 4th paragraph).
Riemenschneider teaches that isovaleric acid has a highly unpleasant odor (page 107, left column, 5th paragraph).
QLF Dairy Equipment is as above.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Felix, Riemenschneider and QLF Dairy Equipment to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to scale-up the protocol taught by Felix for feeding over 100 cows, and combine liquid neat isoacid comprising a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methylbutyrate, n-valerate, as free acids, as in Felix, with animal feed/daily ration, to form a supplemented feed, in a QLF sealed container/tank, and deliver the supplemented feed via pipes and pumps, to lick tanks, because scaling up the preparation and delivery of supplemented animal feed using commercially available equipment, in order to feed a large number of animals is obvious, well within the skill of the artisan.
Additionally, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the feed supplement in a sealed container and deliver the supplemented feed to animals in a closed system/lick tank, because Riemenschneider teaches that isobutyric acid and isovaleric acid have characteristically pungent and unpleasant odor.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined/mixed liquid neat isoacid comprising a mixture of isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methylbutyrate, n-valerate, as free acids, as in Felix, with animal feed to obtain a supplemented feed, in a commercially available 2000 Gal+ sealed container/tank, stored the supplemented feed in the container, and would have used pipes and pumps to deliver said supplemented feed to lick tanks for oral consumption by ruminants, with a reasonable expectation that the nutritional supplement for oral consumption of an animal is efficiently supplied to a large number of animals, with the additional benefit of minimizing the release in the atmosphere of the unpleasant odor characteristic of the isobutyric and isovaleric acids.
As such, claims 1, 10 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18 are rejected.
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 IRINA NEAGU whose telephone number is (571)270-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, JEFFREY S. LUNDGREN can be reached on (571) 272-5541. 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.
/IRINA NEAGU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights