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 Claims
The claim amendments filed 17 September 2026 amended claim 1, canceled claims 21-26 and added new claims 27-28.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of bromoform as the methane reducer and cattle as the ruminant animal in the reply filed on 17 September 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-4 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 September 2026.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 27-29 are examined herein to the extent that the methane reducer is bromoform and the ruminant animal is cattle, e.g., applicant's elected species.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 09/18/2023, 10/11/2023 (5 pages) and 10/11/2023 (4 pages) has been considered by the Examiner. A signed and initialed copy of the IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 5-8 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARMER (WO 2020/210074 A1, publication date of 15 October 2020, cited in IDS filed 09/18/2023) in view of FEEZ (AU 2019101209 A4, publication date of 14 November 2019) as evidenced by MACHADO (US 2018/0271922 A1).
Farmer is primarily directed towards compositions and methods for reducing deleterious atmospheric cases and/or precursors thereof using livestock feed additives and/or supplements (abstract).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-8 and 28-29, Farmer discloses that methane emissions also result from production of livestock animals, many of whose digestive systems comprise methanogenic microorganisms (page 1, lines 25-27). Farmer discloses compositions that can help reduce deleterious enteric atmospheric gases in the digestive systems of livestock animals by controlling, and/or inhibiting methanogenesis by, methanogenic gut bacteria and/or their protozoal symbionts (page 3, lines 27-29). Farmer discloses an embodiment where the composition comprise components known to reduce methanogenesis by methanogens including Asparagopsis taxiformis (page 5, lines 23-24; page 14, lines 26-27). As evidenced by Machado, Asparagopsis taxiformis contains bromoform (e.g., methane reducer) (paragraph [0045] and [0227]). Farmer discloses adding the composition to drinking water that is provided to the grazing livestock animals (page 6, lines 27-28). Farmer discloses conducting measurements to assess the effect of the method on reducing the generation of methane to assess the effect of the method on the control of methanogens in the livestock animal’s digestive system and/or waste (page 6, lines 34-37). Farmer discloses that livestock includes cattle grazing pastures (e.g., ruminant animal fed a pasture-based diet) (page 3, line 5; page 7, lines 30-31). Farmer discloses method that reduce emissions of methane (page 24, lines 13-14).
Farmer does not teach dispensing the composition comprising Asparagopsis taxiformis (e.g., contains bromoform/methane reducer) is dispensed into the drinking water through a proportional dosing apparatus, wherein the rate of dispensation is monitored and controlled to ensure that a desired concentration of the methane reducer is maintained in the drinking water so as to deliver the methane reducer to the ruminant animal in an effective amount when the ruminant animal drinks. The deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Feez.
Feez is primarily directed towards composition for administration to ruminant animals in their drinking water (abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Feez teaches administration of a composition through Nutridose system (e.g., a proportional dosing apparatus) to proportionally dose the composition throughout the drinking water supply. The Nutridose system utilizes an electronic water meter to measure water flow and trigger the correct dose accordingly (e.g., rate of dispensation is monitored and controlled), which enable the average 24-hour (per head) drink rate to be used to precisely dose the exact amount (paragraph [059]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer drinking water to including cattle grazing pastures (e.g., ruminant animal fed a pasture-based diet); wherein the drinking water contains a composition comprising components known to reduce methanogenesis by methanogens including Asparagopsis taxiformis (e.g. contains bromoform); wherein the composition is dosed in the drinking water by a Nutridose system to proportionally dose the composition throughout the drinking water supply; and wherein the Nutridose system utilizes an electronic water meter to measure water flow and trigger the correct dose accordingly (e.g., rate of dispensation is monitored and controlled). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications in order to obtain a method that enable precise dosing of drinking water by using a Nutridose system to dose the drinking water, and reasonably would have expected success because Farmer discloses that methane emissions also result from production of livestock animals, many of whose digestive systems comprise methanogenic microorganisms (page 1, lines 25-27). Farmer discloses compositions that can help reduce deleterious enteric atmospheric gases in the digestive systems of livestock animals by controlling, and/or inhibiting methanogenesis by, methanogenic gut bacteria and/or their protozoal symbionts (page 3, lines 27-29). Farmer discloses an embodiment where the composition comprise components known to reduce methanogenesis by methanogens including Asparagopsis taxiformis (page 5, lines 23-24; page 14, lines 26-27). As evidenced by Machado, Asparagopsis taxiformis contains bromoform (e.g., methane reducer) (paragraph [0045] and [0227]). Farmer discloses adding the composition to drinking water that is provided to the grazing livestock animals (page 6, lines 27-28). Farmer discloses conducting measurements to assess the effect of the method on reducing the generation of methane to assess the effect of the method on the control of methanogens in the livestock animal’s digestive system and/or waste (page 6, lines 34-37). Farmer discloses that livestock includes cattle grazing pastures (e.g., ruminant animal fed a pasture-based diet) (page 3, line 5; page 7, lines 30-31). Feez teaches administration of a composition through Nutridose system (e.g., a proportional dosing apparatus) to proportionally dose the composition throughout the drinking water supply. The Nutridose system utilizes an electronic water meter to measure water flow and trigger the correct dose accordingly (e.g., rate of dispensation is monitored and controlled), which enable the average 24-hour (per head) drink rate to be used to precisely dose the exact amount (paragraph [059]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer in view of Feez as evidenced by Machado as applied to claims 1-2, 5-8 and 28-29 above, and further in view of MISSOURIRURALIST (“Bermudagrass benefits cattle grazing operations”, electronic article from www.farmprogress.com, obtained from URL: https://www.farmprogress.com/cattle-news/bermudagrass-benefits-cattle-grazing-operations, obtained on 27 September 2026, publication date of electronic article: 02 May 2019).
Regarding claim 27, the method of claim 1 is described above in section 7.
Farmer and Feez do not specifically teach that the cattle grazes on tropical C4 pastures. The deficiency is made up for by the teachings of MissouriRuralist.
MissouriRuralist is primarily directed towards warm-season bermudagrass for cow pastures (see entire copy of the electronic publication).
Regarding claim 27, MissouriRuralist teaches that bermudagrass is deep-rooted and grows to 24 inches in a variety of soils. MissouriRuralist teaches that bermudagrass withstands heat during June, July and August, when the quantity and quality of cool-season grasses wane (second page, third paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to administer drinking water to including cattle grazing bermudagrass pastures (e.g., tropical C4 pastures); wherein the drinking water contains a composition comprising components known to reduce methanogenesis by methanogens including Asparagopsis taxiformis (e.g. contains bromoform); wherein the composition is dosed in the drinking water by a Nutridose system to proportionally dose the composition throughout the drinking water supply; and wherein the Nutridose system utilizes an electronic water meter to measure water flow and trigger the correct dose accordingly (e.g., rate of dispensation is monitored and controlled). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications in order to offer nutrition for grazing cattle during the months of June, July and August when cool-season grass quantity and quality wane, by letting cattle graze bermudagrass pastures, and reasonably would have expected success because MissouriRuralist teaches that bermudagrass is deep-rooted and grows to 24 inches in a variety of soils. MissouriRuralist teaches that bermudagrass withstands heat during June, July and August, when the quantity and quality of cool-season grasses wane (second page, third paragraph).
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is clearly prima facie obvious over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion and Correspondence
No claims are found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/John P Nguyen/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
