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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, III and V in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged. The elected species are directed to Ribes alpinum, Furoguaiacin and guaiacin. Claims 1-2,6-10,12,14-16,18-19,21-23,25-27,29 are readable on the elected species. Claim 12 is included in the elected invention because it contains the marrubiin which is not subjected to the restriction requirement. The furoguaiacin-like compound , guaiacin-like compounds and Ribes alpinum extract will not be examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 18,19,21,26,27,29 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot reference back to a multiple dependent claims. Claim 18 recites “ composition of claim 1-17” which is not in the alternative. Claims 19, 21,26,27,29 are improper because they depend from an improper multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims are not been further treated on the merits.
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 23 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 23 is vague and indefinite. The claim recites the alternative of “ improved performance or the animal feed is chicken feed, pig feed, dairy cow feed or beef cattle feed”. However, it’s not clear what is intended by the alternative. The claim depends from claim 22 which recites “ a method of improving the performance”. If only option b is present, it’s not clear how it’s related to improving performance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6-10,14-16,22-23,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagiri ( 20020110605) in view of Hyun et al “ Phytochemicals as antibiotic alternatives to promote groth and enhance host health” and Lowe ( 20170020940).
For claim 1, Nakagiri discloses feed additive for animal feed comprising a plant of the family Saxifragaceae. The plants of the family Saxifrageae includes the genus Ribes including Ribes alpinum. Nakagiri discloses there is no specific restriction as to the amount of a plant of the family Saxifragaceae. It’s suitable to add the plant in amount of .001 to 100%. The claim does not define the effective amount; thus, any amount is considered as effective amount. ( see paragraphs 0030,0046,0067,0085,0114,0116)
For claims 2,25, Nakagiri discloses feed additive comprising other animal feed components such as grain, oil, mineral, vitamins. The amount of 3g/metric ton to about 500g/metric ton is equivalent of .0003-.05% Nakagiri discloses the Ribes alpinum can be added ranging from .001% to 100%. ( see paragraphs 0116,0121-0129)
For claim 6, the amount of 9g/metric ton to about 90g/metric ton is equivalent of .0009-.009%. Nakagiri discloses the Ribes alpinum can be added ranging from .001% to 100%. ( see paragraphs 0116)
For claim 22, Nakagiri discloses a method of feeding of animal comprising adding an affective amount of the feed additive to an animal feed. Nakagiri discloses that the feeds have liver function protecting or improving activity on animals such as cows , pigs , hens, turkeys etc… This is the same as improving the performance because there is no parameter defining performance. For claim 23, Nakagiri discloses the feed for chicken, pig, cow etc.. which meet the claim limitation of the alternative improved performance or the animal feed is chicken feed, pig feed etc.. ( see paragraphs 0122)
Nakagiri does not disclose adding furoguaiacin or guaiacin compound as in claims 1, 9,10, the property as in claim 7,the species as in claim 8, the property as in claims 14-16.
In the article, Hyun et al disclose alternative to using antibiotic in animal feeds to address concerns on drug-resistant superbugs. One of the alternative is the use of phytochemicals as antibiotic. Hyun et al teach most phytonutrients of interest in animal feeding are classified into three main groups of saponins, tannins and EO. Saponins and saponins are the main active components of several phytochemicals. ( see abstract, section 3.3)
Lowe discloses methods for inhibiting Hiv activity by using Guaiacum officinale. Lowe teaches that the plant is a new saponin showing antibacterial activity. ( see paragraph 0008)
Nakagiri discloses the animal feed comprises plant from Saxifragaceae family and those of other plant ( paragraph 0114). As shown in Huyn, it’s known in the art to look for alternative to antibiotic and phytochemicals containing saponins are one of the alternative. Lowe discloses Guaiacum officinale contains saponin having antibacterial activity. Guaiacum produces guaiacin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add guaiacin to have the additional beneficial antibacterial effect without using antibiotic which is discouraged as shown in Hyun et al. As to the properties in claims 7, 14-16, Nakagiri in view of Lowe and Hyun disclose the same composition. Thus, it’s obviously inherent the same improvement in performance and percent of lignans are present.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagiri in view of Huyn et al and Lowe as applied to claims 1-2,6-10,14-16,22-23,25 above, and further in view of Milica et al “ Marrubium vulgare L: A Phytochemical and Pharmacological Overview”.
Nakagiri does not disclose marrubiin as in claim 12.
Milica discloses Marrubium vulgare containing marrubiin. Muarrubiin has antimicrobial activity. ( see abstract)
Nakagiri discloses the animal feed comprises plant from Saxifragaceae family and those of other plant ( paragraph 0114). As shown in Huyn, it’s known in the art to look for alternative to antibiotic and phytochemicals are one of the alternative. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add marrubiin as taught in Milica to have the additional beneficial of antibacterial effect without using antibiotic which is discouraged as shown in Hyun et al. Since Milica discloses marrubiin from Marrubium vulgare which is the same species and compound as claimed, it’s obviously inherent the chemical structure is the same as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
February 23, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793