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
The office acknowledges Applicants filing of the arguments on 3/18/2026 in response to the office action dated 11/18/2025. Claims 1-14 have been cancelled. Rejections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. Arguments, which are directed to withdrawn rejections, are thus rendered moot. Upon further consideration, new rejections are provided below and the action is made non-final. Claims 15-35 are pending and are examined based on the merits herein.
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.
Claim(s) 15-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eastridge (The Ohio State University, 2017).
Eastridge teach Rumensin (monensin sodium) is approved for lactating dairy cows and ionophores such as monensin has been approved as feed additives (p 1, para 1). It has been approved in feed for therapeutic and production uses in feedlot cattle, paster cattle, beef cows etc. (p 1, para 1). The reference teaches that Rumensin can be fed to dry and lactating dairy cows, with the suggested initial feeding rate being 11 g/ton (DM basis) and the continual feeding rate between 11 and 22 g/ton (p 1, last para). The generally expected response is increase in feed efficiency and milk yield (See Table).
From Eastridge a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to provide a feed composition comprising 11 g/ton of Rumensin (monsenin sodium) (DM basis/dry matter basis) to lactating dairy cows. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to provide a feed composition comprising monensin to lactating dairy cows, 11-22 g/ton with a reasonable amount of success and to increase the feed efficiency, milk yield in the dry and lactating dairy cows. Claims 15-18, 22-24, 26-27, 31-32, 34 are addressed. As to claims 19, 28, the reference teaches feeding rate between 11-22 g/ton of monensin to cows. Thus a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to administer about 14.5 g/ton which falls within the range taught by the prior art. As to claims 20-21, 29-30, 35, it is noted that administration of the same amount of monensin,11 g/ton in feed composition to the same subject population, e.g. ruminant, cows would result in the same effects including the increase of feed efficiency of 3.5% or 3.0% or improvement in the fatty acid profile as instantly claimed. As to claims 25, 33 the reference teaches providing monensin to all lactating cows that include mid-lactating cows. Hence a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to administer a feed composition comprising 11 g/ton of monensin in all cows including mid-lactating cows with a reasonable amount of success and provide feed efficiency.
Claim(s) 15-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monovet90 (Monovet90, Revision, 10-2021) and University of Kentucky (https://www. rs.uky.edu/regulatory/feed/feed_labels/2020%20OTC%20Feed%20Labels/DairyCattle-Monensin%20Type%20C%20Component.pdf, June 2017).
Monovet90 teach monensin type mediated article for improved feed efficiency, increased milk production, increased weight gain etc. (See p 1, lines 1-19, col. 1). It is taught to mix Monovet90 (monensin) thoroughly to make one ton of complete feed that provides 5-40 g/ton of monensin on a 90% dry matter. For dairy cows, 11-22 g/ton of monensin on a 100% dry matter (See p 1, col. 1, Directions for use, Steps I-II).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Monovet90 further teach in Table 2 (above) the desired monensin concentration g/ton for dairy cow which includes 11 g/ton and 15 g/ton.
University of Kentucky teach the use of monensin to lactating dairy cows in a feeding system, e.g. 11 g/ton, 15 g/ton and 22 g/ton of monensin in dry matter feed composition.
PNG
media_image2.png
372
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
From the teachings Monovet and University of Kentucky a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to add monensin at a concentration of 11 g-15 g/ton to the dietary feed of ruminant animals, e.g. cattle to increase feed efficiency (ECM/DMI), milk production etc. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to arrive at the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success and provide feed efficiency from the prior art teachings. Further administration of the feed diet comprising monensin at a concentration of 11 g-15 g/ton to ruminant animals would result in substantially the same effects of increase in feed efficiency, ECM/MDI. It is noted that about 14.5 g/ton can be 15 g/ton as about can be +/-10% of the value. Thus claims 15-19, 22-23, 26-28, 31 would have been obvious over the prior art. As to claims 24-25, 32-34 from the University of Kentucky’s teachings a person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a feed composition comprising monensin for e.g. 11 g/ton or 15 g/ton to lactating cows for increased milk efficiency. Administration of the feed diet comprising monensin at a concentration of 11 g-15 g/ton to ruminant animals would result in substantially the same effects of increase in feed efficiency, ECM/MDI. As to claims 25, 33 a skilled artisan from the prior art teachings would have found it obvious to administer the feed-diet comprising monensin to all dairy cows, including lactation animals, mid-lactation cows because the references teach in general the feed diet for all lactating cows. As to claims 20-21, 29-30, administration of the same agent in the same amount, e.g. feed comprising 11 g/ton of monensin to ruminant animals, e.g. dairy cow would result in 3% or 3.5% feed efficiency increase compared to the control (not receiving dietary monensin). As to claim 35, administration of the same agent in the same amount, e.g. feed comprising 11 g/ton of monensin to ruminant animals, e.g. dairy cow would result in the claimed effects of improvement in fatty acid profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAMAHESWARI RAMACHANDRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F- 8:30-5:00 PM (PST).
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 5712705239. 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.
/Umamaheswari Ramachandran/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights