Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/271,557

USE OF A FEED ADDITIVE IN LOW PROTEIN FEED FOR POULTRY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 10, 2023
Examiner
TURNER, FELICIA C
Art Unit
1793
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Alzchem Trostberg GmbH
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
26%
Grant Probability
At Risk
2-3
OA Rounds
4y 6m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 26% of cases
26%
Career Allow Rate
162 granted / 626 resolved
-39.1% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 6m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
688
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
59.5%
+19.5% vs TC avg
§102
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 626 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This office action was written in response to the Applicants Remarks filed 12/16/25. Claims 11-14, 16-30 are pending and have been examined on the merits. Claim 15 has been cancelled. Withdrawn Rejections Claims 11-16, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens et al. (KR 2009/0005020) in view of Rademacher-Heilshorn et al. (US 2017/0007562), and Li et al. (CN 109258935) 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 11. 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 11-14, 16, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens et al. (KR 2009/0005020) in view of Rademacher-Heilshorn et al. (US 2017/0007562), Miura et al. (US 2004/0043105). Regarding Claims 11, 14, 16, and 22-25: Janssens discloses a method of feeding a composition to poultry to increase growth rates [3rd page; Disclosure]. Janssens discloses a feed composition containing a glycine compound and salts thereof [4th page, 1st two lines]. Janssens discloses that the feed composition contains a crude protein content of about 12% to 25% crude protein [5th page, 6th paragraph]. Janssens discloses administering the feed composition to poultry when the poultry is 10 to 35 days old and administered for 14 days or more [7th page, 2nd paragraph]. Janssens discloses glycine present at least about 0.001% [4th page, lines 1 and 2]; 0.001% to 0.5% [claim 8]. Janssens discloses that the method reduces the amount of fed required to produce a predetermined amount of meat; meaning the meat produced is predictable [3rd page Disclosure]. Janssens does not disclose guanidinoacetic acid; administered in an amount of from 0.01 to 0.20%. Janssens does not explicitly disclose glycine as a free acid or in the form of a salt of glycine and present at 0.01% to 0.2% in the feed. Rademacher-Heilshorn discloses a poultry feed containing guanidinoacetic acid which, when fed to parent chickens, improves chick growth and improves weight gain [abstract; 0015]. Rademacher-Heilshorn discloses including guanidinoacetic acid and/or its salts at 0.06% to .2%; .04% to .2% [0015; 0032; 0056]. Rademacher-Heilshorn discloses crude protein in the feed at 10 to 30% or 12 to 25% [0051]. Miura discloses a glycine enriched feed for layer chickens containing 0.05% to 0.5% glycine based on the weight of the feed [abstract; 0016; 0017; 0045]. Miura discloses glycine as aiding in the mitigating stress in poultry [abstract; 0011]. At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Janssens to include guanidinoacetic acid or its salts as in Rademacher-Heilshorn in order to improve the growth promoting ability. Further it would have been obvious to modify Janssens to include glycine as a free acid as in Miura in order to aid in mitigating stress caused by heat in poultry. Regarding the crude protein content, although Janssens does not explicitly disclose 14% to 18.5% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Janssens overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553. Regarding the age of the poultry, although Janssen does not explicitly disclose the 11th to the 39th day of life of the poultry one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Janssen overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553. Regarding the amount of guanidinoacetic acid, although Rademacher-Heilshorn does not explicitly disclose 0.02% to .15% (claim 22); 0.04% to 0.1% (claim 23) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Rademacher-Heilshorn overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553. Regarding the amount of glycine, although Miura does not explicitly disclose 0.01% to .2%, 0.02% to .15% (claim 24); 0.04% to 0.10% (claim 25) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Miura overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553. Regarding Claim 12: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens discloses composition as solid and mixed with low protein poultry feed [3rd page 6th paragraph 7th page “Methodology and Materials”]. It would have been obvious to administer as a solid in order to easily mix with other solid feed ingredients/formulations. Regarding Claim 13: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens discloses composition as mixed with drinking water [3rd page 6th paragraph; claim 21]. It would have been obvious to administer as a liquid in order to easily mix with drinking water and other liquid feed ingredients/formulations. Regarding Claim 26: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens discloses composition as mixed with drinking water [3rd page 6th paragraph; claim 21]. It would have been obvious to administer as a liquid in order to easily mix with drinking water and other liquid feed ingredients/formulations. Janssens discloses glycine present at least about 0.001% [4th page, lines 1 and 2]; 0.001% to 0.5% [claim 8]. Rademacher-Heilshorn discloses guanidinoacetic acid in acidic aqueous (water) solutions and its increased stability [0071]. Rademacher-Heilshorn discloses including guanidinoacetic acid and/or its salts at 0.06% to .2%; .04% to .2% [0015; 0032; 0056]. Miura discloses a glycine enriched feed for layer chickens containing 0.05% to 0.5% glycine based on the weight of the feed [abstract; 0016; 0017; 0045]. At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Janssens to include the formulation as an aqueous/water containing solution as in Rademacher-Heilshorn in order to increase the stability of at least the guanidinoacetic acid. Regarding the amount of guanidinoacetic acid, although Rademacher-Heilshorn does not explicitly disclose 0.05 to 1.2 g per liter water one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Rademacher-Heilshorn overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553. Regarding the amount of glycine, although Miura does not explicitly disclose 0.05 to 1.2 g per liter water one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Miura overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553. Regarding Claim 27: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens and Rademacher-Heilshorn disclose guanidinoacetic acid and glycine in overlapping amounts and it would have been obvious to use them in equal amounts based on the disclosed amounts above. It would have been obvious that the guanidinoacetic acid and glycine would have been used at a ratio of 1:1. Regarding Claim 28: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens and Rademacher-Heilshorn disclose poultry that are chickens, broilers and young chickens, males and females [Janssens 4th page, last page Rademacher-Heilshorn; 0022; 0074]. Regarding Claim 29: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens discloses that the method reduces the amount of fed required to produce a predetermined amount of meat; meaning the meat produced is predictable [3rd page Disclosure]. However, claim 29 is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the recitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2103 states that intended use language "does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim". The above mentioned phrase does not limit the claim to any particular structure, so it is not interpreted to limit the scope of the claims. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Regarding Claim 30: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens discloses that the feed has a caloric value of 11.5 MJ/kg or more; or less than 14 MJ/kg [6th page 2nd paragraph]. Although Janssens does not explicitly disclose 8 to 20 MJ/kg one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Janssens overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553. 7. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens et al. (KR 2009/0005020) in view of Rademacher-Heilshorn et al. (US 2017/0007562), Miura et al. (US 2004/0043105) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of KR101443226 2014. Regarding Claims 17 and 18: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 16. Janssens does not disclose wherein the salt of the guanidinoacetic acid is selected from the group of alkali metal or alkaline earth metal salts of the guanidinoacetic acid (claim 17); wherein the alkali metal or alkaline earth metal salts of the guanidinoacetic acid comprise sodium guanidinoacetate, potassium guanidinoacetate, magnesium guanidinoacetate or calcium guanidinoacetate (claim 18). KR 226 discloses an animal foodstuff containing alkaline earth metal salts of the guanidinoacetic acid comprise sodium guanidinoacetate, potassium guanidinoacetate, or calcium guanidinoacetate [5th page; paragraphs 8 and 9]. At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Janssens to include the guanidinoacetic acid comprising sodium guanidinoacetate, potassium guanidinoacetate, or calcium guanidinoacetate of KR 226 since they are alkali metal salts of guanidinoacetic acid and Janssens calls for the inclusion of salts of guanidinoacetic acid in its formulation. 8. Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens et al. (KR 2009/0005020) in view of Rademacher-Heilshorn et al. (US 2017/0007562), Miura et al. (US 2004/0043105) as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Hong et al. CN201811117993 Machine Translation Sept 2018. Regarding Claims 19-21: Janssens as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 11. Janssens does not disclose w wherein the glycine is used in the form of a salt of the glycine (claim 19); wherein the salt of the glycine is selected from the group of alkali metal or alkaline earth metal salts of the glycine (claim 20); wherein the alkali metal or alkaline earth metal salts of the glycine comprise sodium glycinate, potassium glycinate, magnesium glycinate or calcium glycinate (claim 21). Hong discloses a poultry feed containing calcium glycine [abstract]. Hong discloses improving weight gain and the immune system of the poultry through the administration of the poultry feed. At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Janssens to include the salts of glycine, namely calcium glycine as in Hong in order to aid the guanidinoacetic acid in improving weight gain and immunity in the poultry. Response to Arguments 9. Claims 11-16, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssens et al. (KR 2009/0005020) in view of Rademacher-Heilshorn et al. (US 2017/0007562), and Li et al. (CN 109258935) 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 11. Conclusion 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 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, 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. /Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 10, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 16, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599150
HIGHLY EMULSIFIABLE ALBUMEN HYDROLYSATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12543753
Cultured Dairy Products and Method of Preparation
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538935
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING PURIFIED PAC'S AND SUGAR FROM FRUIT JUICE, AND COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12501922
Canola Based Tofu Product and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12490750
PROCESS FOR DRY AGING MEAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
26%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (+30.8%)
4y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 626 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month