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
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching for all the invention groups is not a burden. This is not found persuasive because as indicated in the previous office action, the inventions of Group I-III are three distinct inventions for the reason of the record. They have different electronic resources and search queries, and searching for one subject matter will not necessarily lead to another. Applicant is reminded of the extensive literature search in biotechnology which is not co-extensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-25 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 are examined on the merits.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in INDIA 202211065837 on 11/17/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the INDIA 202211065837 application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “EHP” at line 1, which is incorrect. Applicant is required to spell out the full name of “EHP” the first time it appears in the claims.
All other cited claims depend directly or indirectly from objected claims and are, therefore, also, objected for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 112, 2nd
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A method for controlling the spread of EHP infection and associated disease…” at line 1. The recitation is very confusing, first of all, it is not clear what “associated diseases” applicant is referring to? Secondly, regarding “controlling the spread of EHP infection”, does it mean preventing the spread of EHP infection or the shrimp already suffers from EHP infection? The claims are construed as “preventing the spread of EHP infection” in the current office action.
Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims are rendered vague and indefinite. The lack of clarity renders the claims very confusing and ambiguous since the resulting claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
All other cited claims depend directly or indirectly from rejected claims and are, therefore, also, rejected under U.S.C. 112, second paragraph for the reasons set forth above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Etheve et al (US 20120244234 A1).
Etheve et al teach the present invention relates to the use of Nigella sp. extracts and their volatile components for the treatment of symptoms connected to impaired neurotransmission in animals including humans as well as to dietary supplements, food and feed or nutraceutical compositions containing such extracts or their volatile components (see Abstract).
Etheve et al teach "Farm animals" includes: fish, such as salmon and trout, aquaculture animals such as shrimp etc. [0020].
Etheve et al teach a GCMS chromatogram of a Nigella sativa extract from Analytikon and 0.1% (w/w) thymoquinone is shown in FIG. 3 (thus claim 2 is met, thus an amount effective to reduce the EHP infection rate, thus claim 1 is met) [0077].
Etheve et al teach "Fortification" means that a Nigella sp., preferably a Nigella sativa extract (thus claim 3 is met) was added during manufacture of the food/feed (thus claim 6 is met) or beverage [0024].
Etheve et al teach another aspect of this invention is a method for preventing and/or alleviating stress in aquaculture comprising the step of administering an effective dose of a lipophilic Nigella sativa seed extract to animals which are in need thereof, wherein the animals are fish or shrimp, and observing the effects of stress alleviation [0055].
Etheve et al teach mixed spices containing oregano (thus contains oregano oil, thus claim 4 is met) (see col 7, 2nd table).
Therefore, the reference is deemed to anticipate the instant claim above.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Etheve et al as applied to claims 1-4, and 6 above.
The teachings of Etheve et al are set forth above and applied as before.
The teachings of Etheve et al do not specifically teach the claimed concentration in the feed in claims 8 and 9.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amount of the composition in the feed according to the stress condition of the shrimp. Determining an appropriate amount of the composition within the feed is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of the ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIUWEN MI whose telephone number is (571)272-5984. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anand Desai can be reached on 571-272-0947. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qiuwen Mi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655