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
Claims 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/27/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP21174738.1, filed on 05/19/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the particle is determined by as determined by.” Examiner recommends correction to “wherein the particle is determined by.”
Claim 26 recites the limitation “Family of Salmonidae.” Examiner recommends correction to “Salmonidae family.”
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 16-30 and 34 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 16 recites the limitation “the step” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a step.” Claim 30 is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the water” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “water.” Claim 30 is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the range” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a range.” Claim 19 is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the particle is determined by as determined by 29Si NMR spectroscopy.” This limitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what specific property or structure of the particle is determined by the recited 29Si NMR spectroscopy.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the silicic acid containing particles” in lines 1 and 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “silicic acid containing particles.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the silicon” in line 1. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “silicon.”
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the group” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a group.” Claims 27, 28, and 29 are similarly rejected.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the group” in line 2. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a group.”
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the aquatic species” in line 1. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “an aquatic species.” Claims 26 and 27 are similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 22-24 fail to remedy the deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 16-23, 25-27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laane et al. (WO 2011071379 A1, previously cited by Applicant 11/16/2023), hereinafter Laane.
Regarding claim 16, Laane discloses a method of farming aquatic animals selected from fish, crustaceans and/or mollusks, the method comprising the step of adding a composition comprising a bioavailable silicic acid compound to the water in which the aquatic animals are kept (page 14, lines 25-30, “Hence, in summary, the invention provides a composition comprising an acidified aqueous solution of [1] micro colloidal silicic acid, [2] boric acid, and [3] a water absorbing additive, having a pH value of equal to or less than 1 , wherein the micro colloidal silicic acid has particle sizes in the range of 1 -8 nm, even more especially, wherein the micro colloidal silicic acid has particle sizes in the range of 1 .5-6 nm;” page 13, lines 18-22, “The [concentrated] solution or dissolved powder of the present invention can also be used, after dilution, to strengthen fish [including shellfish] and to increase their resistance against microbial infection. The solution or dissolved powder will usually be diluted approximately 1000 to 30000 times, before adding to the fish. It can for example after dilution be added to the basin of the fish, such that the appropriate concentration of the acids is obtained. This solution can also be used to concentrate boron and silicon in algae”).
Regarding claim 17, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the bioavailable silicic acid compound is in the form of subcolloidal particles having a size in the range of 1-10 nm (page 14, lines 25-30, a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 18, Laane discloses the method of claim 17.
Laane discloses wherein the particle is determined by as determined by 29Si NMR spectroscopy (page 5, lines 27-31, “The present invention includes an aqueous solution with silicic acid and boric acid with a silicic acid particle size around 4 nm, such as especially in the range of 1 - 8 nm, such as 1.5 nm to 6 nm consisting of many hundreds till few thousands of silicic acid molecules coupled together to form micro-spheres [determined from NMR-spectra] also called micro-colloidal”).
Regarding claim 19, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein at least 50 % of the silicic acid containing particles has a size within the range of 1-10 nm (page 14, lines 25-30 discloses that all silicic acid is in the form of particles within the range of 1-10 nm).
Regarding claim 20, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein at least 90 mol.% of the silicon contained in the composition is in the form of a bioavailable silicic acid compound (page 14, lines 25-30 discloses that all silicic acid is in sub-colloidal, bioavailable form).
Regarding claim 21, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the bioavailable silicic acid compound is selected from the group consisting of monomeric silicic acid, dimeric silicic acid, oligomeric silicic acid and polymeric silicic acid in subcolloidal form and combinations thereof (page 2, lines 12-18, “Although silicates and [poly]-silicic acid are sometimes included in formulations of nutrients, these compounds are not bioavailable enough as such, because they are not absorbed. Moreover only a low percentage of silicates and silica gel in water is slowly hydrolysed into orthosilicic and disilicic acid. Only these small sized silicic acid compounds [mono [= ortho] and disilicic acid] are highly bioavailable and are the relevant bioactive silicon molecules for the metabolism of diatoms, plants, animals and humans”).
Regarding claim 22, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the composition comprises an acidified aqueous solution or dispersion of bioavailable silicic acid compounds in the form of subcolloidal particles, preferably in combination with boric acid and/or a water absorbing additive (page 14, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 23, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the method does not comprise treatment of fungal infection or microbial infection in a species belonging to the Salmonidae family (Laane does not disclose treatment of fungal infection or microbial infection in a species belonging to the Salmonidae family).
Regarding claim 25, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the aquatic species is not rainbow trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss] (Laane does not disclose rainbow trout).
Regarding claim 26, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the aquatic species is not a species from the Family of Salmonidae (Laane does not disclose a species belonging to the Salmonidae family).
Regarding claim 27, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the aquatic species is selected from the group consisting of crustaceans and mollusks (page 13, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 29, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the method is for farming a species selected from the group of fishes, preferably of a species selected from Tilapia, Rohu, Catfish and Pangas (page 13, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 30, Laane discloses the method of claim 16.
Laane discloses wherein the method further comprises the steps of: - blending the composition comprising bioavailable silicic acid compounds with feed (page 13, lines 28-31, “This can e.g. be done by adding drops of an undiluted or diluted solution or [dissolved] powder to drinks, using the undiluted or diluted solution or powder in the preparation of medicines foods as food additive or as supplement, and other methods”); and - adding the feed to the water in which the aquatic animals are kept (page 13, lines 18-22).
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.
Claims 24, 28, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laane (WO 2011071379 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Laane discloses the method of claim 16, including applications of the method to improve the health of animals through promoting anti-aging and stimulating normal health conditions (page 10, lines 3-13, “Boric, silicic and also humic and fulvic acid [extract of humic / fulvic material and heterogeneous material, comprising organic weak acids and minerals] are weak acids and poorly soluble in water. In low concentrations they are common in non- polluted water all over the earth. They are vital for mineral health of plants, animals and humans. All these acids become depleted in polluted systems and by that, their bioavailability decreases. It has been found that selected mixtures of these acids in liquid formulations at low concentrations stimulate normal health conditions and could be used as nutrient preventing several diseases and as anti-aging agents. Hence, the solution of the present invention can also comprise in a specific embodiment humic / fulvic acid. In such a solution, humic / fulvic acid is present in a final concentration between 0.1 and 10% [V/V]”), however, Laane fails to specifically disclose wherein the method does not comprise treatment of fungal infection or microbial infection. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Laane such that the method does not comprise treatment of fungal infection or microbial infection, in order to tailor the method to specific health goals such as promoting anti-aging and stimulating normal health conditions. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 28, Laane discloses the method of claim 16, including for farming shellfish species (page 13, lines 18-22), however, Laane fails to specifically disclose wherein the method is for farming a species selected from the group of Shrimps. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Laane such that wherein the method is for farming a species selected from the group of Shrimps, in order to apply the method to other groups of shellfish, which would expand the use case of the method. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 34, Laane discloses the method of claim 16, including storing the silicic acid solution (page 9, lines 24-30, “To obtain a high concentration of micro-colloidal silicic acid, a high concentration of the water absorbing additive is necessary. The water absorbing additive in the solution of the invention is preferably present in a concentration of at least 30% [W/V, Weight per volume for powders and V/V for liquids], preferably at least 40% for liquids. Boron is preferably present in a concentration of around 0.2%. Such solutions can be stored as stock solution and kept for a long time [> 1 year] at room temperature before dilution and application in plants, animals and humans”), as well as instructions (Description of Invention), however, Laane fails to specifically disclose a product in the form of a container comprising a composition comprising a bioavailable silicic acid compound, wherein said container is provided with instructions printed on the container and/or instructions printed on a label provided with the container, to use the composition in the method according to claim 16. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Laane to include a product in the form of a container comprising a composition comprising a bioavailable silicic acid compound, wherein said container is provided with instructions printed on the container and/or instructions printed on a label provided with the container, to use the composition in the method according to claim 16, in order to provide the aid the user in carrying out the method. Additionally, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Furuya et al., US 6048863 A, discusses condensed-ring thiophene derivatives and thienopyrimidine derivatives, their production and use.
Wu et al., US 20100236137 A1, discusses systems and methods for producing eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid from algae.
Morgenthaler et al., US 20120284165 A1, discusses a method for removing carbon dioxide from ocean water and quantifying the carbon dioxide removed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights