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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 29, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Election/Restriction
The claims originally presented and acted upon by the Office on their merits determine the invention elected by an applicant in the application, and in any request for continued examination (RCE) filed for the application. See MPEP 818.02 (a).
The inventions of group I and II were shown to be distinct in the requirement for election/restriction dated 12/05/2024. The applicant elected to prosecute Group I in the response filed 02/05/2025.
Newly submitted claims 41 and 42 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally elected for the following reasons:
Claims 1-15, 25-37, and 43 (currently under examination) drawn to mold inhibitor compositions, feed additives, and a composition for moisture retention in animal feed classified in A01N37/14.
Claims 16-21 and 38-40 (withdrawn) drawn to a method for reducing mold contamination in feed or food and a method for extending the shelf life of animal feed or feed ingredients by preventing contamination of mold classified in A01P3/00.
Claim 41 (new) drawn to a method of reducing corrosion of stainless steel manufacturing equipment classified in C23F11/00.
Claim 42 (new) drawn to a method of improving moisture retention in animal feed classified in A23B9/26.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Group I and III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product. For example, other compounds such as nitric acid and citric acid are used to reduce corrosion of stainless steel.
Inventions of Group I and IV are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product. For example, other compounds such as surfactants (e.g., ethoxylated castor oil) are used to improve moisture retention in animal feed.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
• The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
• The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
• The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant elected Group I and has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 41 and 42 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-15, 25-26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Kaesler et al. (US 6,183,794 B1) in view of Fahnenstich et al. (US 3,982,026) and as evidenced by Weil et al. (US 2,446,505).
Regarding claim 1, Kaesler discloses a composition for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58). Kaesler teaches that the compositions according to the disclosure help prevent molds (Col 4, lines 43-50).
Kaesler does not disclose the solution comprises at least one propylene glycol ester of propionic acid.
Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, such as propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, are outstanding additives for silage and are included in an amount of at least about 0.01 to about 1.0 weight percent to improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
Since Kaesler generally teaches a composition for silage, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, within the teachings of Kaesler, because Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid are outstanding additives for silage. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use propylene glycol esters of propionic acid because Fahnenstich teaches that they improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites that the propylene glycol ester of propionic acid and propylene glycol is included in an amount effective to inhibit or delay mold growth in animal feed with a moisture content of about 30% or lower, wherein the composition is less corrosive to stainless steel than propionic acid alone, the composition has a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid, and the mold inhibitor composition is at least as effective as propionic acid at inhibiting or delaying mold growth under the same physical conditions.
As evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol monopropionate and propylene glycol dipropionate are known food additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2) and the esters inhibit the growth of mold in concentrations as low as 1/10 of 1% (Col 3, line 73 – Col 4, line 14).
Kaesler teaches that the composition for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58) is known to help prevent molds (Col 4, lines 43-50) and it would have been prima facie obvious to include at least one propylene glycol ester of propionic acid, as taught by Fahnenstich as previously discussed. As evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol esters of propionic acid are known additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2) in concentrations as low as 1/10 of 1% (Col 3, line 73 – Col 4, line 14). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to inhibit or delay mold growth in animal feed with a moisture content of about 30% or lower.
Furthermore, Kaesler discloses that when pure propionic acid is used as preservative, the storage and use is made difficult by the corrosive effect which can be overcome by replacing the pure acid with its ester (Col 1, lines 16-21), Fahnenstich teaches that the action of propylene glycol esters of propionic acid surpasses that of propionic acid (Col 1, lines 35-46), and as evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol monopropionate and propylene glycol dipropionate are known additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich (containing propylene glycol esters of propionic acid) would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a less corrosive effect compared to propionic acid alone and be at least as effective as propionic acid at inhibiting or delaying mold growth under the same physical conditions.
Regarding the composition having a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the propylene glycol esters of propionic acid inherently have a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid, the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (lower vapor pressure) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Claims 2-3 are rendered prima facie obvious because it would have been prima facie obvious to include propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, as taught by Fahnenstich within the teachings of Kaesler, as previously discussed.
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains propionic acid (abstract).
Claims 5 and 6 are rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains a surfactant such as a fatty acid (Col 3, lines 11-26).
Claim 7 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains water (abstract).
Claim 8 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the addition to the feedstuff can take place in the form of solutions or in the form of particles (Col 4, lines 64-66).
Regarding claim 9, Kaesler discloses a composition for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58). Kaesler teaches that the compositions according to the disclosure help prevent molds (Col 4, lines 43-50).
Kaesler does not disclose the solution comprises at least one propylene glycol ester of valeric acid.
Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid are outstanding additives for silage and are included in an amount of at least about 0.01 to about 1.0 weight percent to improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
While Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid and the instant claim 9 recites at least one propylene glycol ester of valeric acid, compounds which are homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to include propylene glycol esters of valeric acid (differing from propionic acid only by the successive addition of -CH2- groups) in order to improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
Further regarding claim 9, the claim recites that the propylene glycol ester of valeric acid and propylene glycol is included in an amount effective to inhibit or delay mold growth in animal feed with a moisture content of about 30% or lower, wherein the composition is less corrosive to stainless steel than valeric acid alone, the composition has a lower vapor pressure than valeric acid or propionic acid, and the mold inhibitor composition is at least as effective as valeric acid or propionic acid at inhibiting or delaying mold growth under the same physical conditions.
As evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol monovalerate and propylene glycol divalerate (esters of valeric acid) are known food additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2) and the esters inhibit the growth of mold in concentrations as low as 1/10 of 1% (Col 3, line 73 – Col 4, line 14).
Kaesler teaches that the composition for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58) is known to help prevent molds (Col 4, lines 43-50) and it would have been prima facie obvious to include at least one propylene glycol ester of valeric acid as previously discussed. As evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol esters of valeric acid are known additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2) and do so in concentrations as low as 1/10 of 1% (Col 3, line 73 – Col 4, line 14). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to inhibit or delay mold growth in animal feed with a moisture content of about 30% or lower.
Furthermore, Kaesler discloses that when pure propionic acid is used as preservative, the storage and use is made difficult by the corrosive effect which can be overcome by replacing the pure acid with its ester form (Col 1, lines 16-21), Fahnenstich teaches that the action of propylene glycol esters surpasses that of propionic acid (Col 1, lines 35-46), and as evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol monovalerate and propylene glycol divalerate are known additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich (containing propylene glycol esters of valeric acid, which have close structural similarity to propylene glycol esters of propionic acid) would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a less corrosive effect compared to valeric acid alone and be at least as effective as valeric acid or propionic acid at inhibiting or delaying mold growth under the same physical conditions.
Regarding the composition having a lower vapor pressure than valeric acid or propionic acid, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because propylene glycol esters of valeric acid inherently have a lower vapor pressure than the acid form, the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (lower vapor pressure) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Claim 10 is rendered prima facie obvious because it would have been prima facie obvious to include the propylene glycol mono and di-esters of valeric acid, within the teachings of Kaesler, as previously discussed.
Claim 11 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains propionic acid (abstract).
Claims 12 and 13 are rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains a surfactant such as a fatty acid (Col 3, lines 11-26).
Claim 14 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains water (abstract).
Claim 15 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the addition to the feedstuff can take place in the form of solutions or in the form of particles (Col 4, lines 64-66).
Regarding claim 25, Kaesler discloses a composition for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58). Kaesler also discloses the composition contains a fatty acid (Col 3, lines 11-26). Kaesler teaches that the compositions according to the disclosure help prevent molds (Col 4, lines 43-50).
Kaesler does not disclose the solution comprises at least one propylene glycol mono- and di-ester of propionic acid.
Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, such as propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, are outstanding additives for silage and are included in an amount of at least about 0.01 to about 1.0 weight percent to improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
It would have been prima facie obvious to include propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate as taught by Fahnenstich, within the teachings of Kaesler, as previously discussed.
Further regarding claim 25, the claim recites that the at least one fatty acid and the at least one ester is present in an amount effective to mitigate or control mold growth in the feed wherein the feed has a moisture content of about 30% or lower and is under ambient conditions, the composition is less corrosive to stainless steel than propionic acid alone, and the composition has a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid.
As evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol monopropionate and propylene glycol dipropionate are known food additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2) and the esters inhibit the growth of mold in concentrations as low as 1/10 of 1% (Col 3, line 73 – Col 4, line 14).
Kaesler teaches that the composition for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol, propionic acid, and a fatty acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58; Col 3, lines 11-26) is known to help prevent molds (Col 4, lines 43-50) and it would have been prima facie obvious to include propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, as taught by Fahnenstich, as previously discussed. As evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol esters of propionic acid are known additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2) and do so in concentrations as low as 1/10 of 1% (Col 3, line 73 – Col 4, line 14). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to mitigate or control mold growth in the feed wherein the feed has a moisture content of about 30% or lower and is under ambient conditions.
Furthermore, Kaesler discloses that when pure propionic acid is used as preservative, the storage and use is made difficult by the corrosive effect which can be overcome by replacing the pure acid with its ester (Col 1, lines 16-21). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich (containing propylene glycol esters of propionic acid) would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to be less corrosive than propionic acid.
Regarding the composition having a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the propylene glycol esters of propionic acid inherently have a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid, the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (lower vapor pressure) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Examiner’s Note: Claim 26 is indicated as “withdrawn” but is currently under examination because it is drawn to the elected Group I.
Regarding claim 26, Kaesler discloses a solution for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and the volatile fatty acid, propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58).
Kaesler does not disclose the solution comprises mono and/or di-propylene glycol esters of propionic acid.
Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, such as propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, are outstanding additives for silage and are included in an amount of at least about 0.01 to about 1.0 weight percent to improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
It would have been prima facie obvious to include propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate as taught by Fahnenstich, within the teachings of Kaesler, as previously discussed.
Further regarding claim 26, “for moisture retention in animal feel” is interpreted as an intended use of the composition and does not carry patentable weight.
Claim 29 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains water (abstract).
Claims 27-28, 30-37 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Kaesler et al. (US 6,183,794 B1) in view of Fahnenstich et al. (US 3,982,026) as evidenced by Weil et al. (US 2,446,505) and further in view of De Lima Portilho (US 2013/0131168 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Kaesler and Fahnenstich and as evidenced by Weil was previously discussed.
Regarding claims 27-28, Kaesler does not disclose the solution comprises the acid buffer, ammonium propionate.
De Lima Portilho discloses ammonium propionate is a commonly used preserving agent in animal feeds. De Lima Portilho teaches that preserving agents control microbe growth, reducing the microbiological contaminations in animal feeds. [0003].
Since Kaesler generally teaches a solution for animal feed, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include ammonium propionate, within the combined teachings of the prior art, because De Lima Portilho teaches ammonium propionate functions as a preservative in animal feeds. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use ammonium propionate because De Lima Portilho teaches that it controls microbe growth, reducing the microbiological contaminations in animal feeds [0003].
Regarding claim 30, Kaesler discloses a solution for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58). Propylene glycol is present in an amount of 1 to 6% by weight (Col 2, lines 58-60).
Kaesler does not disclose the solution comprises at least one monopropylene glycol propionate, the carboxylic acid salt, ammonium propionate, or that the propionic acid is present in an amount of 1-50 % by weight.
Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, such as propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, are outstanding additives for silage and are included in an amount of at least about 0.01 to about 1.0 weight percent to improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
Since Kaesler generally teaches a composition for silage, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, in the amount taught by Fahnenstich, within the teachings of Kaesler, because Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid are outstanding additives for silage. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use propylene glycol esters of propionic acid because Fahnenstich teaches that they improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
The combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich do not disclose the solution comprises at least one carboxylic acid, such as ammonium propionate, or that the propionic acid is present in an amount of 1-50 % by weight.
De Lima Portilho discloses ammonium propionate is a commonly used preserving agent in animal feeds and is typically present in an amount of 0.1% by weight to 10% by weight. De Lima Portilho teaches that preserving agents control microbe growth, reducing the microbiological contaminations in animal feeds [0003]. De Lima also teaches propionic acid is present as a preservative in an amount of 25 to 52% by weight [0008].
Since Kaesler generally teaches a solution for animal feed, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include ammonium propionate, in the amount taught by De Lima Portilho, within the combined teachings of the prior art, because De Lima Portilho teaches ammonium propionate functions as a preservative in animal feeds. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use ammonium propionate because De Lima Portilho teaches that it controls microbe growth, reducing the microbiological contaminations in animal feeds [0003]. It also would have been prima facie obvious for propionic acid to be included in the amounts taught by De Lima Portilho, within the combined teachings of the prior art, because De Lima Portilho taught 25 to 52% by weight of propionic acid acts as a preservative in animal feed [0008].
Regarding the amounts of the components, 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.
Further regarding claim 30, the claim recites that the feed additive is at least as effective as propionic acid to inhibit or delay mold growth. The combined teachings of the prior art (containing propylene glycol esters of propionic acid) would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to be at least as effective as propionic acid to inhibit or delay mold growth, as discussed above.
Claim 31 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58), and it would have been prima facie obvious to include propionic acid, in the amount taught by De Lima Portilho, as previously discussed.
Claims 32-33 are rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the solution contains a surfactant such as a fatty acid (Col 3, lines 11-26).
Claim 34 is rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses the surfactant may be present in the composition in an amount of 2% by weight (Col 2, line 42). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claims 35 and 37 are rendered prima facie obvious because Kaesler discloses water may be present in an amount of 0.1-10.0% by weight (abstract). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 36 is rendered prima facie obvious because it would have been obvious to include ammonium propionate salt, as taught by De Lima Portilho, within the combined teachings of the prior art, as previously discussed.
Regarding claim 43, Kaesler discloses a solution for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58). Propylene glycol is present in an amount of 1 to 6% by weight (Col 2, lines 58-60). Kaesler discloses the solution contains a surfactant such as a fatty acid (Col 3, lines 11-26) and the surfactant may be present in the composition in an amount of 2% by weight (Col 2, line 42). Kaesler also discloses water in the composition in an amount of 0.1-10.0% by weight (abstract).
Kaesler does not disclose the solution comprises at least one monopropylene glycol propionate, the carboxylic acid salt, ammonium propionate, or that the propionic acid is present in an amount of 1-50 % by weight.
Fahnenstich discloses propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, such as propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, are outstanding additives for silage and are included in an amount of at least about 0.01 to about 1.0 weight percent to improve the quality of the silage (abstract; Col 1, lines 35-61).
De Lima Portilho discloses ammonium propionate is a commonly used preserving agent in animal feeds and is typically present in an amount of 0.1% by weight to 10% by weight. De Lima Portilho teaches that preserving agents control microbe growth, reducing the microbiological contaminations in animal feeds [0003]. De Lima also teaches propionic acid is present as a preservative in an amount of 25 to 52% by weight [0008].
It would have been prima facie obvious to include propylene glycol esters of propionic acid, in the amount taught by Fahnenstich, and ammonium propionate and propionic acid, in the amount taught by De Lima Portilho, as previously discussed.
The combined teachings of the prior art (containing propylene glycol esters of propionic acid) would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to be at least as effective as propionic acid to inhibit or delay mold growth, as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, and will be addressed insofar as they apply to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues at pg. 8 that Kaesler teaches against the use of the salts or esters of propionic acid as a preservative.
The Examiner disagrees that the disclosure of Kaesler teaches away from the use of the claimed esters of propionic acid. Kaesler teaches advantages of their use such as helping with the corrosive effect and the unpleasant odor of pure propionic acid (Col 1, lines 16-20). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be dissuaded by the teachings of Kaesler and would have been motivated to include the esters disclosed by Fahnenstich, within the teachings of Kaesler, as discussed above.
Applicant argues at pg. 9 that there is nothing in the combined teachings of the prior art to suggest that propylene glycol esters of propionic acid would be effective against mold growth in an animal feed with a moisture content of about 30% or lower or that the compositions would be at least as effective as propionic acid at inhibiting or delaying mold growth. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it unexpected that the compositions described in the present application would perform as well as propionic acid, while also having reduced corrosivity and vapor pressure compared to propionic acid.
The Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, Kaesler teaches that the composition for animal feed (silage) (Col 4, lines 43-49), which includes propylene glycol and propionic acid (abstract; Col 2, line 58; Col 3, lines 11-26) is known to help prevent molds (Col 4, lines 43-50) and it would have been prima facie obvious to include propylene glycol-1-monopropionate and propylene glycol 1,2-dipropionate, as taught by Fahnenstich as previously discussed. As evidenced by Weil, propylene glycol esters of propionic acid are known additives to inhibit the growth of mold (Col 1-2). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to mitigate or control mold growth in the feed.
Furthermore, Kaesler teaches that when pure propionic acid is used as preservative, the storage and use is made difficult by the corrosive effect which can be overcome by replacing the pure acid with its ester (Col 1, lines 16-21). Therefore, the combined teachings of Kaesler and Fahnenstich (containing propylene glycol esters of propionic acid) would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to be less corrosive than propionic acid.
Regarding the composition having a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the propylene glycol esters of propionic acid inherently have a lower vapor pressure than propionic acid, the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (lower vapor pressure) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
The applicant states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it unexpected that the compositions described in the present application would perform as well as propionic acid, while also having reduced corrosivity and vapor pressure compared to propionic acid. As discussed above, the Examiner does not believe that the claimed properties are unexpected over the prior art. The burden is on the applicant to explain proffered data and to establish that the results are unexpected and significant over the prior art. See MPEP 716.02(b).
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
Prosecution Insights