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
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.
In view of the appeal brief filed on 25 September 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
Response to arguments of 25 September 2025
The rejections of claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wu et al. (CA 1,208,063); and over Hefner et al. (Journal of Animal Science 1985, 61 (5), 1264-1276) and Wu et al. (CA 1,208,063), are herein withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
This office action is NON-FINAL.
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 of 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 of 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.
Appropriate clarification of the claim language 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 and/or without additional pendant groups (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 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, claim 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).
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, 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, claim 1, 10 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-18 are rejected.
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