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 the application
Claims 1-8 filed on 1/5/2024 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4,8 and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the improved animal products” without antecedent basis. This phrase ends with a period and is followed by a new sentence. Feed additive for muscle cell ATP utilization. The scope of the method is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “Application of feed additive according to claim 1 in animal feed to improve ATP utilization in animal cells.” The recitation “application of” is interpreted as “use of” which without steps defining the method of use is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Furthermore, the effect “to improve ATP utilization in animal muscle cells” is not supported in the disclosure as the embodiments are directed to results of energy utilization namely feed efficiency or growth. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di et al. (CN 116268200 A), published on 6/23/2023.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-8, Di discloses a feed additive for improving animal muscle cell ATP utilization rate, preparation method and application. the feed additive comprises the following raw material components: guanidinoacetic acid, methionine, betaine, vitamin E, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, folic acid, L-ascorbic acid, L-carnitine, yeast selenium and stearic acid. The invention is the animal body supplemented with exogenous creatine synthesis raw material at the same time, improving the efficiency of the animal body in guanidyl acetic acid into creatine, obviously increasing the creatine level in the animal body, improving the animal body at a lower nutritional level (low energy, low protein) under the condition of using efficiency of ATP, reducing protein and nutrient conversion to energy is consumed, so as to obviously improve animal growth performance and slaughter performance. The invention is raw material additive, it will not generate residue, green and safe, satisfy no urgent need of animal husbandry flying speed development, with wide application prospect..
Preferably, according to parts by weight, the feed additive comprises the components as claimed in the listed levels in claims 2 and 3. (see description)
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Di discloses the claimed preparation method [Embodiment 4].
Di therefore discloses the claimed invention, rendering the claims unpatentable.
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, 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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Gastner et al. (US20130296231A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-8, Gastner discloses the use of guanidinoacetic acid and/or salts thereof as feed additive, in predominantly vegetarian diets, in particular use being made of salts with hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid and phosphoric acid.
The use proceeds especially in individual doses from 0.01 to100 g/kg of feed in the form of powders, granules, pastilles or capsules, the feed additive also being able to be used in combination with other physiologically active materials of value. The claimed use which is suitable especially for breeding and growing livestock, has recourse to a compound which is in particular stable in aqueous solution, can be converted to creatine under physiological conditions, and, in contrast to other guanidine derivatives, is completely available to physiological sectors of use.
Gastner discloses that depending on the respective specific application, to use guanidinoacetic acid and salts thereof as feed additive in combination with other physiologically active compounds, in particular carbohydrates, fats, amino acids (e.g. creatine), proteins, vitamins, minerals, trace elements and derivatives thereof and any desired mixtures thereof being particularly suitable. Preference is given to methionine, betaine and choline and also other physiologically active methyl group donors. Betaine and choline, in the presence of homocysteine, can be converted to methionine in the body, which especially plays a role in the synthesis of creatine from guanidinoacetic acid. Here, methyl groups are required which are transferred from S-adenosylmethionine with formation of homocysteine. If betaine or choline are insufficiently available, methionine is consumed and a methionine deficit can occur in metabolism. Regarding ither trace minerals and selenium supplementation, trace minerals and vitamins are routinely added to animal feeds and the role of selenium supplementation in modulating plasma homocysteine levels was known at the time of the invention. In effect, maintaining redox balance is known to benefit health and well- being. Gastner discloses adding carnitine to feed compositions [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added known vitamins and minerals to a composition of guanidinoacetic acid methionine betaine and other methyl group donors to maintain cellular redox balance with a reasonable expectation of successfully preparing a feed additive composition with targeted health benefits.
Regarding the claims 4 and 5, the method steps claimed are routinely employed in making enteric-coated pellets with active ingredients in the core.
Claims 1-8 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793