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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is a response to applicant’s communication submitted July 23, 2026, wherein claims 36, 41, 75, 76, 86, 87, 89, and 90 are amended, claims 38, 39, 44, and 77-85 are canceled, and new claims 96-107 are introduced. This application is a national stage application of PCT/CA2023/051080, filed August 15, 2023, which claims benefit of provisional application 63/397993, filed August 15, 2022.
Claims 36, 41, 75, 76, and 86-107 are pending in this application.
Claims 36, 41, 75, 76, and 86-107 as amended are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s amendment, submitted July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 36, 38, 39, 41, 44, 76, and 77 under 35 USC 112(b) for containing indefinite limitations, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended so as to remove the indefinite limitations. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 36, 38, 44, 77, 77, 7,9-81, 83, 84, 86-90, and 92-94 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) for being anticipated by Stengel et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended so as to require that the mannooligosaccharides be beta-linked oligosaccharides. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 41 and 91 under 35 USC 103 for being obvious over Stengel et al. in view of Ziolkowski et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended so as to require that the mannooligosaccharides be beta-linked oligosaccharides. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 85 and 95 under 35 USC 103 for being obvious over Stengel et al. in view of Bi et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended so as to require that the mannooligosaccharides be beta-linked oligosaccharides. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, submitted July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 39 under 35 USC 103 for being obvious over Stengel et al. in view of Futoshi et al., has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection as the claims have been amended so as to require that the mannooligosaccharides be beta-linked oligosaccharides. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
The following rejections of record in the previous action are maintained:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 75, 76, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 96-98, 100-102, and 104-106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Futoshi et al. (Foreign patent publication CN1717494A, Reference and English machine translation of record in previous action, all references herein are to the English machine translation)
Independent claim 96 claims a composition of manno-oligosaccharides comprising at least a certain amounts of certain short-chain beta-1,4-linked mannooligosaccharide species, and having a particular water solubility. Claim 75 claim a method of inhibiting growth of pathogenic bacteria or promoting growth of beneficial bacteria in a subject, comprising administering said oligosaccharide composition to the subject. Futoshi discloses an experiment wherein chickens fed with feed containing a mannose disaccharide and then exposed to Salmonella bacteria displayed reduced numbers of pathogenic bacteria. (p. 6 example 5, see also p. 5 example 2 and comparative example 1) A pure composition of a mannose disaccharide would be seen to comprise 100% DP between 2 and 6. Furthermore as evidenced by the ChemicalBook entry for beta-1,4-mannobiose, (Evidentiary reference included with PTO-892) this compound is inherently water-soluble, thereby meeting the solubility limitation in claims 96 and 98. Furthermore Futoshi discloses that the mannose disaccharides can be produced form pine kernel or coconut residues, for example, (p. 3 fifth paragraph) as recited in present claims 104 and 105. Therefore the disclosed composition anticipates present claims 96-98. This method additionally anticipates present claims 75 and 87 as the addition of the mannose disaccharide decreases the number of pathogenic bacteria such as salmonella. Regarding claims 100 and 102, because the compound described by Futoshi is a single homogeneous disaccharide, it is reasonably considered to not contain other saccharides such as glucose, galactose, or fructose.
Regarding claim 88, table 3 on p. 14 of the Chinese language publication of Futoshi discloses that the disclosed mannose disaccharide reduced the amount of salmonella CFU in the treated animals by over 20%. Regarding claim 92, this claim refers to the growth of a number of potential bacterial pathogens. It is reasonably considered to require that the MOS has the property of potentially inhibiting any of these pathogens rather than requiring that each and every pathogen be present in the subject. Regarding claims 93, 94, and 106 Futoshi discloses embodiments disclosed as a feed composition and also as a liquid. (p. 4 fourth paragraph) Regarding claim 101, p. 4 paragraph 3 of Futoshi discloses that the mannobiose composition can additionally contain mannose, and that it is not necessary to remove the mannose.
For these reasons Futoshi anticipates the present claims.
Response to Arguments: Applicant’s arguments, submitted July 23, 2026, with respect to the above grounds of rejection, have been fully considered and not found to be persuasive to remove the rejection. With respect to the Futoshi reference, Applicant argues that Futoshi does not disclose or suggest an overall DP distribution, such as 2 to 6 or 2 to 10 present at the claimed amounts, instead regarding the presence of larger oligosaccharides as not being significant. However, taken in its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 96 is infringed by a composition consisting of DP2 mannobiose with no higher oligosaccharides, or containing only minor, incidental amounts of said oligosaccharide.
Applicant further argues that Futoshi is silent as to the solubility of the disclosed beta-1,4-mannobiose. However, as discussed above, Chemicalbook (included with PTO-892) provides evidence that beta-1,4,-manobiose is water-soluble. Furthermore there is a reasonable presumption that a substance having the same structure as the substance described in the specification will have the same physical properties such as water solubility.
Finally, with respect to claims 75, 76, 87, 88, 92, and 93, Applicant argues that Futoshi discloses that the mannobiose acts by inhibiting agglutination and adhesion of Salmonella, leading to excretion of the bacteria instead of colonization of the intestine. This it taken to be distinct from inhibition of bacterial growth described in the present claims. However, as discussed in MPEP 2112(I), “The 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.” Therefore even if Applicant’s disclosure has described a direct antibacterial action of mannooligosaccharides such as beta-1,4-mannobiose, which was not recognized by Futoshi, this discovery would not serve to differentiate the claimed process from the prior art, since both the claimed method and the one disclosed by Futoshi involve administering the same composition not the same subject population. Additionally, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of “inhibiting growth of pathogenic bacteria,” this term would encompass methods wherein the growth of bacteria is inhibited because agglutination and adhesion are inhibited, thereby accomplishing the claimed effect of inhibiting bacterial growth.
The following new or modified grounds of rejection are applied to the claims as amended:
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.
Claims 36, 86, 89-90, and 107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futoshi et al. (Foreign patent publication CN1717494A, Reference and English machine translation of record in previous action, all references herein are to the English machine translation) as applied to claims 75, 76, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 96-98, 100-102, and 104-106 above, and further in view of Stengel. (PCT international publication WO2018/232078, Reference of record in previous action)
The disclosure of Futoshi et al. is discussed above. Futoshi et al. does not specifically disclose a combination of the disclosed mannose disaccharide with an antibiotic, or a method comprising administering said composition to a subject.
Stengal et al. discloses a mannose oligosaccharide and a food or animal feed containing said oligosaccharide. (p. 2 paragraphs 9-10) While the composition comprises mannooligosaccharides having a different glycosidic linkage than the beta-1,4- linkage in the disaccharides of Futoshi, they are shown to function in the same manner, by inhibiting adhesion of Salmonella to intestinal epithelia, (p. 21 table 8 paragraph 88) and modulating the immune system. (p. 6 paragraph 30) Still further, p. 28 paragraphs 100-101 of Stengal et al. disclose combining mannooligosaccharides with an antibiotic for promoting growth in chickens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce a combination of the beta-1,4-mannobiose described by Futoshi and administer said combination to animals such as chickens to promote growth and inhibit colonization with pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer this composition in combination with the antibiotic because Stengal discloses administering an oligosaccharide having a similar mechanism of action in combination with an antibiotic.
Claims 41 and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futoshi in view of Stengel as applied to claims 75, 76, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 96-98, 100-102, and 104-106 above, and further in view of Ziolkowski et al. (Reference of record in previous action)
The disclosures of Futoshi and Stengel are discussed above. The disclosure of Futoshi in view of Stengel differs from present claims 41 and 91 in that the antibiotic combined with the MOS is chlorotetracycline rather than tetracycline. However, Ziolkowski et al. discloses that tetracycline antibiotics are generally used for treating poultry. (p. 4750 left column) These drugs include both tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. (p. 4751 left column second paragraph) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use tetracycline in place of chlorotetracycline in the compositions described by Stengel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the disclosure of Ziolkowski et al. as suggesting that these antibiotics are all usable for the same purpose and could be substituted for one another.
Therefore the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Claims 95 and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futoshi as applied to claims 75, 76, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 96-98, 100-102, and 104-106 above, and further in view of Bi et al. (Reference of record in previous action)
The disclosure of Futoshi is discussed above. Futoshi does not disclose a method wherein the composition is fed to chickens receiving a vaccine, (i.e. as a vaccine adjuvant) or where the composition is fed in combination with beta glucan. However, Futoshi does disclose the composition as modulating the response of the immune system. (p. 4, third paragraph)
Bi et al. discloses an experiment wherein chickens fed a yeast product containing both MOS and beta glucan are administered a vaccine. (p. 6577 left column last paragraph) The YP formulation improved response to the vaccine. (p. 6578 right column last paragraph – p. 6579 left column second paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to administer the feed described by Futoshi to an animal receiving a vaccine as described by Bi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in the expectation that the composition described by Futoshi would have a similar immunomodulatory effect to the YP composition described by Bi.
Regarding claim 103, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include beta glucan in the diet of animals receiving a vaccine, in the disclosure by Bi of the YP composition including beta glucan. Regarding the specific amounts of MOS and beta glucan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine appropriate amounts of each component to include in the feed composition.
Therefore the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 36, 41, 75, 76, 86-98, and 100-107 are rejected. Claim 99 is objected to for depending from a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form incorporating all the limitations of the rejected base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ANDREA OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am-3:00pm.
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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/ANDREA OLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights