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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 and 17 were cancelled.
Claims 18-26 were added.
Claims 16 and 18-26 are pending and examined in the current application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 16 and 18-26 in the reply filed on January 26th 2026 is acknowledged.
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 16, 18, 19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinori et al. (WO 2019/177172 A1) in view of NPL Ahallil et al., “Fermentation of Gum Arabic by Gut Microbiota using in vitro colon model” (from AIP Conference Proceedings 2111. 050004 (2019)).
Regarding claims 16, 18, 19 and 21-23: Akinori discloses a feed additive for livestock (e.g., chickens) comprising a core that contains a polysaccharide that coagulates gram-negative bacterium and a divalent metal ion (i.e., calcium chloride), which is commonly prepared by neutralizing calcium oxide (CaO) with hydrochloric acid (HCl) to produce calcium chloride and water (CaO + 2HCl → CaCl2 + H₂O), and a two-layered coating (see Akinori abstract; bottom paragraph on page 1; top paragraph on page 3; third to fifth paragraphs on page 4; example 4-1). Moreover, Akinori discloses the polysaccharide is Arabic gum (see Akinori third paragraph on page 3), but fails to disclose the effect on the gram-positive Clostridium perfringens; However, Ahallil discloses that Arabic gum (i.e., acacia senegal) decreases the growth of Clostridium bacteria (see Ahallil abstract). Given the fact the Arabic gum comprising feed additive in Akinori has the same constituents as the composition recited in the claims, it is examiner’s position that the Clostridium perfringens prevention or treatment claimed and observed by Applicant, would flow naturally from the administering the feed additive in Akinori to livestock, such as chickens, as suggested in the prior art. As set forth in MPEP §2145, the fact that applicant 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. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claims 24 and 25: Akinori discloses the feed additive is coated with two-layered coating comprising hydrogenated rapeseed oil (see Akinori third to fifth paragraphs on page 4).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinori and Ahallil as applied to claims 16, 18, 19 and 21-25 above, and further in view of NPL Elhadi, “Viscosity of Some Acacias Gum and Relationship to Potassium Chloride and Calcium Chloride” (from J. Environ. Agric. 5(1): 476-479; 2020).
Regarding claim 20: Akinori discloses a feed additive for livestock (e.g., chickens) comprising a core that contains a polysaccharide that coagulates gram-negative bacterium and a divalent metal ion (i.e., calcium chloride) and a two-layer coating (see Akinori abstract; bottom paragraph on page 1; top paragraph page 3; example 4-1) and Ahallil discloses that Arabic gum (i.e., acacia senegal) decreases the growth of Clostridium bacteria (see Ahallil abstract), but neither Aknori nor Ahallil disclose potassium chloride; However, Elhadi discloses that both calcium chloride and potassium chloride are known to increase the viscosity of arabic gum (e.g., acacia senegal) where potassium chloride, which is commonly prepared by neutralizing potassium hydroxide (KOH) with hydrochloric acid (HCl) to produce potassium chloride and water (KOH + HCl → KCl + H₂O), provides a slightly thicker gel than calcium chloride (see Elhadi abstract; page 477; Table 2). Since a thicker gel would be easier to coat than a lower viscosity/slight gel, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use potassium chloride instead of calcium chloride to attain a thicker Arabic gum gel, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinori and Ahallil as applied to claims 16, 18, 19 and 21-25 above, and further in view of NPL Yousaf et al., “Encapsulated benzoic acid supplementation in broiler diets influences gut bacterial composition and activity” (from British Poultry Science, 2017).
Regarding claim 26: : Akinori discloses the feed additive is coated with two-layered coating comprising hydrogenated rapeseed oil (see Akinori third to fifth paragraphs on page 4), but fails to disclose benzoic acid resin; However Yousaf discloses that oil matrix encapsulated benzoic acid supplementation in broilers diet influences the broilers’ gut microbium, as clostridium spp. are not resistant to benzoic acid (i.e., a phenolic acid) as the helpful lactobacilli (Yousaf page 7 top right column) and that the concentration of the helpful Lactobacillus ssp. Increased in response to the dietary benzoic acid supplementation, whereas clostridal clusters where reduced in comparison to increasing lactobacillial clusters (see Yousaf pages 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have coated the feed additive with a layer comprising benzoic acid, in order to further impart the reduction of clostridium spp. in the gut of the consuming animal, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 on (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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights