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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 05/26/2026
Claims 10-15 have been amended.
Claims 16-17 have been added.
Claims 1-9 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claim 10-17 is directed to a method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 10:
A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants, said method comprising:
orally administering a methane inhibitor to said one or more ruminants, the methane inhibitor comprising 3-nitrooxypropanol; and
monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants,
wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” is directed to math because primarily through quantitative measurements, modeling, and statistical analysis to understand, predict, and manage these emissions, often using complex equations (like partial differential equations) for heat/mass transfer and chemical reactions, as well as calculating percentage reductions in methane (a VOC) by measuring other VOC changes.
“orally administering a methane inhibitor to said one or more ruminants, the methane inhibitor comprising 3-nitrooxypropanol” is directed to mental step of human activity.
“monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof” is directed to mental step of collecting and analyzing data.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “VOC emission, sensor” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites " A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the monitoring is performed in a ruminant farm house setting” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 12, “wherein the ruminant farm house setting houses at least 5 ruminant” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 13, “the steps of: a. providing a VOC sensor in the ruminant farm house setting, b. using the VOC sensor, measuring a baseline VOC emission of said farm house setting for a first defined time period (t) during which the methane inhibitor is not administered to the one or more ruminants, c. using the VOC sensor, measuring a VOC content in said farm house setting for a second defined time period (t) during which the methane inhibitor is orally administered to the one or more ruminants, d. determining a difference between the VOC content and the baseline VOC emission measured using the VOC sensor, wherein a value for the VOC content greater than a value for the baseline VOC emission indicates the VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants increased after orally administering the methane inhibitor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the method is used to quantify a reduction of methane emissions resulting from orally administering the methane inhibitor to the one or more ruminants” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 15, “wherein the VOC sensor is incorporated into a monitoring unit connected to a remote computing device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 16, “wherein the VOC sensor is an ethylene oxide sensor, a digital VOC sensor, or a combination thereof” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 17, “wherein the digital VOC sensor employs a Pd dopant” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 10-17 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Daval et al. (USP 9,902,685) disclose a method for reducing the production of methane emanating from the digestive activities of a ruminant and/or for improving ruminant animal performance by using, as active compound at least one organic molecule substituted at any position with at least one nitrooxy group, or a salt thereof, which is administrated to the animal together with the feed. The invention also relates to the use of these compounds in feed and feed additives such as premix, concentrates and total mixed ration (TMR) or in the form of a bolus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that as amended, introduces additional elements of orally administering a specific methane inhibitor to one or more ruminants followed by monitoring VOC emissions from the one or more ruminants using at least one of
a specific group of VOC compounds. Furthermore, each of claims 11-17 introduce further additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant respectfully submits that these claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants, said method comprising: orally administering a methane inhibitor to said one or more ruminants, the methane inhibitor comprising 3-nitrooxypropanol; and monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” is directed to math because primarily through quantitative measurements, modeling, and statistical analysis to understand, predict, and manage these emissions, often using complex equations (like partial differential equations) for heat/mass transfer and chemical reactions, as well as calculating percentage reductions in methane (a VOC) by measuring other VOC changes.
“orally administering a methane inhibitor to said one or more ruminants, the methane inhibitor comprising 3-nitrooxypropanol” is directed to mental step of human activity.
“monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof” is directed to mental step of collecting and analyzing data.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “VOC emission, sensor” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites " A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method to increase the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of one or more ruminants” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “orally administering a methane inhibitor to said one or more ruminants, the methane inhibitor comprising 3-nitrooxypropanol; and monitoring said VOC emissions of the one or more ruminants, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise propane, propene, isobutane, butane, 1,3-pentadiene, benzene, hexane, heptane, octane or a combination thereof” as cited in claim 10.
Examiner agrees, therefore the rejection under 103 of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights