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. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-4, 6, 11 and 18-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-10 and 13-22 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,291,219 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,291,219 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 provides for two additional microbes that there not disclosed in the patent . Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 18-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,398,154 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent provides for an invention with scope that overlaps, and thusly anticipates, the instant invention. The instant invention is drawn to a composition comprise one, any combination of two or three, or all four bacterial strains claimed, including Clostridium sp. , defined with a 16S nucleic acid being associated with SEQ ID. 28; Pichia sp. , defined with an ITS sequence of SEQ ID. 32; Ruminococcus sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID. 1; and a Butyrivibrio sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID 2067, wherein all of the claimed microbes must match their respective SEQ IDs by at least 98%. The claim also requires that the composition include a carrier, and a means for protecting the bacteria from external stressors. When considering the sequence search report, it is clear that the Clostridium is C. butyricum , the Pichia is P. kudrzvzevii. The cited patent provides for a method of increasing milk product by administering a composition comprising C. butyricum , and P. kudrzvzevii , wherein their sequences are defined by SEC IDs 28 and 32 , respectively. Additionally, the deposited forms of C. butyricum and P. kudrzvzevii are deposted as NRRL B-67248 and NRRLY-67249, which are the same as those of the instant patent. The only main difference between the patent and the instant invention is that the instant claim set provides for a limitation that allows for formulations that resist environmental stressors in the independent claim, whereas the patent provides for this in the limitation of claim 5. Although the patent is a method, there is no bar in rejecting claims that cross statutory categories . Based upon all of these factors, it is clear that the invention of the patent, taken as a whole, anticipates the limitations of the Application, wherein C. butyricum , and P. kudrzvzevii must be present in the composition. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11 and 18-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-35 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,808 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent provides for an invention with scope that overlaps, and thusly anticipates, the instant invention. The instant invention is drawn to a composition comprise one, any combination of two or three, or all four bacterial strains claimed, including Clostridium sp. , defined with a 16S nucleic acid being associated with SEQ ID. 28; Pichia sp. , defined with an ITS sequence of SEQ ID. 32; Ruminococcus sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID. 1; and a Butyrivibrio sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID 2067, wherein all of the claimed microbes must match their respective SEQ IDs by at least 98%. The claim also requires that the composition include a carrier, and a means for protecting the bacteria from external stressors. When considering the sequence search report, it is clear that the Clostridium is C. butyricum , the Pichia is P. kudrzvzevii. The invention also includes a member of the Ruminococcus genus, with a SEQ ID 1, and a member of the Butyrivibrio genus, with a SEQ ID 2067 (both claimed to at least 98% homology). The patent provides for a method of increasing milk product by administering, to a ruminant, a microbial composition comprising bacterium and fungi that provide for 16S sequences SEQ IDs 1-60, and ITS sequences 2045-2107. These sequences include populations that have been deposited. When considering the cited patent, it is clear that the claimed invention includes the four sequences described in the Application, wherein the sequences are identical (in both sequence and the respective sequence identification number). Additionally, there is no bar on double patenting rejections of different statutory categories. When taken together, the patent describes embodiments that would directly read upon the claimed composition, and as such, anticipate the claimed composition. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 18-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,966,437 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent provides for an invention with scope that overlaps, and thusly anticipates, the instant invention. The instant invention is drawn to a composition comprise one, any combination of two or three, or all four bacterial strains claimed, including Clostridium sp. , defined with a 16S nucleic acid being associated with SEQ ID. 28; Pichia sp. , defined with an ITS sequence of SEQ ID. 32; Ruminococcus sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID. 1; and a Butyrivibrio sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID 2067, wherein all of the claimed microbes must match their respective SEQ IDs by at least 98%. The claim also requires that the composition include a carrier, and a means for protecting the bacteria from external stressors. When considering the sequence search report, it is clear that the Clostridium is C. butyricum , the Pichia is P. kudrzvzevii. The cited patent provides for composition comprising C. butyricum , and P. kudrzvzevii , wherein their sequences are defined by SEC IDs 28 and 32, respectively. Additionally, the deposited forms of C. butyricum and P. kudrzvzevii are deposted as NRRL B-67248 and NRRLY-67249, which are the same as those of the instant patent. Based upon all of these factors, it is clear that the invention of the patent, taken as a whole, anticipates the limitations of the Application, wherein C. butyricum , and P. kudrzvzevii must be present in the composition. Claim 1-4, 6, 7, 11 and 18-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,809 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent provides for an invention with scope that overlaps, and thusly anticipates, the instant invention. The instant invention is drawn to a composition comprise one, any combination of two or three, or all four bacterial strains claimed, including Clostridium sp. , defined with a 16S nucleic acid being associated with SEQ ID. 28; Pichia sp. , defined with an ITS sequence of SEQ ID. 32; Ruminococcus sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID. 1; and a Butyrivibrio sp. with a 16S sequence defined as SEQ ID 2067, wherein all of the claimed microbes must match their respective SEQ IDs by at least 98%. The claim also requires that the composition include a carrier, and a means for protecting the bacteria from external stressors. When considering the sequence search report, it is clear that the Clostridium is C. butyricum , the Pichia is P. kudrzvzevii. The cited patent provides for a composition comprising at least one, and up to four, bacterial and fungal strains defined by their respective 16S and ITS sequences. The patent claims SEQ IDs 1, 28, 32, and 2067. These microbes are provided in a composition that is formulated to resist external stressors. The dependent claims also provide for deposited microbes. The provides sequences possess 100% homology to the sequences provided in the instant Application, wherein all of the deposited microbes in the patent align with the same deposited microbes in the instant application. The main difference between the patent and the Application is that the patent does not explicitly define the genera from which the sequences belong, and the microbes must have 100% homology to the sequences, whereas the Application provides for the genera and at least 98% homology to the claimed sequences. As such, the patent directly reads upon, and thusly anticipates, the Application. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Borisova, et al (RU2260043C2); Ji, et al (CN104814278A). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3643 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8AM-5:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Adam Weidner can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3045 . 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. /DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651