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 application is a national stage application of PCT/CA2023/051080, filed August 15, 2023, which claims benefit or provisional application 63/397993, filed August 15, 2022. Claims 36, 38, 39, 41, 44, and 75-95 are pending in this application and examined on the merits herein. Applicant’s preliminary amendment submitted December 12, 2023 is acknowledged wherein claims 38, 39, and 44 are amended, claims 1-55, 37, 40, 42, 43, 45-74 are canceled, and new claims 75-95 are introduced. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 36, 38, 39, 41, 44 , 76, and 77 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. Independent claim 36 claims a composition of an oligosaccharide and an antibiotic and further requires that the efficacy of the antibiotic is increased by at least 30%. Because claim 36 is directed to a composition of matter rather than a process of treating a disease, for example, there is no immediately defined result that can be interpreted as indicating efficacy. Instead the at least 30% increase in efficacy remarked upon by the claim refers to a hypothetical efficacy in some intended use of the composition. Neither this claim nor the specification clearly defines what measure of efficacy should be used in evaluating the metes and bounds of this claim. For example, this limitation could be interpreted as requiring that the minimum inhibitory concentration of the antibiotic against some particular organism be 30% lower when combined with the oligosaccharide, or that the percentage of a particular bacterial species killed by the combination be at least 30% greater than the antibiotic alone, or that subjects suffering from a bacterial infection experience 30% reduced mortality or duration of disease when receiving the composition, among some possible interpretations of “efficacy.” It is furthermore unclear whether this limitation requires a superadditive effect or can be met by an additive combination of antibacterial effects of the two components individually. For these reasons one skilled in the art would not be able to determine whether a particular combination of a manno-oligosaccharide and an antibiotic infringes this claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent claims 38, 39, 41, and 44 depend from claim 36 and do not provide a clear definition for efficacy either. Therefore these dependent claims are also indefinite. In addition, claim 44 contains an additional limitation defining “the pathogenic bacteria” as belonging to one of a number of species. Since neither claim 44 nor base claim 36 refers a pathogenic bacteria anywhere else in the claims, this limitation lacks antecedent basis. Claim s 39 and 76 contain the phrase “softwoods such as pine or spruce,” which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the narrower limitation “pine or spruce” is strictly limiting to the scope of the claim or whether it is merely exemplary of the broader limitation “softwoods”. Claim 77, which depends from claim 75, contains the further limitation, “Wherein the DP is form 2 to 10.” While base claim 75 refers to an oligosaccharide as a component used in the claimed method, claim 77 does not actually specify that the recited DP of 2 to 10 is intended to refer to the DP of this oligosaccharide. Therefore claim 77 lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the base claim. 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 36, 38, 44, 75, 77, 79 - 81, 83, 84, 86-90, and 92-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Stengel . (PCT international publication WO 2018/23207 8 , Reference included with PTO-892) Independent claim 36 is directed to a composition comprising a mannooligosaccharide and an antibiotic wherein the efficacy of the antibiotic is increased by at least 30%. As discussed previously, the term “efficacy” is indefinite as it appears in the claim, and cannot be clearly linked to any particular definition of “efficacy”. Stengel discloses a mannose oligosaccharide composition and a food, feed, cosmetic, or pharmaceutical composition comprising said oligosaccharide. (p. 2 paragraphs 9-12) In a series of working examples, (example 7 on pp. 24-28) the mannooligosaccharide is added to the feed of a population of chickens. In on e example (p. 28 example 100) the mannooligosaccharide is added in combination with the antibiotic chlorotetracycline. The feed used in this experiment therefore contains a mannooligosaccharide and an antibiotic as recited in present claim 36. Furthermore according to table 15 on p. 28, untreated chickens had an average body weight at 35 days of 1854.7g, while chlorotetrac y cline-treated chickens had an average weight of 1978.6g, for an increase of 123.9g due to antibiotic treatment. Chickens treated with both CTC and the mannooligosaccharide had a final weight of 2047.0, which is an increase of 192.3g over the untreated group. Therefore including the MOS resulted in an effect that is about 55% greater than the benefit of CTC alone, thereby providing a 55% increase in the efficacy of the antibiotic at improving animal growth. Regarding dependent claim 38, the disclosed mannooligosaccharides are produced by acid condensation of mannose solutions, and are therefore expected to contain 100% mannose subunits. (p. 14 paragraphs 74-77) Regarding dependent claim 44, while this claim recites a number of species of pathogenic bacteria, as discussed under 35 USC 112(b) these claims provide no antecedent basis for what bacteria are referred to. Therefore this limitation cannot distinguish claim 44 from the feed composition described by Stengel. Additionally, example 4 on pp. 16 and 17 of Stengel discloses that the disclosed MOS inhibits growth of E. coli and Salmonella. Claim 75 claim a method of inhibiting growth of pathogenic bacteria or promoting growth of beneficial bacteria in a subject. Stengel discloses methods of reducing bacterial pathogen load comprising administering the disclosed MOS to a subject. (pp. 6-7 paragraphs 32-33) Regarding dependent claim 77, pp. 7-8 paragraphs 34 and 37 describe the composition as including DP2 and DP3 oligosaccharides. Regarding claim 79, as discussed above with respect to claim 38 these oligosaccharides are reasonably expected to be composed entirely of mannose subunits. Regarding claims 80 and 81, Stengel discloses compositions that are entirely soluble in aqueous solution. (p. 4 paragraph 19) Regarding claims 83 and 84, as the compositions are composed of mannose subunits and produced from mannose as a starting material they would not be expected to contain glucose, galactose, or fructose. Regarding claims 86, 89, 90, and 93 as discussed previously Stengel discloses administering MOS to chickens as a component of chicken feed in combination with an antibiotic. Regarding claims 87 and 88, as discussed previously example 4 on pp. 16 and 17 discloses inhibition specifically of E. coli and Salmonella. 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 claim 94, Stengel discloses administering the composition as for example a liquid or a tablet. (p. 8 paragraph 42, p. 9 paragraph 45) For these reasons Stengel anticipates the present claims. Claims 75 - 85, 87, 88, 92, 93 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 included with PTO-892, all references herein are to the English machine translation) Claim 75 claim a method of inhibiting growth of pathogenic bacteria or promoting growth of beneficial bacteria in a 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) This method anticipates present claim s 75 and 87 as the addition of the mannose disaccharide decreases the number of pathogenic bacteria such as salmonella . Regarding claim 76, Futoshi further discloses that the mannose disaccharides can be produced form pine kernel or coconut residues, for example. (p. 3 fifth paragraph) Regarding claims 77-79 and 82, Futoshi discloses the composition as a beta-1,4-mannose disaccharide (p. 3 first paragraph) which would necessarily meet the structural limitations of these claims. Regarding claims 80 and 81, since this compound is the same DP2 mannose compound recited in the present claims and described in the present specification, it is reasonably expected to have the same solubility properties. Regarding claims 83 and 84, 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 and 94, Futoshi discloses embodiments disclosed as a feed composition and also as a liquid. (p. 4 fourth paragraph) For these reasons Futoshi anticipates the present claims. 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 41 and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel as applied to claim s 36, 38, 44, 75, 77, 79-81, 83, 84, 86-90, and 92-94 above, and further in view of Ziolkowski et al . (Reference included with PTO-892) The disclosure of Stengel is discussed above. The disclosure 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 composition s 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 85 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel as applied to claim s 36, 38, 44, 75, 77, 79-81, 83, 84, 86-90, and 92-94 above, and further in view of Bi et al . (Reference included with PTO-892) The disclosure of Stengel is discussed above. Stengel does not disclose a method wherein the composition is fed to chickens receiving a vaccine, (i.e. as a vaccine adjuvant) or where the composit i on is fed in combination with beta glucan. However, Stengel does disclose the composition as modulating the response of the immune system. (p. 6 paragraph 30) 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 Stengel 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 Stengel would have a similar immunomodulatory effect to the YP composition described by Bi. Regarding claim 85, 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. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel as applied to claim s 36, 38, 44, 75, 77, 79-81, 83, 84, 86-90, and 92-94 above, and further in view of Futoshi et al . (Foreign patent publication CN1717494A, Reference and English machine translation included with PTO-892, all references herein are to the English machine translation) The disclosure of Stengel is discussed above. While Stengel et al. described a MOS material produced from a source other than coconut or palm kernels, as discussed previously Futoshi does disclose a beta-1,4 mannobiose produced from coconut or palm kernel, as discussed previously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the material described by Futoshi in combination with an antibiotic as well. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that Futoshi’s disaccharide would be useful for the same purpose as both references describe the oligosaccharide compositions as having immunomodulatory and pathogen-reducing activity. Therefore the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious. Conclusion No claims are allowed in this action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREA OLSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9051 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 3/17/2026