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 Applicant’s Remarks filed 6/18/26. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22-29 are pending have been examined on the merits. Claims 7, 9, 11-13, 16, and 19 were previously cancelled. Claims 21 and 30 have been cancelled.
Withdrawn Rejection
Claims 1, 15, 20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 14, 18, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Jones et al. US 20170354167 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Zhu et al. CN 109430553 Machine Translation 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Thoudam et al. “Chapter - 3 A Review Study on Nutraceutical and Nutritional Efficacy of Crassocephalum crepidioides” 2020 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 in view of Zhu et al. CN 109430553 Machine Translation 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 22.
Claims 21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Shyur et al. (WO 2019/147300) have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
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, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adeyemi et al. Tropical animal Health and Production January 14, 2021 “Influence of dietary supplementation of Crassocephalum crepidioides…”.
Regarding Claim 1: Adeyemi discloses C. crepidioides as useful in animal diets [pg. 100, 4th para]. Adeyemi discloses quality can be enhanced through supplementation, and that C. crepidioides a good source of nutraceuticals in prevention and treatment of diseases [pg. 100, 2nd column top three lines]. The Applicants’ instant specification indicates that C. crepidioides is a synonym for C. rabens [Instant 18286,943 Specification 0027]. Adeyemi discloses the dietary supplementation of animal feed with Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens [abstract]. Adeyemi discloses supplementing feed with 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm (0.1 and 0.2%) Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens [abstract]. Adeyemi discloses that Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens showed antioxidant and antimicrobial properties [abstract].
Adeyemi does not disclose “to thereby promote growth of the animal”, however, claim 1 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.
However, Adeyemi does disclose that feed containing C. crepidioides does result in growth in the animal with slightly higher average body weight using feed with CCLP versus the control feed [Table 2].
Regarding Claim 15: Adeyemi discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Adeyemi further discloses feeding animals with the composition as discussed above. This inherently promotes their survival since food is necessary to sustain life.
Regarding Claim 20: Adeyemi discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Adeyemi further discloses C. crepidioides plant extract in powder form [pg. 100 “Preparation of Plant Material.”].
11. Claims 2-5, 14, 18, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adeyemi et al. Tropical animal Health and Production January 14, 2021 “Influence of dietary supplementation of Crassocephalum crepidioides…” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Jones et al. US 20170354167.
Regarding Claims 2, 3: Adeyemi discloses feeding C. crepidioides to an animal as discussed above in claim 1.
Adeyemi does not disclose adding an herbal ingredient (claim 2); that the herbal ingredient is mint (claim 3).
Jones disclose swine feed containing herbal essential oils including varieties of mint (peppermint, mint, mentha, spearmint) [abstract; 0014]. Jones discloses that the oils and other ingredients decrease porcine epidemic diarrhea (PEDv) and/or the growth of Salmonella bacteria [abstract; 0009].
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 Adeyemi to include an herbal ingredient such as mint as in Jones in order to help reduce the presence of PEDv and/or Salmonella bacteria in animal feed.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5: Adeyemi discloses feeding C. crepidioides to an animal as discussed above in claim 1.
Adeyemi does not disclose wherein the promotion of the growth comprises modulating gut microbiota in the animal, decreasing occurrence of at least one of diarrhea and enteric infection in the animal, increasing body weight gain of the animal, decreasing feed conversion rate, and/or modulating primary metabolism in the animal (claim 4); wherein the modulation of the gut microbiota comprises decreasing an amount of pathogenic gut microbiota in the animal and/or increasing an amount of probiotic microbiota in the animal (claim 5).
Jones disclose swine feed containing herbal essential oils including varieties of mint [abstract; 0014]. Jones discloses that the oils and other ingredients decrease porcine epidemic diarrhea (PEDv) and/or the growth of Salmonella bacteria [abstract; 0009].
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 Adeyemi to include and herbal ingredient such as mint as in Jones and that the presence of such would have helped reduce the presence of PEDv and/or Salmonella bacteria in animal feed.
Regarding Claim 14: Adeyemi as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 4. Adeyemi does not disclose wherein the modulation of the primary metabolism comprises increasing or decreasing at least a level of an amino acid, a level of a fatty acid, a level of a carbohydrate, and a level of an organic acid or any combination thereof.
However, claim 14 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 18: Adeyemi as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Adeyemi does not disclose that the animal is weaned swine or a grown-up pig.
Jones discloses feeding a feed composition to a piglet [Tale 4; 0041; 0048; 0063; 0064; Table 18; 0070-0072].
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 modified Adeyemi to include feeding to pigs as in Jones since Adeyemi anticipates feeding the composition containing C. crepidioides, to animals and since Jones discloses administering its feed to animals including pigs.
Regarding Claim 26: Adeyemi discloses a composition containing C. crepidioides as a wild edible under cultivated traditional leafy vegetable [abstract; Pg. 100 Plant Material; Preparation of…]. Adeyemi discloses C. crepidioides as useful in animal diets [pg. 100, 4th para]. Adeyemi discloses quality can be enhanced through supplementation, and that C. crepidioides a good source of nutraceuticals in prevention and treatment of diseases [pg. 100, 2nd column top three lines]. The Applicants’ instant specification indicates that C. crepidioides is a synonym for C. rabens [Instant 18286,943 Specification 0027]. Adeyemi discloses supplementing feed with 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm (0.1 and 0.2%) Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens [abstract]. Adeyemi discloses that Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens showed antioxidant and antimicrobial properties [abstract].
Adeyemi does not explicitly disclose the animal feed composition comprising a feed supplement.
Jones discloses supplementing animal feed with ingredients that are beneficial and reduce pathogens within the body of animals [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Adeyemi to include a feed supplement containing C. crepidioides in an animal feed composition as in Jones in order to dose the C. crepidioides for consumption in animal feed.
Regarding Claim 27: Adeyemi discloses as discussed above in claim 26. Adeyemi further discloses C. crepidioides plant extract in powder form [pg. 100, Preparation of plant sample].
Regarding Claims 28 and 29: Adeyemi discloses as discussed above in claim 26.
Adeyemi does not disclose adding an herbal ingredient (claim 28); that the herbal ingredient is mint (claim 29).
Jones disclose swine feed containing herbal essential oils including varieties of mint (peppermint, mint, mentha, spearmint) [abstract; 0014]. Jones discloses that the oils and other ingredients decrease porcine epidemic diarrhea (PEDv) and/or the growth of Salmonella bacteria [abstract; 0009].
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 Adeyemi to include an herbal ingredient such as mint as in Jones in order to help reduce the presence of PEDv and/or Salmonella bacteria in animal feed.
12. Claims 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adeyemi et al. Tropical animal Health and Production January 14, 2021 “Influence of dietary supplementation of Crassocephalum crepidioides…” in view of Jones et al. US 20170354167 as applied to claims 4 and 5 above and in further view of Zhu et al. CN 109430553 Machine Translation 2019.
Regarding Claim 6: Adeyemi as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 5. Adeyemi does not disclose wherein the pathogenic gut microbiota is at least one selected from the group consisting of Clostridium spp., Streptococcus spp., Veillonella spp., Actinobacillus spp., Escherichia, Shigella, Trueperella spp., Pseudomonas spp.
Zhu discloses animal feed and specifically swine feed wherein the swine feed contains essential oil and wherein the essential oil can be mint (peppermint, mint) [abstract;]. Zhu discloses the reduction of pathogenic bacteria including Escherichia coli, Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria [Abstract; pg. 7].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious that the modified method of Adeyemi would have been effective against pathogens including E. coli as in Zhu since modified Adeyemi discloses the inclusion of mint essential oil and Zhu discloses that mint essential oil in animal feed is effective against pathogens including E. coli.
Regarding Claim 8: Adeyemi as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 5. Adeyemi does not disclose wherein the probiotic microbiota is at least one selected from the group consisting of Lactobacillus spp., Ruminococcaceae family, Megasphaera spp., Lachnospiraceae family, Ruminococcus_1, Ruminococcus_2, Megamonas spp., Clostridium butyricum, Bacteroides spp., Anaerostipes spp., and Alistipes spp.
Zhu discloses animal feed and specifically swine feed wherein the swine feed contains essential oil and wherein the essential oil can be mint and where the composition contains C. butyricum [abstract;]. Zhu discloses the reduction of pathogenic bacteria including Escherichia coli, Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria using a composition containing [Abstract; pg. 7].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Adeyemi to include probiotics including C. butyricum as in Zhu since Zhu discloses that the microorganism is effective against other pathogenic microorganisms.
Regarding Claim 10: Adeyemi as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 4. Adeyemi does not disclose wherein, the at least one of diarrhea and the enteric infection, is associated with at least one bacterial pathogen selected from the group consisting of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Clostridium perfringens, Campylobacter spp., Brachyspira spp., Yersinia spp., Lawsonia spp. and Helicobacter spp.
Zhu discloses animal feed and specifically swine feed wherein the swine feed contains essential oil and wherein the essential oil can be mint (peppermint, mint) [abstract;]. Zhu discloses the reduction of pathogenic bacteria including Escherichia coli, Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria [Abstract; pg. 7].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious that the modified method of Adeyemi would have been effective against pathogens including E. coli as in Zhu since modified Adeyemi discloses the inclusion of mint essential oil and Zhu discloses that mint essential oil in animal feed is effective against pathogens including E. coli.
13. Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adeyemi et al. Tropical animal Health and Production January 14, 2021 “Influence of dietary supplementation of Crassocephalum crepidioides…” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Thoudam et al. “Chapter - 3 A Review Study on Nutraceutical and Nutritional Efficacy of Crassocephalum crepidioides” 2020.
Regarding Claim 15: Adeyemi discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Adeyemi further discloses feeding animals with the composition as discussed above. This inherently promotes their survival since food is necessary to sustain life.
Regarding Claim 17: Adeyemi discloses as discussed above in claim 15. Adeyemi does not disclose that C. rabens/Crassocephalum crepidioides have anti-inflammatory properties.
Thoudam discloses anti-inflammatory properties in Crassocephalum crepidioides [pg. 58].
Adeyemi as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the animal feed composition lowers at least one of a TNF-a level, a fecal IgA level, or a combination thereof, however, claim 17 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.
Further it would have been obvious that the C. rabens/Crassocephalum crepidioides of Adeyemi would have had anti-inflammatory properties since it is disclosed as having such in Thoudam.
14. Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adeyemi et al. Tropical animal Health and Production January 14, 2021 “Influence of dietary supplementation of Crassocephalum crepidioides…” in view of Zhu et al. CN 109430553 Machine Translation 2019.
Regarding Claim 22: Adeyemi discloses C. crepidioides as useful in animal diets [pg. 100, 4th para]. Adeyemi discloses quality can be enhanced through supplementation, and that C. crepidioides a good source of nutraceuticals in prevention and treatment of diseases [pg. 100, 2nd column top three lines]. The Applicants’ instant specification indicates that C. crepidioides is a synonym for C. rabens [Instant 18286,943 Specification 0027]. Adeyemi discloses the dietary supplementation of animal feed with Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens [abstract]. Adeyemi discloses supplementing feed with 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm (0.1 and 0.2%) Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens [abstract]. Adeyemi discloses that Crassocephalum crepidioides/rabens showed antioxidant and antimicrobial properties [abstract].
Adeyemi does not disclose “to thereby promote growth of the animal”, however, claim 1 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.
However, Adeyemi does disclose that feed containing C. crepidioides does result in growth in the animal with slightly higher average body weight using feed with CCLP versus the control feed [Table 2].
Adeyemi does not disclose a method of treating a disease caused by porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRSV).
Zhu discloses animal feed and specifically swine feed wherein the swine feed contains essential oil and wherein the essential oil can be mint (peppermint, mint) [abstract;]. Zhu discloses the reduction of pathogenic bacteria including Escherichia coli, Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria [Abstract; pg. 7]. Zhu discloses treating and preventing PRSSV [pg. 2 and 3].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the method of Adeyemi to include ingredients that would have been effective against pathogens causing PRRSV as in Zhu since such diseases are common and detrimental to livestock. The incorporation of ingredients that reduce the incidences of illness in a pig or other livestock/animal would have been beneficial and an obvious step.
Regarding Claim 23 and 24: Adeyemi as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 22. Adeyemi does not disclose wherein the composition contains an additional herbal ingredient (claim 23); where the herbal ingredient is mint essential oils (claim 24).
Zhu discloses animal feed and specifically swine feed wherein the swine feed contains essential oil and wherein the essential oil can be mint [abstract;]. Zhu discloses the reduction of pathogenic bacteria including Escherichia coli, Salmonella and other pathogenic bacteria [Abstract; pg. 7].
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious that the modified method of Adeyemi would have been effective against pathogens including E. coli as in Zhu since modified Adeyemi discloses the inclusion of mint essential oil and Zhu discloses that mint essential oil in animal feed is effective against pathogens including E. coli.
Regarding Claim 25: Adeyemi discloses as discussed above in claim 22. Adeyemi further discloses feeding animals with the composition. This inherently promotes their survival since food is necessary to sustain life.
Response to Arguments
15. The objections to claims 1-30 have been withdrawn.
16. Claims 1, 15, 20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
17. Claims 2-5, 14, 18, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Jones et al. US 20170354167 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
18. Claims 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Zhu et al. CN 109430553 Machine Translation 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
19. Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Thoudam et al. “Chapter - 3 A Review Study on Nutraceutical and Nutritional Efficacy of Crassocephalum crepidioides” 2020 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
20. Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 in view of Zhu et al. CN 109430553 Machine Translation 2019 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 22.
21. Claims 21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayodele et al. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology 2019 and in further view of Shyur et al. (WO 2019/147300) have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
22. The previous rejection cited the incorrect prior art but used citations from the correct prior art. Corrections have been made to cite the correct reference.
Conclusion
23. 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
Prosecution Insights