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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 13 – 18 in the reply filed on February 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 12 and 19 – 20 are canceled; claims 13 – 18 are pending and have been considered on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, step 1, line 1, a space should be added between the 500 and g in “500g” for claim consistency.
In claims 13, 14 and 16, “Litsea rubescensLeeomte” should be spelled “Litsea rubescens Lecomte.”
In claim 13, step 2, lines 5 and 10, “h” should be spelled out.
In claim 13, step 5, lines 5 – 7, all recitations of “remained” should read “remaining.”
In claim 13, step 6, line 2, “min” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13 – 18 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 13 and its dependents are drawn to a method for preparing an antiviral feed additive, however are rendered indefinite because in step 1, lines 5 – 6, “FOS” and “IMO” should first be spelled out followed by the abbreviation.
In claim 13, step 2, line 6, the recitation of “by a steam distillation method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if unrecited specific steps must be carried out to meet the scope of the claim.
In claim 13, step 2 line 9; step 6 line 5; and step 7 line 2, the phrase “for later use” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase is intended to encompass. For example, it is unclear if the medicinal liquid is limited to the claimed method or intended for uses other than the claimed method, and what those “uses” might be.
In claim 13, step 2, line 10, the term “warm” renders the claim indefinite as it is subjective and not adequately defined by the claim language or specification.
In claim 13, step 4, line 1, “the mixed liquid obtained in step 2” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 13, step 4, line 1, the recitation of “stewing” renders the claim indefinite because the term is not adequately defined by the claim language or specification.
Claim 18 is rendered indefinite because the elements recited in the Markush group are various extracts and not organic selenium. Applicant may overcome this rejection by inserting “in the form of” or “provided by” or “provided as” before the recitation of “one selected from” in line 2.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 13 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 112956588 A), Li (CN 114470178 A) and Wang (CN 104547174 B).
He teaches methods for making an antiviral animal feed additive, the method comprising:
(step 1) providing Artemisiae Argyi, lettuce (Lactuca sativa), Allii tuberosi (Allium tuberosum), Litseae Rubescentis (Lecomte), Glycyrrhrizae, seaweed (Sargassum), monazite, calcium carbonate, fructo-oligosaccharide, isomaltooligosaccharide and organic selenium (p.1 of English Translation, ET);
(step 2 – 3) pulverizing the herbs into a slurry, filtering to obtain combined juices (p.2 ET);
(step 4) adding seaweed to the juice, cooking (stewing), filtering and cooling (p.2 ET);
(step 5) adding 30% each fructo-oligosaccharide (FOS) and isomaltooligosaccharide (IMO) to the cooled liquid, stirring, fermenting to obtain a fist fermentation liquid, filtering adding the remaining FOS and IMO and fermenting for a second broth (p.2 ET);
(step 6) crushing monazite and calcium carbonate, placing the resulting powder into a furnace at 1800 – 2200°C, firing (sintering) for 75 – 105 minutes, cooling, placing into a cloth bag hacing 800 – 1200 meshes, distilling via steam distillation to obtain a distillate (liquid) (p.2 ET);
(step 7) distilling additional fermentation broths until no distillate is left to obtain a fermentation liquor (broth), adding the organic selenium and wild camellia oil in a ratio or 1:5-10 (mixed solution: oil) (p.2 ET).
He teaches the organic selenium is provided as selenium-rich yeast, selenium carrageenan, selenium-rich shepherd's purse powder extract, selenium-rich cardamine powder extract, selenium-rich Chinese cabbage powder extract, selenium-rich cabbage powder extract and selenium-rich malt powder extract (p.4 ET).
Li teaches methods of preparing antiviral animal feed additives wherein active components include garlicin (Allium sativum, see attached “Garlicin”), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica, see attached Wikipedia page “Lonicera japonica”), onion (Allium mongolicum), Brewer’s yeast (selenium enriched yeast) and Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa). The method includes providing the ingredients, grinding (crushing), sieving, mixing, preparing slurries, fermenting, stirring, heating, cooling, ethanol extraction and filtering (p.1-2 ET).
Wang teaches methods of preparing antiviral animal feeds additives wherein the active components include Herba Menthae (Menthae canadensis), Glycyrrhizae (abstract). The methods include providing the ingredients, grinding, mixing and drying (p.1 ET).
The references do not teach the antiviral animal feed additives comprising all of the claimed components together in a single composition. However, at the time the claims were filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the instant ingredients for their known antiviral benefit, as disclosed by the cited references above, since each is well known in the art for their claimed purpose. It would have been further obvious to optimize the amounts of each component since they are all identified as active components and are thus identified result effective variables.
The references do not teach all of the specific details of preparing the various herbs. However, they each disclose the various preparation to include drying, grinding, mixing, juicing, forming into slurries, soaking, distilling, extracting, filtering, fermenting, steam distilling and concentrating in various forms and orders to obtain the antiviral herbal preparations. In this regard, at the time the claims were filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice well known and used methods of preparing medicinal herbs as a matter of routine practice and procedure, and with a reasonable expectation for successfully preparing the antiviral animal feed additive obtained by the combined teachings.
This rejection is based on the well established proposition of patent law that no invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effect of the ingredients (MPEP 2144.06 I). The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Double Patenting
Claims 13 – 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of copending Application No. 18/534 574 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference applicant is drawn to an antiviral (claims 5 – 9, 15 – 18) animal feed additive made from the same active components in the same amounts (claims 1 – 2) that are made by the same methods (claim 2 – 4, 10 – 14, 19 – 20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUTH A DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8am - 4pm).
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/RUTH A DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699