INSECT OIL IN SWINE FEED

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 . Status of the Application Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) and the Response and Amendment filed 1 September 2026 is acknowledged. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows: Pending claims: 1, 3-8, 12-13, 17, 19, 22, 25-26, 28, 31-32, and 35 Withdrawn claims: 22, 25-26, 28, 31-32, and 35 Previously canceled claims: 2, 9-11, 14-16, 18, 20-21, 23-24, 27, 29-30, 33-34, and 36-43 Newly canceled claims: None Amended claims: 1 and 7 New claims: None Claims currently under consideration: 1, 3-8, 12-13, 17, and 19 Currently rejected claims: 1, 3-8, 12-13, 17, and 19 Allowed claims: None Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 September 2026 has been entered. 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 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 107348168 A, cited on the IDS filed on 19 July 2023) in view of Boloh (Boloh, Y. (2020, February 5). Insects oils, a new ingredient for poultry, pig feeds. Feed Strategy. https://www.feedstrategy.com/latest-news/article/15441031/insects-oils-a-new-ingredient-for-poultry-pig-feeds, cited on the IDS filed on 14 February 2024). Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for increasing the weaning weight of piglets, the method comprising feeding a piglet milk from a sow fed a swine feed comprising a feed additive for improving colostrum quality of sows (Example 2, p. 5, ¶¶ 10-12; p. 7, ¶ 7 – p. 8, ¶ 1), which can increase the content of medium-chain fatty acids in the colostrum (p. 2, ¶ 8). The feed additive comprises 40 parts (equating to about 40%) coconut oil, and is added to lactating sow feed at 1% by weight (Example 2, p. 5, ¶¶ 10-12). This equates to about 0.4 wt% coconut oil in the feed. Zhang teaches that coconut oil contains 45-51% lauric acid, is the main source of lauric acid, and is added to the feed additive to rapidly provide energy to sows and enhance the immunity of sows and piglets (p. 4, ¶ 2). The feed additive can be added to the sow’s feed at a weight percentage of 0.5-2% (p. 3, ¶ 8). The colostrum of sows fed the feed additive showed a significant increase in medium chain fatty acids, the most obvious increase being the content of lauric acid (p. 7, ¶ 5). Experimental group piglets fed the enriched colostrum had significantly better average daily gain and survival rate as compared to control piglets fed control colostrum (Example 2, p. 7, ¶ 7 – p. 8, ¶ 1). Therefore, Zhang teaches a method of increasing the weight of nursing piglets, which would increase the weaning weight of the piglets, the method comprising feeding a swine feed to a sow during the lactation phase of the sow, the swine feed comprising 0.2-0.8 wt% coconut oil, which comprises 45-51% lauric acid, and feeding piglets milk (i.e., colostrum) from the sow fed the swine feed comprising 0.2-0.8 wt% coconut oil. Zhang does not discuss that the swine feed comprises about 2.2 wt% to about 4.0 wt% insect oil, or that the piglets have a higher average weaning weight than piglets fed milk from a sow fed a feed without insect oil. However, Boloh teaches that the oil of black soldier fly comprises about 45% by weight of lauric acid (p. 6, Graph). Boloh teaches that insect oil can be used to improve health and organic properties at up to 2% in sow feed and between 1-4% in piglet feed (p. 8, ¶ 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the coconut oil in the feed supplement of Zhang with black soldier fly oil in an amount up to 2% of the sow feed as taught by Boloh. MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”. Since Boloh discloses that the claimed insect oil is a suitable compound for use in a feed for sows at up to 2% and that black soldier fly oil comprises about 45% lauric acid, it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute the coconut oil in the composition of Zhang with black soldier fly larvae oil and to increase the amount to up to 2% of the sow feed as disclosed by Boloh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention in doing so because Zhang teaches that coconut oil is selected for its high lauric acid content (45-51%), and Boloh teaches that black soldier fly larvae oil contains about 45% lauric acid and is beneficial at up to 2% in sow feed. Claim 1 recites that the swine feed comprises “about 2.2 wt% to about 4.0 wt% insect oil”. The instant specification at paragraph [0042] indicates that the range of “about” can be within 10% of recited amounts. As such, the scope of the range of insect oil is 2.2 wt% x 0.9 = 1.98 wt% to 4.0 wt% x 1.1 = 4.4 wt%. The claimed range of 1.98 wt% to 4.4 wt% overlaps the disclosed range of up to 2%. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). It is noted that the phrase, “whereby the piglets have a higher average weaning weight than piglets fed milk from a sow fed a feed without insect oil” is a statement expressing the intended result of the method. A statement with regard to the intended use of an invention is not further limiting insofar as the structure of the invention is concerned. In order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Additionally, In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP § 2111.04(I). In the present case, the “whereby” clause expresses the intended result of the positively recited method step of feeding a piglet milk from a sow fed a swine feed comprising about 2.2 wt% to about 4.0 wt% insect oil. This “whereby” clause is therefore not given patentable weight. Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious. Regarding claim 3, Zhang and Boloh teach the method of claim 1. The phrase, “wherein the weaning weight of the piglets is based on weaning the piglets between day 15 and day 30 post birth” seeks to further limit the “whereby” clause recited in claim 1. As established regarding claim 1, the “whereby” clause does not limit the claim. As such, there is no patentable distinction between the method of the prior art and the claimed method. Therefore, where claim 1 is obvious, so too is claim 3. Regarding claim 5, Zhang and Boloh teach the method of claim 1. The phrase, “wherein the weaning weight of the piglets is at least 4% higher than the weaning weight of piglets in a corresponding method using swine feed without the insect oil” is a statement expressing the intended result of the method and seeks to further limit the “whereby” clause recited in claim 1. As established regarding claim 1, the “whereby” clause does not limit the claim. As such, there is no patentable distinction between the method of the prior art and the claimed method. Therefore, where claim 1 is obvious, so too is claim 5. Regarding claim 6, Zhang and Boloh teach the method of claim 1. The phrase, “wherein the weaning weight of the piglets is at least 12% higher than the weaning weight of piglets in a corresponding method using swine feed without the insect oil” is a statement expressing the intended result of the method and seeks to further limit the “whereby” clause recited in claim 1. As established regarding claim 1, the “whereby” clause does not limit the claim. As such, there is no patentable distinction between the method of the prior art and the claimed method. Therefore, where claim 1 is obvious, so too is claim 6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Boloh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coppens (DE 202018101898 U1, cited on the IDS filed on 19 July 2023). Regarding claim 4, Zhang and Boloh teach the method of claim 1. Zhang does not teach that, wherein the piglets are additionally fed a feed comprising about 0.25% to about 5% insect oil. However, Coppens teaches an animal feed for young pigs before and during weaning that comprises an additive at about 20 to 25 wt.%, the additive comprising about 0.5 to about 1.0 wt.% of insect oil from larvae of the black soldier fly (Claims 1, 2 & 6). This equates to about 0.1 to about 0.25 wt.% of insect oil from larvae of the black soldier fly in the animal feed. Coppens teaches that “from the second week the piglets are already accustomed to concentrated feed, because the milk production of the sow is often not sufficient to allow the fast weight gain of the animals” (Description, ¶ 2). Coppens further teaches that the presence of black soldier fly larvae oil in the feed results in the piglets administered the feed being less susceptible to disease, possibly due to the high lauric acid level in the oil, which is believed to inhibit may intestinal pathogens (Description, ¶ 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Zhang with the teachings of Coppens to feed the piglets a swine feed comprising about 0.1 to about 0.25 wt.% black soldier fly larvae oil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to supplement the sow milk and provide the piglets with adequate nutrition for fast weight gain and to prevent diseases in the piglets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Coppens teaches that piglets are given concentrated feed from the second week, and piglets given a concentrated feed comprising about 0.1 to about 0.25 wt.% of oil from black soldier fly larvae results in animals that are less susceptible to disease. The disclosed amount of about 0.1 to about 0.25 wt.% black soldier fly larvae oil overlaps the claimed range of about 0.25% to about 5% insect oil. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). As discussed regarding claim 1, “about” includes within 10% of recited values per the instant specification at paragraph [0042]. Additionally, as stated regarding claim 1 above, Boloh teaches that insect oil can be used to improve health and organic properties at between 1-4% in piglet feed (p. 8, ¶ 1). Boloh further teaches that insect oil is highly concentrated in lauric acid known for its antimicrobial properties, which have an effect on gut microbiota and is active on gram-positive bacteria and keep gram-negative bacteria under control (p. 8, ¶ 2). This is in line with the disease prevention capacity of black soldier fly larvae oil in feed for young pigs before and during weaning taught by Coppens. In view of Boloh’s teachings, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to increase the amount of black soldier fly larvae oil in the piglet feed from about 0.1 to about 0.25 wt.% as taught by Coppens to between 1-4% to further enhance disease prevention capacity. The disclosed amount lies inside the claimed range of about 0.25% to about 5% insect oil. Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious. Claims 7-8, 12-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over van Heugten et al. (van Heugten, E., McComb, A., & Koutsos, L. (2019, June 6). Black soldier fly larvae oil: A possible new ingredient for pig diets. Hog Production. https://www.porkbusiness.com/news/hog-production/black-soldier-fly-larvae-oil-possible-new-ingredient-pig-diets) in view of Boloh (Boloh, Y. (2020, February 5). Insects oils, a new ingredient for poultry, pig feeds. Feed Strategy. https://www.feedstrategy.com/latest-news/article/15441031/insects-oils-a-new-ingredient-for-poultry-pig-feeds, cited on the IDS filed on 14 February 2024), DeRouchey et al (DeRouchey, J. M., Goodband, R. D., Tokach, M. D., Nelssen, J. L., & Dritz, S. S. (2010). Nursery swine nutrient recommendations and feeding management. National Swine Nutrition Guide, 65-79. https://porkgateway.org/resource/nursery-swine-nutrient-recommendations-and-feeding-management/), and Mai et al. (Mai, H. C., Dao, N. D., Lam, T. D., Nguyen, B. V., Nguyen, D. C., & Bach, L. G. (2019). Purification process, physicochemical properties, and fatty acid composition of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens Linnaeus) larvae oil. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 96(11), 1303-1311. https://doi.org/10.1002/aocs.12263). Regarding claim 7, van Heugten teaches a method for increasing feed efficiency in a post-weaning piglet, the method comprising: feeding the piglet a first swine feed comprising between about 3.0 wt% and about 4.0 wt% insect oil during 0 days to 14 days after weaning and during 14 days to 39 days after weaning, and achieving an increased feed efficiency relative to the feed efficiency of a piglet fed a feed without insect oil – van Heugten describes a study to determine the impact of supplemental black soldier fly larvae oil on growth performance in nursery pigs (p. 3, ¶ 1). Van Heugten teaches a method of feeding pigs that were weaned at 21 days of age dietary treatments of 0, 2, 4, and 6% supplemental black soldier fly larvae oil replacing equal amounts of corn oil (p. 3, ¶¶ 2-3). Treatments were fed in three dietary nursery phases, with Phase 1, 2, and 3 being 14, 11, and 15 days in duration, respectively (Id.) Supplementation of black soldier fly larvae oil linearly increased pig body weight and average daily gain, resulting in an advantage of 1.3 lbs. of extra body weight in pigs fed the 6% black soldier fly larvae oil compared to the control diet containing corn oil. Feed efficiency was improved when black soldier fly larvae oil was fed, but feed intake was not impacted (p. 3, ¶¶ 2-4). Thus, it is understood that a group of pigs was fed a diet comprising 4% supplemental black soldier fly larvae oil from 0 days to 40 days after weaning. The disclosed amount of insect oil lies inside the claimed range of between about 3.0 wt% and about 4.0 wt% insect oil during 0 days to 14 days after weaning. Van Heugten does not discuss feeding the piglet a second swine feed comprising about 1.5 wt% to about 2 wt% insect oil during 14 days to 39 days after weaning, the first swine feed comprising a higher weight percentage of insect oil than the second swine feed. Van Heugten teaches a dietary treatment of 4% supplemental black soldier fly larvae oil fed to pigs weaned at 21 days of age across three phases lasting a total of 40 days (p. 3, ¶¶ 2-3). No changes in the diet across the phases are indicated. However, However, Boloh teaches that insect oil can be used to improve health and organic properties at up to 2% in sow feed and between 1-4% in piglet feed (p. 8, ¶ 1). This teaching of Boloh suggests that pigs are fed less insect oil as they age. DeRouchey teaches matching dietary nutrient levels and ingredients with weight and age of nursery pigs and appropriately adjusting pigs to lower cost diets as quickly as possible after weaning to reduce total feed cost (Abstract). Age is divided into four phases, with Phase 1 being 16-21 days of age, Phase 2 being 21-27 days of age, Phase 3 being 27-35 days of age, and Phase 4 being 35-56 days of age (p. 1, Figure 1). In the context of van Heugten and the present invention, these Phases 2 and 3 align with 0-14 days after weaning at 21 days of age (i.e., 21-35 days of age), and Phase 4 aligns with 14-39 days after weaning at 21 days (i.e., 35-60 days of age). DeRouchey teaches that Phase 2 and Phase 3 diets comprise 3-5% fat (p. 9, ¶ 6, p. 10, ¶ 2), and the Phase 4 diet comprises up to about 3% fat, with pigs responding with improved average daily gain and feed efficiency. (p. 10, ¶ 4). Thus, DeRouchey suggests reducing the fat content of swine feed as piglets age. DeRouchey teaches selecting economical fat sources for the diets (p. 10, ¶ 2, p. 10, ¶ 4). DeRouchey further teaches that coconut oil is an excellent source of fat for young pigs, but is too expensive to use in the diet (p. 9, ¶ 2). Mai teaches that black soldier fly larvae oil (as used in van Heugten) is a cheaper and more accessible alternative to coconut oil because the crude oil can be easily obtained in large quantities from fish feed factories at low cost (p. 1309, col. 2, ¶ 2). Therefore, Mai suggests that black solider fly larvae oil is an economical fat alternative for the coconut oil that is desirable, yet cost prohibitive in feed for young pigs. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of van Heugten in view of the teachings of Boloh, DeRauchey, and Mai to feed piglets a first swine feed comprising supplemental black soldier fly larvae oil at 3-5% of the diet during days 0-14 after weaning and a second swine feed comprising supplemental black soldier fly larvae oil at up to about 3% of the diet during 14-39 days after weaning, the first swine feed comprising a higher weight percentage of black soldier fly larvae oil than the second swine feed. The claimed range of 3.0 wt% to about 4.0 wt% insect oil in the first swine feed lies inside the disclosed range of 3-5%. The claimed range of 1.5 wt% to about 2.0 wt% insect oil in the first swine feed lies inside the disclosed range of up to about 3%. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because DeRouchey teaches adjusting pigs to lower cost diets as quickly as possible after weaning to reduce total feed cost, including reducing fat content as piglets age from 3-5% at 21-35 days of age (i.e., days 1-14 after weaning at day 21 as disclosed by van Heugten) to up to about 3% at 35-60 days of age (i.e., days 14-39 after weaning at day 21 as disclosed by van Heugten), and Boloh further teaches that as pigs age, decreasing the amount of insect oil to from 1-4% in piglets to up to 2% in sows. Additionally, Mai teaches that black soldier fly larvae oil is economical fat alternative to the coconut oil that DeRouchey teaches is an excellent source of fat for young pigs, but is cost prohibitive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because the cited prior art suggests adding black soldier fly larvae oil to piglet feed in amounts that render the claimed amounts obvious over the claimed time frames and suggests that doing so will result in increased feed efficiency in the piglets. It is noted that the phrase, “achieving an increased feed efficiency relative to the feed efficiency of a piglet fed a feed without insect oil” is also considered to be a naturally flowing result of conducting the positively recited feeding steps. As provided by MPEP § 2145(II), “[m]ere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979)”, and “‘[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.' Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)”. Claim 7 is therefore rendered obvious. Regarding claim 8, van Heugten, Boloh, DeRouchey, and Mai teach the method of claim 7. Van Heugten also teaches that the piglet is between 15 and 60 days old – “We used a total of 192 pigs that were weaned at 21 days of age with an average body weight of 15.2 lbs.” (p. 3, ¶ 2). Claim 8 is therefore rendered obvious. Regarding claim 12, van Heugten, Boloh, DeRouchey, and Mai teach the method of claim 7. The phrase, “wherein the feed efficiency of the piglet is at least 2% higher than the feed efficiency of the piglet in a corresponding method using swine feed without the insect oil” is a naturally flowing result of conducting the positively recited feeding steps. The cited prior art does not discuss that the feed efficiency of the piglet is at least 2% higher than the feed efficiency of the piglet in a corresponding method using swine feed without the insect oil. However, the cited prior art discloses the recited method steps and achieving an increased feed efficiency as described regarding claim 7 above. When the method steps recited in the prior art reference are substantially identical to those of the claims, claimed properties of the resulting composition are presumed to be present in the composition of the prior art. The burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence (i.e., test data) to the contrary. See In re Best, 562, F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 403, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.02(I). Thus, the claimed property that the feed efficiency of the piglet is at least 2% higher than the feed efficiency of the piglet in a corresponding method using swine feed without the insect oil is presumed to be present. Therefore, where claim 7 is obvious, so too is claim 12. Regarding claim 13, van Heugten, Boloh, DeRouchey, and Mai teach the method of claim 7. The cited prior art does not discuss that the feed efficiency of the piglet is at least 10% higher than the feed efficiency of the piglet in a corresponding method using swine feed without the insect oil. However, the cited prior art discloses the recited method steps and achieving an increased feed efficiency as described regarding claim 7 above. When the method steps recited in the prior art reference are substantially identical to those of the claims, claimed properties of the resulting composition are presumed to be present in the composition of the prior art. The burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence (i.e., test data) to the contrary. See In re Best, 562, F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 403, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.02(I). Thus, the claimed property that the feed efficiency of the piglet is at least 10% higher than the feed efficiency of the piglet in a corresponding method using swine feed without the insect oil is presumed to be present. Therefore, where claim 7 is obvious, so too is claim 13. Regarding claim 17, van Heugten, Boloh, DeRouchey, and Mai teach the method of claim 7. Van Heugten also teaches that the insect oil comprises about 35% to about 60% lauric acid – “The [black soldier fly larvae] oil is high in lauric acid (C12:0; approximately 37% of the oil)…” (p. 2, ¶ 3). Claim 17 is therefore rendered obvious. Regarding claim 19, van Heugten, Boloh, DeRouchey, and Mai teach the method of claim 7. Van Heugten also teaches that the insect oil is extracted from Hermetia illucens larvae – “Dietary treatments consisted of 0, 2, 4, and 6% supplemental black soldier fly larvae oil…(p. 3, ¶ 3). Black soldier fly is Hermetia illucens (p. 2, ¶ 1). Claim 19 is therefore rendered obvious. Response to Arguments Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments, filed on 1 September 2026, regarding claims 1 and 3-6 (p. 6, ¶ 6 – p. 9, ¶ 3) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argued that the proposed Zhang-Boloh substitution of up to 2% insect oil in swine feed does not supply a reasoned basis for the amended range of about 2.2 wt% to about 4.0 wt% (p. 6, ¶ 6 – p. 7, ¶ 3). Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. As explained in the present rejection of claim 1, the scope of the claimed range of insect oil when factoring in the allowance of 10% due to the language “about” is 1.98 wt% to 4.4 wt%, which overlaps the disclosed range of up to 2%. Therefore, the amended range does not overcome the reasoned Zhang-Boloh substitution. Applicant next argued that the claimed method requires feeding piglets milk from the sow fed the recited insect-oil-containing swine feed, whereby the piglets have a higher average weaning weight than piglets fed milk from a sow fed a feed without insect oil, and the cited references do not teach or reasonably predict that the amended lactation-phase sow feed comprising about 2.2 wt% to about 4.0 wt% insect oil would achieve the claimed comparative weaning-weight results (p.7, ¶ 4 – p. 8, ¶ 3). Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the phrase, “whereby the piglets have a higher average weaning weight than piglets fed milk from a sow fed a feed without insect oil” is a statement expressing the intended result of the method. A statement with regard to the intended use of an invention is not further limiting insofar as the structure of the invention is concerned. In order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Additionally, In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP § 2111.04(I). In the present case, the “whereby” clause expresses the intended result of the positively recited method step of feeding a piglet milk from a sow fed a swine feed comprising about 2.2 wt% to about 4.0 wt% insect oil. This “whereby” clause is therefore not given patentable weight. Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 therefore remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant next argued that the rejection of claim 4 relies on Coppens for the limitation of claim 4 requiring that “the piglets are additionally fed a feed comprising about 0.25 wt% to about 5 wt% insect oil”, and the cited portions of Coppens do not teach that the finished feed fed to piglets contains the claimed amount of insect oil (p. 8, ¶ 5). Applicant indicated that Coppens teaches an additive comprising black soldier fly larvae oil at about 0.5 to about 1.0 wt% and that the additive is present in the feed at about 20 to 25 wt%, and as such the resulting insect oil content in the finished feed would be materially lower than the value identified in the Office Action, and additional teachings from Coppens do not otherwise cure this deficiency (p. 8, ¶ 5 – p. 9, ¶ 3). The Office acknowledges Applicant’s analysis of Coppens. However, as presented in the instant rejection of claim 4, the about 0.5 to about 1.0 wt.% of insect oil from larvae of the black soldier fly as part of an additive amount at about 20 to 25 wt.% of the feed taught by Coppens equates to about 0.1 to about 0.25 wt.% of insect oil from larvae of the black soldier fly in the animal feed. The disclosed amount of about 0.1 to about 0.25 wt.% black soldier fly larvae oil overlaps the claimed range of about 0.25% to about 5% insect oil. Thus, Coppens still renders the claimed range obvious. Claim 4 is additionally rejected in view of the teachings of Boloh as presented hereinabove. Claim 4 therefore remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, ¶ 4 – p. 11, ¶ 1, filed 1 September 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 7-8, 12-13, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive; van Heugten alone does not teach the limitations of amended claim 7. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of van Heugten, Boloh, DeRouchey, and Mai. In summary, claims 1, 3-8, 12-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No claims are allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET. 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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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. /JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793 /EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793