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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12-19-2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been considered. Initialed copies are enclosed.
Double Patenting
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/504,131. Corresponding limitations from the instant application can be found in the table below.
Instant application claim(s)
‘131 claim(s) (11-25-25)
Corresponding elements
1
1
Pathogenic infection treatment, base feed, mitigant feed mixture comprising medium chain fatty acid; two or more strains of B. pumilus, B subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens
2
2
Ad libitum
3
3
Citrus flavonoid
4
Sow
5
5
One or more organic acids
6
6
Benzoic acid
7
Lactating sow
8
1
TX porcine respiratory syndrome virus
9
8
TX S. suis
10
9
Base feed
11
10
Relative amount Bacillus
12
1
Direct fed percent
13
1
Medium chain percent
14
13
Amount ingested
15
1
Inclusion rate in base feed
16
15/16
Reduction is symptoms of PRRS
Claim 1of the “131 application anticipates instant claims 1, 8, 12,13 and 15. Claim 2 of the ‘131 application anticipates instant claim 2 etc. While the claims do not specify a sow or lactating sow, it is noted that claims of the ‘131 application target porcine and nursery pigs. It would have been prima facie obvious to feed the admixture to sows and lactating sows as they are well established in the art to be the primary source of transmissible infections to nursery pigs. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the ingredients in the mitigant composition and the amount in the base feed in view of the general teachings of the ‘131 for mitigating a pathogenic infection as claimed since both applications are directed to the same field of endeavor.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 10-19, 21 and 22 of copending Application No. 17/393,131 in view of Molly et al (WO 03/043441; of record).
Instant Application Claims
17/393,131 claims
Corresponding elements
1
1, 10, 14-17, 21 and 22
Feeding, inhibiting Sterptoccus, inhibiting respiratory stress mitigant feed mixture comprising two or more strains of B. pumilus, B subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens and citrus flavonoid
2
Ad libitum feeding
3
1
Citrus flavonoid
4
sow
5
Organic acid
6
Benzoic acid
7
Lactating sow
8
Porcine RRSV
9
10, 23
Streptococcus suis
10
13, 18,
Base feed composition
11
2, 11, 15, 16
Bacilli equal amounts
12
1
Amount of fed composition
13
Amount of MCFA
14
1
Ingestion amount
15
1
Inclusion rate of composition in base
16
10-13, 21, 23
Mitigate pathogenic infection, reduction mortality
Molly et al teach feed additives comprising a MCFA (medium chain fatty acid) and t least one growth-promoting component which may be organic acids (se abstract; page 3, summary of the invention). The compositions provide for antibacterial and anti-fungal properties and promotes the growth of animals. MCFAs include caproic, caprylic, capric, lauric and myristic alone or in combination (see page 6, first paragraph). Molly et al teach that the composition can be combined with probiotics (see page 6, last paragraph). The presence of a MCFA and a growth-component feed additives provides for substantially higher feed conversion (see page 7, last paragraph). Molly et al teach that concentration of the MCFA component may vary (page 9, second paragraph to page 10, second paragraph). Molly et al teach that the growth-promoting agent can be an organic acid, including carboxylic acids (see page 11, third and fourth paragraphs) and provide for useful concentrations thereof. Molly et al teach the compositions are useful for feed additives for pigs, suckling pigs, piglets (paragraph bridging pages 15-16 and page 17 first paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add MCFAs: caprylic, capric or lauric acid alone or in combination and one or more organic acids to the composition of active component composition of ‘131 as a method of inhibition of respiratory conditions or Streptococcus infections because ‘131 and Molly et al teach that these MCFAs provide for antimicrobial activity in pigs and organic acids provide for growth-promoting activity, reducing feed conversion and improving health and well-being of piglets. Inasmuch as, the general guidance for amounts of active ingredients, feeding schedules, incorporation in feed have been provided, it is well within the purview of the skilled artisan to determine optimal amounts, feeding schedules and amounts by means of routine experimentation. Consequently, the amounts set forth in claims 12-15 are prima facie obvious as routine optimization.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (US 2023/0058302 with priority to August 3, 2021) in view of Molly et al (WO 03/043441; of record).
Tran et al teach direct fed microbial compositions added to feed to provide for inhibition of respiratory conditions and symptoms in animals including swine (aka pigs). The direct fed microbial composition comprising two or more strains of Bacillus selected from Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloiquefaciens. The composition comprises a phytogenic composition comprising a citrus flavonoid and a vitamin composition (see figures). Tran et al teach that the mixture can be admixed with feed as an integral component thereof (paragraph [0020-0021]). Tran et al teach that the Bacillus can be included in approximately equal amounts (see [0023]). Tran et al teach the amounts of the Bacillus, phytogenic compounds, vitamin amounts, relative amounts to the feed product (paragraphs [0022-0035]) wherein the feed product includes complete base feed, milk replacers [0047], poultry byproduct meal (see page 21, claims 5 and 7). The amount and duration of feeding the admixed feed product can be varied depending upon needs [see paragraphs [0051-53]) and the amount of feed product ingested per animal may vary (see paragraph [0054]) depending on numerous factors including species, life stage number of feedings/day etc. Feed products my be provided ad libitum basis see paragraph [0055]. The feed products are effective to inhibit Streptococcus, including S. suis in swine (paragraph [0053]). Tran et al differ by not teaching the inclusion of medium chain fatty acids such s caprylic, capric or lauric acid. Pigs may ingest the feed before, during and/or after weaning including for example during the growing phase (see paragraph [0057]) and nursery pigs (paragraph [0065]). Tran et al teach that the composition provides for reducing overall mortality and removal rate associated with Streptococcus symptoms (see [0077]). In some tests the pigs were separated by sex and administered the of the composition. Tran et al differ by not providing a medium chain fatty acid such as caprylic, capric or lauric acid to the feed composition.
Molly et al teach feed additives comprising a MCFA (medium chain fatty acid) and t least one growth-promoting component which may be organic acids (se abstract; page 3, summary of the invention). The compositions provide for antibacterial and anti-fungal properties and promotes the growth of animals. MCFAs include caproic, caprylic, capric, lauric and myristic alone or in combination (see page 6, first paragraph). Molly et al teach that the composition can be combined with probiotics (see page 6, last paragraph). The presence of a MCFA and a growth-component feed additives provides for substantially higher feed conversion (see page 7, last paragraph). Molly et al teach that concentration of the MCFA component may vary (page 9, second paragraph to page 10, second paragraph). Molly et al teach that the growth-promoting agent can be an organic acid, including carboxylic acids (see page 11, third and fourth paragraphs) and provide for useful concentrations thereof. Molly et al teach the compositions are useful for feed additives for pigs, suckling pigs, piglets (paragraph bridging pages 15-16 and page 17 first paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add MCFAs: caprylic, capric or lauric acid alone or in combination and one or more organic acids to the composition of active component composition of Tran et al as a method of inhibition of respiratory conditions because Molly et al teach that these MCFAs provide for antimicrobial activity in pigs and organic acids provide for growth-promoting activity, reducing feed conversion and improving health and well-being of piglets. Inasmuch as, the general guidance for amounts of active ingredients, feeding schedules, incorporation in feed have been provided, it is well within the purview of the skilled artisan to determine optimal amounts by means of routine experimentation. Consequently, the amounts set forth in claims 12-15 are prima facie obvious as routine optimization.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando (US 2021/0378261 with priority to at least October 2, 2019; of record) in view of Rehberger et al (US 2009/0280090; of record).
The claims are drawn to a method mitigating pathogenic infection in an animal comprising administering a mitigant composition with a base feed where the mitigant composition comprises a medium chain fatty acid (MCFA; caprylic, capric or lauric acid), two or more strains of Bacillus selected from strains B. pumilus, B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens. The mitigant composition further comprises one or more flavonoids and one or more organic acids wherein the animal is a sow.
Fernando discloses a method (Paragraph [0003] The present disclosure provides compositions comprising at least one probiotic bacterial strain and methods of using such compositions to inhibit growth of pathogenic organisms) of mitigating pathogenic infection in an animal (Paragraph [0003] Administration of such compositions can treat existing infections from a variety of different pathogens and reduce the incidence of, duration of, and/or severity of clinical signs or symptoms of infection), the method comprising admixing a mitigant composition with a base feed to form a mitigant feed mixture (Paragraph [0019] In some forms, the compositions may be included or incorporated as a top dressing on animal feed) wherein the mitigant composition comprises a medium chain fatty acid composition (Paragraph [0035] Suitable penetrants include, for example fatty acids e.g. capric acid) and a direct-fed microbial composition (Paragraph [0009] For example, the composition may include both Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus pumilus. The probiotic species included in the composition can be at any ratio relative to each other) wherein the direct-fed microbial composition comprises two or more strains of Bacillus selected from strains of Bacillus pumilus (Paragraph [0009] For example, the composition may include both Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus pumilus. The probiotic species included in the composition can be at any ratio relative to each other) wherein the medium chain fatty acid composition comprises one or more of caprylic acid, capric acid, or lauric acid (Paragraph [0035] Suitable penetrants include, for example fatty acids e.g. capric acid) and providing the mitigant feed mixture to the animal (Paragraph [0005] In some forms, the animal is a human, cow, pig, sheep, deer, goat, horse, or chicken) in an amount effective to mitigate the pathogenic infection (Paragraph [0003] Administration of such compositions can treat existing infections from a variety of different pathogens and reduce the incidence of, duration of, and/or severity of clinical signs or symptoms of infection) but does not disclose wherein one of the two or more strains of direct-fed microbial composition comprises Bacillus subtilis or Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. As to claim 2, Fernando further discloses wherein the mitigant feed mixture is provided on an ad libitum basis (Paragraph [0046]) Administration of compositions of the disclosure can occur once or can occur multiple times as appropriate. As to claim 5, Fernando further discloses wherein the mitigant composition further comprises one or more organic acids (Paragraph [0030]) Suitable dissolution agents include, for example, organic acids such as citric acid. As to claim 9, Fernando further discloses herein the pathogenic infection comprises a Streptococcus suis infection (Paragraph [0005] In some forms, the animal is a pig; (Paragraph [0010]). In some forms the pathogen is selected from the group consisting of Streptococcus. As to claim 10, Fernando discloses admixing a mitigant composition with a base feed (Paragraph [0019] In some forms, the compositions may be included or incorporated as a top dressing on animal feed) wherein the mitigant composition comprises a medium chain fatty acid composition (Paragraph [0035] Suitable penetrants include, for example fatty acids e.g. capric acid) and a direct-fed microbial composition (Paragraph [0009] For example, the composition may include both Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus pumilus. The probiotic species included in the composition can be at any ratio relative to each other) wherein the direct-fed microbial composition comprises two or more strains of Bacillus selected from strains of Bacillus pumilus (Paragraph [0009] For example, the composition may include both Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus pumilus. The probiotic species included in the composition can be at any ratio relative to each other) and wherein the medium chain fatty acid composition comprises one or more of caprylic acid, capric acid, or lauric acid (Paragraph [0035] Suitable penetrants include, for example fatty acids e.g. capric acid) . As to claim 11, Fernando further discloses wherein the two or more strains of Bacillus are included in approximately equal amounts (Paragraph [0009] The probiotic species included in the composition can be at any ratio relative to each other. For example, if there are two species, they may be present in a ratio of 50:50). As to claim 12, Fernando further discloses wherein the method comprises direct-fed microbial composition (Paragraph [0009] For example, the composition may include both Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus pumilus. The probiotic species included in the composition can be at any ratio relative to each other) but does not disclose wherein the direct-fed microbial composition constitutes about 0.1 wt% to about 10.0 wt% of the mitigant composition. As to claim 13, Fernando further discloses wherein the method comprises medium chain fatty acid (Paragraph [0035] Suitable penetrants include, for example fatty acids e.g. capric acid) but does not disclose wherein he medium chain fatty acid composition constitutes about 15 wt% to about 45 wt% of the mitigant composition. As to claim 14, Fernando further discloses wherein the animal ingests the mitigant composition (Paragraph [0019] In some forms, the compositions may be included or incorporated as a top dressing on animal feed; Paragraph [0005] In some forms, the animal is a human, cow, pig, sheep, deer, goat, horse, or chicken) but does not disclose wherein the animal ingests about 20.0 g to about 40.0 g of the mitigant composition per day. As to claim 15, Fernando further discloses wherein the mitigant composition is added to the base feed (Paragraph [0019] n some forms, the compositions may be included or incorporated as a top dressing on animal feed) but does not disclose wherein the inclusion rate of the mitigant composition in the base feed is about 1 Ib./ton to about 20 lbs./ton. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the inclusion rate of the mitigant composition through routine experimentation. As to claims 15 and 16, Fernando further discloses wherein providing the mitigant feed mixture to the animal (Paragraph [0019] In some forms, the compositions may be included or incorporated as a top dressing on animal feed; Paragraph [0005] In some forms, the animal is a human, cow, pig, sheep, deer, goat, horse, or chicken) in an amount effective to mitigate the pathogenic infection (Paragraph [0003] Administration of such compositions can treat existing infections from a variety of different pathogens and reduce the incidence of, duration of, and/or severity of clinical signs or symptoms of infection) comprises providing the mitigant feed mixture to the animal (Paragraph [0075] results of this trial showed that the DFM provided significant benefits and protection against infection and accompanying clinical signs or symptoms of the pathogens discussed herein) but does not disclose reducing one or more symptoms of PRRS in the form of increased number of stillbirths, increased rates of pre-weaning mortality, or increased days to estrus. Fernando differs in not disclosing wherein one of the two or more strains of direct-fed microbial composition comprises Bacillus subtilis or Bacillus amyloliquefaciens.
Rehberger discloses a method (Paragraph [0019]) In another embodiment administration of one or more Bacillus strains inhibit pathogenic Clostridium, such as C. perfringens and C. difficile in pig wherein the direct-fed microbial composition comprises two or more strains of Bacillus selected from strains of Bacillus subtilis (Paragraphs [0024] and [0034-0038]) Bacillus strains that can be used in the methods described herein include the following B. subtilis strains. Rehberger discloses a method (Paragraph [0019]) In another embodiment administration of one or more Bacillus strains inhibit pathogenic Clostridium, such as C. perfringens and C. difficile in pig wherein the direct-fed microbial composition comprises two or more strains of Bacillus selected from strains of Bacillus subtilis (Paragraph [0024] Bacillus strains that can be used in the methods described herein include the following B. subtilis strains. As to claim 7, Rehberger further discloses wherein the animal is a lactating sow (Paragraphs [0010] and [0021]). In another embodiment of the method, an effective amount of Bacillus strains is administered to a pig. The pig can be a gestating pig, a lactating pig, or any other pig. As to claim 10, Rehberger further discloses wherein the base feed comprises a complete swine feed (Paragraph [0098] ). There were five (5) dietary treatments with twelve (12) replicates per treatment and eight pigs per pen. Treatment diets defined below were formulated by blending the appropriate premix into the basal diet at the expense of corn. Rehberger further discloses an effective amount of Bacillus strains 3AP4 (ATCC PTA-6506) and LSSAO1 (NRRL B-50104) is administered to a pig reducing one or more symptoms of PRRS in the form of increased number of stillbirths, increased rates of pre-weaning mortality, or increased days to estrus (Paragraph [0032]) piglets can be fed one or more Bacillus strains from the day of birth to weaning at about 17-24 days old; Paragraph [0085] Sows supplemented with DFM weaned more pigs (P=0.06) than control SOWS and, although not significant (P=0.12), this response was reflected in the lower percentage of piglet mortality with DFM supplementation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to combine to further include Bacillus subtilis of Rehberger et al in direct fed microbial admixed into a food product according to Fernando (Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus leicheniformis, medium chain fatty acid (capric) in order to mitigate pathogenic infections including clostridial disease in pigs, sows, lactating sows and neonatal pigs as the strains were specifically formulated to be effective against clostridial disease in neonatal pigs and the compositions of Fernando reduce the incidence of, frequence of, duration of or severity of clinical signs associated with infection. It further would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the amount of direct-fed microbial composition, the amount of the capric acid, and amount of ingested mitigant composition through routine experimentation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the amount of capric acid in the composition through routine experimentation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the amount of mitigant composition ingested per day through routine experimentation. As to claim 16, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references because bacillus strains reduce pre-weaning mortality according to Rehberger (Paragraph [0067]) Bacillus strains 15AP4 and LSSA01 in particular used in this study to determine if these strains reduced scours and improved piglet growth performance pre-weaning).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando and Rehberger as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-16 supra and further in view of Haahr et al (US 2020/0229463; of record).
The combination of Fernando and Rehberger is set forth supra. The combination differs by not teaching the addition of citrus flavoinids in the mitigant composition fed to sows.
Regarding claim 3, Fernando in view of Rehberger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the mitigant composition further comprises one or more flavonoids comprising a citrus flavonoid. However, Haahr discloses a method (Paragraph [0002] methods for producing the proteases and for using the proteases to improve animal performance and the nutritional value of an animal feed) wherein the mitigant composition further comprises one or more flavonoids comprising a citrus flavonoid (Paragraph [0407] Examples of essential oils are limonene). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references to include a citrus flavonoid as a growth promoter (Haahr Paragraph [0406] Phytogenics are a group of natural growth promoters or non-antibiotic growth promoters used as feed additives).
Regarding claim 4, Fernando in view of Rehberger and further in view of Haahr discloses the method of claim 3. Rehberger further discloses wherein the animal is a sow (Paragraph [0053] This study was run to determine if these strains may also provide a performance benefit by decreasing the load of pathogenic clostridia in a subclinical herd and to determine the efficacy of these strains for enhancing sow and piglet performance during lactation in a commercial sow unit).
Regarding claim 6, Fernando in view of Rehberger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the one or more organic acids comprise benzoic acid. However, Haahr discloses a method (Paragraph [0002] methods for producing the proteases and for using the proteases to improve animal performance and the nutritional value of an animal feed) wherein the one or more organic acids comprise benzoic acid (Paragraph [0306] In an embodiment, the fermentation broth formulation and cell compositions comprise a first organic acid component comprising benzoic acid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references to include citrus flavonoids, organic acids such as benzoic acid as the organic acid in the mitigant mixture for mitigating pathogenic infections in sows because Haahr Paragraph [0409] teach that they are often used in swine and poultry production as a replacement of antibiotic growth promoters since they have a preventive effect on the intestinal problems like necrotic enteritis in chickens and Escherichia coli infection in young pigs.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando and Rehberger as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-16 supra and further in view of Huang et al (WO 2021/137751 with priority to May 14, 2020; of record).
Regarding claim 8, Fernando in view of Rehberger discloses the method of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the pathogenic infection comprises a porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome virus infection.
Huang et al discloses a method (Pg. 1 Paragraph 2) The application also discloses methods of making and methods of using the feed additives) wherein the pathogenic infection comprises a porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome virus infection (Pg. 9 Paragraph 1-2 the present application also provides applications of the feed additive in pig feeds for preventing ASF disease and other similar swine diseases preferably, the similar swine diseases comprise Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the time of filing to combine these references to treat porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome because both compositions treat infections in swine Huang et al at Pg. 3 Paragraph 1. The feed additive has certain anti-viral effects and also inhibits virus replication processes, and thus can effectively resist and mitigate invasion and infection of external pathogenic bacteria and viruses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patricia Duffy whose telephone number is (571)272-0855. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4 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, Daniel Kolker can be reached at 571-272-3181. 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.
/Patricia Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645