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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s submission dated March 23, 2026. Any objections and/or rejections made in previous actions and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-22 are pending, claims 10-11, 13-14, and 21 remain withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 15 fails to properly label the y-axis. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8, 15-20, and 22 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the recitation of “increasing the mixing uniformity of a butyrate salt additive mixed with solid feed” is indefinite due to a lack of clarity with respect to the role of the solid feed in the limitation. It is unclear whether the limitation is reciting mixing the additive with the solid feed or whether it is a property of the additive that it has increased uniformity when mixed with solid feed. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the limitation is reciting a property of the butyrate salt additive, wherein the additive has an increased uniformity when mixed with solid feed.
Due to their dependency on claim 1, claims 2-8, 15-20, and 22 are also rejected.
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 1-3, 5-8, 15, 16, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaoyun et al. (CN 106509368 A) in view of Guo et al. (CN 102274703 A).
With respect to Claim 1, Shaoyun et al. teaches a method of preparing a granular sodium butyrate feed [0027] comprising the steps of mixing butyric acid, water, [0028] and sodium hydroxide, [0029] spheronizing the material, [0032] and passing to a fluidized bed for drying. [0033] This invention reads on a method for providing a butyrate salt additive comprising a butyrate feed liquid and a fluidized bed, but is silent to the method being performed with a crystal nucleus in a cyclic fluidization crystallization method.
Guo et al. teaches a large-scale, continuous, energy-saving, fluidized bed, spray granulation drying process suitable for feed additives that result in a more uniform particle size. [0008] The method comprises the steps of spraying a fluid onto seed particles in a fluidized bed, growing the seed particles through agglomeration and coating while drying under hot air, discharging the material to a vibrating screen to be sorted by size, drying the particles a second time to a desired moisture and temperature, then sending them to a second screen, and, finally, materials larger than desired are recycled to be used as seeds for the fluidized bed. [0009]
This reads on the limitation of providing a crystalizing nucleus for a fluidizer bed and a cyclic fluidization crystallization method and increasing the mixing uniformity.
Shaoyun et al. and Guo et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach methods of forming granulated feed particles. Where Shaoyun et al. teaches a specific feed additive in the form of sodium butyrate, Guo et al. teaches a cyclical method comprising crystal nuclei on a fluidized bed. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to produce the composition taught by Shaoyun et al. using the method taught by Guo et al. due to the efficiency and adaptability of the method. [0014]
With respect to the limitation “increasing the mixing uniformity of the butyrate salt additive mixed with solid feed”, MPEP 2112.01 I states, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The method taught by the combination of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches a substantially identical product formed by a substantially identical method, and would therefore possess all the same properties of the claimed invention, including an increased uniformity when mixed with a solid feed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. to produce a butyrate salt additive by the process of providing a crystal nucleus and a butyrate feed liquid for a fluidized bed and forming butyrate particles by a cyclic fluidization crystallization method, wherein the resulting butyrate feed additive has an increased uniformity when mixed with solid feed, thereby rendering claim 1 obvious.
With respect to Claim 2, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the product taught by Shaoyun et al. is a sodium butyrate additive [0027] and the method of Guo et al. uses the product of the method to seed the method itself. [0009] Therefore, the seed used in the method of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. would be a crystal of sodium butyrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. to produce a sodium butyrate additive according to the process recited in claim 1, wherein the crystal nucleus is a butyrate crystal nucleus, thereby rendering claim 2 obvious.
With respect to Claim 3, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Guo et al. teaches the method comprises the steps of spraying a fluid onto seed particles in a fluidized bed, growing the seed particles through agglomeration and coating while drying under hot air, drying the particles a second time to a desired moisture and temperature, and, finally, materials larger than desired are recycled to be used as seeds for the fluidized bed. [0009] This reads on the steps of blowing hot air into the fluidized bed after providing the crystal nucleus, spraying the butyrate feed liquid to make particles grow, continuously drying the particles, and drying the continuously dried particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. to produce a sodium butyrate additive according to the process recited in claim 1, wherein the process comprises blowing hot air into the fluidized bed after providing the crystal nucleus, spraying the butyrate feed liquid to make particles grow, continuously drying the particles, and drying the continuously dried particles, thereby rendering claim 3 obvious.
With respect to Claim 5, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Shaoyun et al. teaches that the reaction for producing the sodium butyrate additive comprises adjusting the feeding speed of the reactants, wherein the feeding speed is faster in the early stage and slower in the later stage. [0030]
A method of adding reactants faster in the early stage and slower in the later stage describes the general conditions of the limitation recited in claim 5, wherein the spray volume of the butyrate feed liquid occurs in stages, wherein the first, second, and third-grades have decreasing values. Additionally, the values of 280-400kg/hour, 280-380 kg/hour, and 250-370 kg/hour for the first, second, and third-grades respectively are simply the results of routine optimization. According to MPEP 2144.05 II, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. to produce a sodium butyrate additive according to the method recited in claim 3, wherein step 2 comprises spraying the volume of the liquid butyrate feed in grades, such that the first-grade is 280-400kg/hour, the second-grade is 280-380 kg/hour, and the third-grade is 250-370 kg/hour, thereby rendering claim 5 obvious.
With respect to Claim 6, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Guo et al. teaches the method comprises the step of drying under hot air and drying the particles a second time to a desired moisture and temperature. [0009] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the drying step of Guo et al. to produce a sodium butyrate additive according to the method of claim 3, wherein a dehydration in step 3 is by hot air, thereby rendering claim 6 obvious.
With respect to Claim 7, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Shaoyun et al. teaches two drying steps in a fluidized bed in order to obtain a granular product. [0033] Guo et al. teaches drying the particles a second time to a desired moisture. [0009] The recitation of “dried to a liquid content of 0.1 to 6%” is simply the results of routine optimization. According to MPEP 2144.05 II, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. to produce a sodium butyrate additive according to the method of claim 3, wherein step 4 comprises the particles flow out of the fluidized bed when dried to a liquid content of 01.-6%, thereby rendering claim 7 obvious.
With respect to Claim 8, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Guo et al. the method comprises the step of discharging the material to a vibrating screen to be sorted by size after drying the particles to a desired moisture content. [0009] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. to produce a sodium butyrate additive according to the method of claim 3, wherein the method comprises a step 5 of screening the particles prepared in step 4 according to particle size, thereby rendering claim 8 obvious.
With respect to Claim 9, Shaoyun et al. teaches a method of preparing a granular sodium butyrate feed. [0027] Shaoyun et al. is silent to a method of producing a butyrate salt additive according to claim 1. According to MPEP 2113 I, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. does teach the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. in order to produce a butyrate salt additive according to the method of claim 1, thereby rendering claim 9 obvious.
With respect to Claim 15, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Shaoyun et al. teaches a method of preparing a granular sodium butyrate feed. [0027] Therefore, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
With respect to Claims 16 and 19, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 3 and 6, as described above. Shaoyun et al. teaches to control the temperature of the reaction taught to between 80-120°C, [0017] and the temperature of drying occurs in stages and is between 80-90°C and 110-120°C. [0020] Additionally, Guo et al. teaches two air heaters and two air blowers. [0011] Both references are silent to blowing air in grades, wherein the temperature is changed depending on the grade.
Shaoyun et al. teaches changing the temperature throughout the reaction and teaches three different temperature grades, and Guo et al. teaches using different blowers that can be set to different temperatures. The change in temperature across blowers teach the general conditions of the limitations recited in claim 16 and 19, but neither Shaoyun et al. nor Guo et al. teach the exact temperatures recited or a third grade of temperatures. The temperatures taught by Shaoyun et al. overlap with the temperature ranges recited in the second and third grades.
MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” and according to MPEP 2144.05 II, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. One would have been motivated to optimize the temperatures of the reaction in order to determine the best method for producing the feed additive, additionally, the temperature ranges taught by Shaoyun et al. overlap with two of the three grades recited in claims 16 and 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Shaoyun et al. and Guo et al. to produce a butyrate salt additive according to the method recited in claims 3 and 6 respectively, wherein step 1 comprises the hot air being graded such that the first-grade is between 140-180°C, the second-grade is between 120-160°C, and the third-grade is between 100-140°C, thereby rendering claims 16 and 19 obvious.
With respect to Claim 18, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Shaoyun et al. teaches a method wherein the reaction consists of 400kg butyric acid, 210kg water, [0028] and 182kg sodium hydroxide, [0029] resulting in a butyrate concentration of about 50%. Therefore, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. renders claim 18 obvious.
With respect to Claim 20, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 8, as described above. Additionally, Guo et al. teaches the particle size can be adjusted between about 0.3-5mm. [0028] According to the instant invention, a mesh size of 14 corresponds to 1.4mm and a mesh size of 60 corresponds to 0.25mm. [Table 1] According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The range disclosed by Guo et al. overlaps with the range recited in claim 20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. in order to produce a sodium butyrate additive according to the method recited in claim 8, wherein the particle size in step 5 is between 10 and 120 meshes, thereby rendering claim 20 obvious.
With respect to Claim 22, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. The prior art is silent to the effect the method has after transportation of the feed, but MPEP 2112 I, states, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”, and II states, “[t]here is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”. Due to the identical nature of the claimed and prior art invention, it would have been obvious that the prior art invention would share the same properties as those of the claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing fate of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. in order to develop a method according to claim 1, wherein the uniformity of mixing the feed additive is increased such that the settlement in the feed after transportation is reduced, thereby rendering claim 22 obvious.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaoyun et al. (CN 106509368 A) in view of Guo et al. (CN 102274703 A) as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Bhandari et al. (Handbook of Food Powders - Processes and Properties, Knovel.com).
With respect to Claim 4 and 17, Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Shaoyun et al. teaches that the optimal temperature for the reaction taught is between 105-110 °C. [0029] This temperature falls within the range recited in claims 4 and 17. Shaoyun et al. and Guo et al. are silent to the inlet air pressure of the fluidized bed.
Bhandari et al. teaches the general principles of fluidization, equipment used for fluidization, and examples of fluidization as applied to food powder production. [Abstract] Bhandari et al. teaches the phenomenon of fluidization is due to the velocity of the fluid that flows up through the particles in the bed. [Pg. 179, Par. 4] Specifically, Bhandari et al. teaches a fluid velocity range wherein a pressure difference facilitates the formation of the fluidization bed, [Fig. 8.1] and that the fluidization range depends on the physical properties of the particles. [Pg. 180, Par. 2]
Shaoyun et al., Guo et al., and Bhandari et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach fluidization methods and properties. Where Shaoyun et al. teaches a specific feed additive in the form of sodium butyrate, Guo et al. teaches a cyclical method comprising crystal nuclei on a fluidized bed, and Bhandari et al. teaches the physical properties and theories behind the process of fluidization. One would be motivated to combine Bhandari et al. with the teachings of Shaoyun et al. and Guo et al. in order to optimize the conditions of the method of fluidization.
The fluid velocity of the air in the fluidization bed would be directly related to the pressure of the air inlet. In the interest of producing an optimized fluidized bed, one would be motivated to experiment with the pressure of the air inlet to determine the optimal pressure to achieve fluidization. The general conditions of the limitations recited are described by the combination of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. with Bhandari et al., but the exact conditions are not taught. According to MPEP 2144.05 II, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Shaoyun et al. in view of Guo et al. and Bhandari et al. in order to produce a butyrate salt additive according to the process recited in claim 3, wherein step 1 comprises a total inlet air temperature of 1000-2000 Pa or a bed pressure drop of 1000-3000Pa and a total inlet air temperature of 100-200°C or a temperature of the material layers between 40-180°C, thereby rendering claim 4 and 17 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 6, with respect to the objection to the drawings that, “it is easy for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the unit for the y-axis is %, which refers to CV value (%) of different granular sodium butyrates”. It is recommended that applicant appropriately label the y-axis with the afore mentioned unit.
Applicant asserts on Page 8, Lines 2-3, that, “Applicant respectfully submits that the applied prior art disclosures fail to teach, or otherwise render obvious, every feature of the invention recited in amended claims 1” and on lines 6-7, “The rejection of claims 2-8 and 15-20 is also respectfully requested to be withdrawn at least because these claims depend from independent claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and directs applicant to the existing rejections of claims 1-8, 15-20, and 22. For this reason the rejections of the aforementioned claims is upheld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights