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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed 6/24/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 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.
Amended claim 1 now recites “enriched in at least one bioactive agent present in the seaweed or seaweed extract.” It is unclear if the enrichment requires an increase in concentration of a bioactive agent which is a component of seaweed or seaweed extract, or if just the concentration of the bioactive in the seaweed or seaweed extract has to be increased. The instant specification appears to define “enriched in bioactive agent” as applied to the seaweed extract means the concentration of the bioactive in the extract is significantly greater than the concentration of the bioactive in dried seaweed. As such, it would appear additional bioactive agent needs to be applied to “enrich” the composition, given dried seaweed would have the baseline amount of active. But the new amendment suggests the enrichment is an internal process, but it is unclear how this occurs or how it could happen, other than potentially the method of Example 1 where seaweed is dried and an acetate mixture is used to extract bromoform from the seaweed. In this case, the enrichment is simply concentrating the bioactive (bromoform) by extraction and is not present in the seaweed or seaweed extract at an amount greater than was already there.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-8 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al (GB 2163346) in view of Machado (WO2015/109362) and Paul (WO2020/124167).
Applicants assert the prior art Telfer et al does not teach seaweed or seaweed extract enriched as the bioactive for the controlled release, nor teaching or guidance for including enriched seaweed or seaweed extract, and Machado and Paul do not cure the deficiencies where Applicants assert the secondary references teach away because they are to be added to feed.
Examiner disagrees. While the primary teaching of Machado is directed to administration with or immediately before food and Paul is a feed supplement, the skilled artisan would understand that animals constantly eat, especially grazing bovine. As such, it would be obvious to administer a supplement which provides extended release to provide the desired benefit over the entire period of feeding, whether controlled or not.
Additionally, Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a product and a method of administration of a product, not a method of making the product. As such, where the bioactive ingredient comes from is not relevant in terms of a product by process limitation but is relevant based on the interpretation that the component enriching the composition must also be found in seaweed. But the secondary references clearly teach the benefit of seaweed and the benefit of additional ingredients. As such, it would have been obvious to include components of seaweed which provide positive effects for animals.
Claim 1-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al (Animals 2020, 10, 2432) in view of Telfer et al (GB 2163346).
Telfer et al is discussed above and while the enriched seaweed component is presumed to be obvious based on above, for sake of completeness of the office action, Abbot et al is now cited as additional primary art to address the various interpretations of the new amendment.
Abbott et al teaches the benefits of methane inhibiting seaweed components and their administration as either injections or bolus forms (pg 19 section 6 and section 7, second ¶). It is recognized that the amount of active in the seaweed varies based on many factors, such as the specific seaweed, harvesting method, and processing methods (pg 20, section 8, first ¶). Specifically, the bromoform concentrations are optimized for improved activity (pg 12, section 4.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the teaching of Abbott et al to administer bromoform via bolus form to provide methane reduction in bovine, using known bolus means, such as taught by Telfer et al.
Claim 1-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrita et al (J of Applied Phycology, 2016, Vol 28, pp3135-3150) in view of Telfer et al (GB 2163346).
Telfer et al is discussed above and while the enriched seaweed component is presumed to be obvious based on above, for sake of completeness of the office action Cabrita et al is now cited as additional primary art to address the various interpretations of the new amendment.
Cabrita et al teaches seaweeds are sources for many minerals and macrocompounds useful for feed of farm animals (abstract and conclusion).
Cabrita does not teach administration via bolus.
Telfer et al teaches it was known to provide extended release of bioactive agents via bolus administration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to administer the bioactive agents of Cabrita et al to fam animals using any known method, such as taught by Telfer.
Claim 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al (GB 2163346) in view of Machado (WO2015/109362) and Paul (WO2020/124167), the combination further in view of Wardell (WO9011756).
Applicants do not present arguments with regards to the addition of Wardell specifically, therefore this rejection is maintained for the reasons recited above.
Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al (Animals 2020, 10, 2432) in view of Telfer et al (GB 2163346) and Wardell (WO9011756).
Abbott et al and Telfer et al are discussed above, but to not teach the specific glass of claim 8 and its dependents.
Wardell was previously discussed for teaching carboxylate glasses were known to be used in delivery systems (abstract and claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known glasses in the method of the primary references, given they are all taught to be water soluble and for delivery of actives.
Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrita et al (J of Applied Phycology, 2016, Vol 28, pp3135-3150) in view of Telfer et al (GB 2163346) and Wardell (WO9011756).
Cabrita et al and Telfer et al are discussed above, but to not teach the specific glass of claim 8 and its dependents.
Wardell was previously discussed for teaching carboxylate glasses were known to be used in delivery systems (abstract and claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known glasses in the method of the primary references, given they are all taught to be water soluble and for delivery of actives.
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 BENJAMIN J PACKARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 2-6pm and Tues-Fri 9:30am-6:30pm + mid-day flex.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at (571) 272-6897. 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.
/BENJAMIN J PACKARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights