DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim status
Claims 1-27 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-6, 8, and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 21-27 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (herein referred to as Liu, CN 112655822 A) in view of Ali et al. (herein referred to as Ali, “Cinnamon: A Natural Feed Additive for Poultry Health and Production—A Review”) and Zulin et al. (herein referred to as Zulin, WO 2007109761 A2).
With regard to Claim 7, Liu teaches a process for preparing a stable cinnamic aldehyde feed ingredient ([n0001], [n0006]). Liu teaches preparing a cinnamic aldehyde core ([n0006] Liu reads such that the cinnamic aldehyde is part of a coating carrier. One would recognize a coating carrier is equivalent to a core as stated in the limitation of the claim) Liu teaches coating the carrier (i.e., core) with an organic acid, resulting in an acidic layer ([n0020]).
Liu teaches cinnamic aldehyde has a strong inhibitory and killing effect on various fungi and molds ([n0016]). Liu teaches the cinnamic aldehyde core contains approximately 31% by weight cinnamic aldehyde (embodiment 3). See MPEP 2144.04(I) a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, Liu is silent to the feed ingredient containing at least 35% by weight of the cinnamic aldehyde.
Ali teaches the dietary supplementation of cinnamon in poultry feed as a natural feed additive has beneficial impacts on nutrient digestibility, hypocholesterolaemic, blood biochemical profile, gene expression, immunity, and particularly on gut health to alleviate the impact of disease and heat stress by maintaining water and electrolytic balance and feed intake. It is clearly demonstrated that cinnamon can be used as an alternative to antibiotics in the poultry industry offering greater animal health, food safety, and economic aspects of poultry production (Simple Summary).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Ali to include cinnamaldehyde at an amount greater than 35% of the core to achieve the desired beneficial impacts such as nutrient digestibility, hypocholesterolaemic, blood biochemical profile, gene expression, immunity, and particularly on gut health to alleviate the impact of disease and heat stress by maintaining water and electrolytic balance and feed intake. Additional one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize to utilize an amount which would act as an antibiotic. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, Liu is silent to the acidic layer containing citric acid.
Zulin teaches a method for producing a palatability enhancer for a companion animal food product (abstract). Zulin teaches coating the animal feed product with a palatability enhancer such as citric acid ([0045], [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Zulin to use citric acid as a coating to enhance the palatability of the animal feed product.
With regard to Claim 9, Liu is silent to the acidic layer containing citric acid.
Zulin teaches a method for producing a palatability enhancer for a companion animal food product (abstract). Zulin teaches coating the animal feed product with a palatability enhancer such as citric acid ([0045], [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Zulin to use citric acid as a coating to enhance the palatability of the animal feed product.
With regard to Claim 14, Liu teaches the cinnamic aldehyde purity in the composition is high and therefore it can ensure the stability of the livestock feed additive product ([n0040]).
Therefore, because the combination of Liu, Ali, and Zulin teaches the limitations of the claimed invention and the compositions both are stable. Then one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce the composition taught by Liu, Ali, and Zulin would retain at least 85% of the cinnamic aldehyde for up to ninety days after combination with animal feed or raw ingredients. See MPEP 2112.01(I) which states Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 112655822) in view of Ali et al. (herein referred to as Ali, “Cinnamon: A Natural Feed Additive for Poultry Health and Production—A Review”) and Meng et al. (herein referred to as Meng, CN 110124580 A).
With regard to Claims 10 and 11, Liu is silent to the polymer layer containing sodium carboxymethyl cellulose.
Meng teaches tea tree essential oil enteric-coated pellets and a preparation method and application thereof ([0002]). Meng teaches the coating material comprises sodium carboxymethyl cellulose ([0055]). Men teaches The coating liquid of the present invention adopts the above components to effectively wrap tea tree essential oil molecules, make them uniformly dispersed, and prevent the volatilization of the tea tree essential oil, thereby improving the stability of the tea tree essential oil and increasing its storage time ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Meng to include a polymer coating (i.e., layer) containing carboxymethyl cellulose to effectively wrap t essential oil molecules, make them uniformly dispersed, and prevent the volatilization of the essential oil, thereby improving the stability of the tea tree essential oil and increasing its storage time. Meng teaches tea tree oil has good antibacterial activity (Meng [0005]) similar to Liu which teaches cinnamic aldehyde exhibits strong inhibitory and killing effect on various fungi and molds (Liu [n0016]) and therefore the carboxymethyl cellulose polymer coating would be suitable, and advantageous, for use with a cinnamic aldehyde core as taught by Liu.
With regard to Claims 12 and 13, Liu is silent to the coating step being performed using a fluidized bed.
Meng teaches it is preferred that the drug-loaded pellet cores are placed in a coating pan or a fluidized bed, and the coating liquid is atomized by a spray gun to perform atomization coating ([0065]).
Therefore, Meng imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that that claims coating methods of a fluid bed (claim 12) and a pan coating (claim 13) was known to have been successfully used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select a fluid bed or a pan coating because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such as think on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Claim 21 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (herein referred to as Liu, CN 112655822) in view of Ali et al. (herein referred to as Ali, “Cinnamon: A Natural Feed Additive for Poultry Health and Production—A Review”) and Meng et al. (herein referred to as Meng, CN 110124580 A).
With regard to Claim 21, Liu teaches a process for preparing a stable cinnamic aldehyde feed ingredient ([n0001], [n0006]). Liu teaches preparing a cinnamic aldehyde core ([n0006] Liu reads such that the cinnamic aldehyde is part of a coating carrier. One would recognize a coating carrier is equivalent to a core as stated in the limitation of the claim) Liu teaches coating the carrier (i.e., core) with an organic acid, resulting in an acidic layer ([n0020]).
Liu teaches cinnamic aldehyde has a strong inhibitory and killing effect on various fungi and molds ([n0016]). Liu teaches the cinnamic aldehyde core contains approximately 31% by weight cinnamic aldehyde (embodiment 3). See MPEP 2144.04(I) a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, Liu is silent to the feed ingredient containing at least 35% by weight of the cinnamic aldehyde.
Ali teaches the dietary supplementation of cinnamon in poultry feed as a natural feed additive has beneficial impacts on nutrient digestibility, hypocholesterolaemic, blood biochemical profile, gene expression, immunity, and particularly on gut health to alleviate the impact of disease and heat stress by maintaining water and electrolytic balance and feed intake. It is clearly demonstrated that cinnamon can be used as an alternative to antibiotics in the poultry industry offering greater animal health, food safety, and economic aspects of poultry production (Simple Summary).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Ali to include cinnamaldehyde at an amount greater than 35% of the core to achieve the desired beneficial impacts such as nutrient digestibility, hypocholesterolaemic, blood biochemical profile, gene expression, immunity, and particularly on gut health to alleviate the impact of disease and heat stress by maintaining water and electrolytic balance and feed intake. Additional one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize to utilize an amount which would act as an antibiotic. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, Liu is silent to the feed ingredient comprising coating the acidic layer with a polymer creating a polymer layer.
Meng teaches tea tree essential oil enteric-coated pellets and a preparation method and application thereof ([0002]). Meng teaches the coating material comprises sodium carboxymethyl cellulose ([0055]). Men teaches The coating liquid of the present invention adopts the above components to effectively wrap tea tree essential oil molecules, make them uniformly dispersed, and prevent the volatilization of the tea tree essential oil, thereby improving the stability of the tea tree essential oil and increasing its storage time ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Meng to include a polymer coating (i.e., layer) containing carboxymethyl cellulose to effectively wrap molecules, make them uniformly dispersed, and prevent the volatilization, thereby improving the stability and increasing its storage time. Meng teaches tea tree oil has good antibacterial activity (Meng [0005]) similar to Liu which teaches cinnamic aldehyde exhibits strong inhibitory and killing effect on various fungi and molds (Liu [n0016]) and therefore the carboxymethyl cellulose polymer coating would be suitable, and advantageous, for use with a cinnamic aldehyde core as taught by Liu.
With regard to Claim 24, Liu is silent to the feed ingredient comprising coating the acidic layer with a polymer creating a polymer layer, wherein the polymer layer contains sodium carboxymethyl cellulose.
Meng teaches tea tree essential oil enteric-coated pellets and a preparation method and application thereof ([0002]). Meng teaches the coating material comprises sodium carboxymethyl cellulose ([0055]). Men teaches The coating liquid of the present invention adopts the above components to effectively wrap tea tree essential oil molecules, make them uniformly dispersed, and prevent the volatilization of the tea tree essential oil, thereby improving the stability of the tea tree essential oil and increasing its storage time ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Meng to include a polymer coating (i.e., layer) containing carboxymethyl cellulose to effectively wrap molecules, make them uniformly dispersed, and prevent the volatilization, thereby improving the stability and increasing its storage time. Meng teaches tea tree oil has good antibacterial activity (Meng [0005]) similar to Liu which teaches cinnamic aldehyde exhibits strong inhibitory and killing effect on various fungi and molds (Liu [n0016]) and therefore the carboxymethyl cellulose polymer coating would be suitable, and advantageous, for use with a cinnamic aldehyde core as taught by Liu.
With regard to Claims 25 and 26, Liu is silent to the coating step being performed using a fluidized bed.
Meng teaches it is preferred that the drug-loaded pellet cores are placed in a coating pan or a fluidized bed, and the coating liquid is atomized by a spray gun to perform atomization coating ([0065]).
Therefore, Meng imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that that claims coating methods of a fluid bed (claim 25) and a pan coating (claim 26) was known to have been successfully used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select a fluid bed or a pan coating because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such as think on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claim 27, Liu teaches the cinnamic aldehyde purity in the composition is high and therefore it can ensure the stability of the livestock feed additive product ([n0040]).
Therefore, because the combination of Liu, Ali, and Meng teaches the limitations of the claimed invention and the compositions both are stable. Then one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce the composition taught by Liu, Ali, and Schleicher would retain at least 85% of the cinnamic aldehyde for up to ninety days after combination with animal feed or raw ingredients. See MPEP 2112.01(I) which states Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 112655822) in view of Ali ( “Cinnamon: A Natural Feed Additive for Poultry Health and Production—A Review”), Meng (CN 110124580 A) and Zulin et al. (herein referred to as Zulin, WO 2007109761 A2)
With regard to Claims 22 and 23, Liu is silent to the acidic layer containing citric acid.
Zulin teaches a method for producing a palatability enhancer for a companion animal food product (abstract). Zulin teaches coating the animal feed product with a palatability enhancer such as citric acid ([0045], [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Zulin to use citric acid as a coating to enhance the palatability of the animal feed product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, applicant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been satisfied because the applicant argues that the examiner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine references or had any expectation of success at all. Specifically applicant points to Zulin and argues that Zulin teaches to solve an entirely different problem where Zulin is using citric acid as a palatability enhancer on a feed product is a completely different aim or goal than seeking to coat a cinnamic aldehyde core that contains at least 35% by weight cinnamic aldehyde with citric acid to form an acidic layer. This argument is not found to be persuasive, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Zulin’s motivation to enhance the palatability is sufficient motivation to combine with Liu, the examiner has the burden to establish that there would be any motivation to combine, the motivation does not have to be specific to a problem disclosed by the applicant. See MPEP 2143.01 A "motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Thus, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive
Next , applicant argues that neither Liu nor Meng teach or suggest a dual layer coating as presently claimed and that nothing in the prior art would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art to coat a cinnamic aldehyde cord with an acidic layer and, separately, a polymer layer as described in the claims, let alone a established a reasonable expectation of success. This argument is not found to be persuasive because first, Meng provides ample motivation to combine because the addition of the polymer coating, specifically sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, can effectively wrap molecules, make them uniformly dispersed, and prevent the volatilization, thereby improving the stability and increasing its storage time. Continuing, with regard to the applicant argument about Liu and Meng not teaching a dual layer coating, the examiner points to MPEP 2144.06 which discusses combining or substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In this case the use of an acidic layer as taught by Liu is a sustained release coating (Liu, [n0017]) and the polymer layer taught by Meng does not affect the release of the active ingredient (Meng, [0041]) but advantageously enhances the use effect and stability of the active ingredient (Meng, [0041]). Thus, the combination of Liu and Meng would achieve the desired controlled release as taught by Liu with the enhanced use effect and stability without effecting the release as taught by Meng. Therefore, the applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
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 KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792