DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 28, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 13, and 19 all require a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Shin et al. (Poultry Science, 2016, 95:2679–2684) in view of Greene et al. (Frontiers in Physiology, 2019, 10:1251).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses enterally (“chicks received oxygenated treated water by nipple drinker”) providing oxygen nano-bubble water to broiler chickens (abstract) (pg. 2680, left column-right column, top). Shin teaches that oxygen delivered through oxygenated water increases oxygen saturation in the blood stream of broiler chickens as a result of diffusion (pg. 2682, left).
Shin does not disclose that the method is used for reducing or eliminating the incidence of woody breast in poultry.
Greene teaches that circulatory oxygen homeostasis is dysregulated in broiler chickens with woody breast myopathy which can be alleviated by treatment that increases oxygenation of blood and muscle (“QB reduces the severity of WB” “QB seemed to be mediated via the increased expression of oxygen-sensing genes leading to enhanced oxygenation in both blood and breast muscle”) (abstract; pg. 2, left column, pg. 18, right column). Green further teaches that the impact of woody breast myopathy on poultry meat quality has resulted in heavy economic loss and severe woody breast has a significant negative impact on meat texture, protein content, water-holding capacity, and on consumer acceptability and purchase (pg. 2, left column).
Since Shin teaches providing oxygen nano-bubble water to broiler poultry, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the oxygen nano-bubble water to reduce or eliminate the incidence of woody breast in broiler poultry because Green teaches that circulatory oxygen homeostasis is dysregulated in broiler chickens with woody breast myopathy which can be alleviated by treatment that increases oxygenation of blood and muscle (abstract; pg. 2, left column, pg. 18, right column). As Shin teaches that oxygen delivered through oxygenated water increases oxygen saturation in the blood stream of broiler chickens as a result of diffusion (pg. 2682, left), there would be a reasonable expectation that providing the oxygen nano-bubble water to poultry would increase the oxygen levels which would be reasonably expected to reduce or eliminate the incidence of woody breast in broiler chickens because Green teaches that woody breast myopathy can be alleviated by treatment that increases oxygenation of blood and muscle (abstract; pg. 2, left column). The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to reduce or eliminate the incidence woody breast myopathy because Green teaches that the impact of woody breast myopathy on poultry meat quality has resulted in heavy economic loss and severe woody breast has a significant negative impact on meat texture, protein content, water-holding capacity, and on consumer acceptability and purchase (pg. 2, left column).
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Shin discloses the poultry are broiler chickens (abstract).
Claims 3-5 are rendered prima facie obvious because Shin discloses the water is bubbled with pure oxygen (i.e., 100 vol.% oxygen) to produce the oxygen-nanobubble water (pg. 2680, left column). 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 A.
Claims 7-9 are rendered prima facie obvious because Shin discloses that 100 vol.% of the water made available to the broiler chicken to drink contains the oxygenated nanobubbles (“chicks were divided into the following groups”; “Group 3 chicks received oxygenated treated water by nipple drinker for 5 weeks”) (pg. 2680, right column, top). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 10 is rendered prima facie obvious because Shin discloses that administration of the water begins at 1 week of age (“after acclimation for a period of 1 week”) (pg. 2680, left column, bottom). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claims 12-13 are rendered prima facie obvious because Shin discloses the average diameter for the oxygen nano-bubble is 173 nm (pg. 2680, left column). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 15 is rendered prima facie obvious because Shin discloses the number of oxygenated nano-bubbles per milliliter of water is 1.75 x 108 (pg. 2680, left column). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claims 18-20 are rendered prima facie obvious because Shin discloses the oxygenated water contains 40 to 60 ppm (40-60 mg/L) of oxygen (pg. 2680, left column). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (Shin in view of Greene) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record (Fujiwara in view of Emami) for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 6, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Shin et al. (Poultry Science, 2016, 95:2679–2684) in view of Greene et al. (Frontiers in Physiology, 2019, 10:1251) and further in view of Jung et al (KR 2014/0074482 A).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Shin in view of Greene was previously discussed.
Regarding claim 6, Shin does not disclose the pressure that the water containing nanobubbles is maintained at until it is administered to the chicken.
Jung discloses a method of producing a drinking water for livestock, including poultry ([0033] English translation, pg. 3, paragraph 2), wherein the drinking water contains a functional gas, such as oxygen (English translation, pg. 3, paragraph 4), as nano-bubbles (abstract). Jung discloses the pressure of the nanobubbles in the final production step is 1 to 2 atm (14.7-29.39 psig) ([0034], English translation, pg. 3 paragraph 3). With the pressure taught by Jung, the nanobubble population is maintained ([0048], English translation, pg. 4, paragraph 4).
Since Shin generally teaches drinking water for poultry with oxygen nanobubbles, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a pressure of 1 to 2 atm (14.7-29.39 psig) as taught by Jung, within the teachings of Shin, in order to maintain the nanobubble population as taught by Jung ([0048], English translation, pg. 4, paragraph 4). A prima face case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Regarding claim 14, Shin does not disclose the diameter of the nanobubbles is 70 to 130 nm.
Regarding claims 16-17, Shin does not disclose the water administered comprises at least 200 million of the nanobubbles per milliliter of water (claim 16) or at least 500 million of the nanobubbles per milliliter of water (Claim 17).
Jung teaches that the functional gas nanobubbles have a size of 100 nm or less and the number of bubbles is 2.0 x 108 per mL or more or the size is 85 nm or less and the number of bubbles is 5.0 x 108 per mL or more (English translation, pg. 3, paragraph 11). Jung teaches that the disclosed functional gas drinking water enhances immunity of the animal (English translation, pg. 2, paragraph 4; pg. 3, paragraph 4).
Since Shin generally teaches drinking water for poultry with oxygen nanobubbles, it would have been prima facie obvious to use a size of 100 nm or less and a number of bubbles of 2.0 x 108 per mL or more or a size of 85 nm or less and a number of bubbles of 5.0 x 108 per mL or more as taught by Jung, within the teachings of Shin, because Jung teaches oxygen nanobubbles with these sizes and concentrations for livestock including poultry. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use the size and concentrations taught by Jung because Jung teaches that this functional gas drinking water enhances immunity of animals (English translation, pg. 2, paragraph 4; pg. 3, paragraph 4). A prima face case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of Shin in view of Greene and further in view of Jung is newly applied and has not been traversed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Shin et al. (Poultry Science, 2016, 95:2679–2684) in view of Greene et al. (Frontiers in Physiology, 2019, 10:1251) and further in view of Noy et al. (J. Appl. Poultry Res. 1999, 8:16-24).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Shin in view of Greene was previously discussed.
Regarding claim 11, Shin does not disclose the administration of the water begins up to 2 days after the broiler chicken hatches from its egg.
Noy discloses providing water to chicks immediately posthatch and teaches that ingestion of water immediately posthatch transiently enhanced body weight of birds and fulfills the bird’s moisture requirement (abstract; pg. 20 bottom and pg. 23, top).
Since Shin generally teaches providing drinking water to birds, it would have been prima facie obvious to supply the drinking water immediate posthatch, within the teachings of Shin, because Noy teaches that ingestion of water immediately posthatch transiently enhanced body weight of birds and fulfills the bird’s moisture requirement (abstract; pg. 20 bottom and pg. 23, top).
Response to Arguments
The rejection of Shin in view of Greene and further in view of Noy is newly applied and has not been traversed.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09/03/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/064,406 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
