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 .
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are cancelled. Claims 12-13, and 16 have been amended. Claims 17-18 are new. Claims 12-18 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Modified Rejection As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 06/23/2026
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muizelaar et al. (Foods 2021, 10, 584; Of record), hereinafter Muizelaar, in view of Burreson et al. (J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1976; Of record), hereinafter Burreson.
Muizelaar relates how enteric methane (CH4) is the main source of greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant, and one mitigation strategy is to inhibit CH4 formation in the rumen by feeding sheep seaweeds containing bromoform, CHBr3 (Introduction, 1st paragraph). Muizelaar teaches that halogenated methane analogues, including CHBr3 have been shown to inhibit CH4 formation in the rumen of sheep (Introduction, 1st paragraph).
Regarding Claims 12 and 16, Muizelaar discloses a study on dairy cows wherein all animals received a fixed amount of seaweed A. taxiformis consisting of 67 g DM (low), 133 g DM (medium) and 333 g DM (high) (Section 2.1). Muizelaar relates that the low treatment was the target treatment, medium represented an accidental overdosing (2x low) by the farmer or animal (by overeating) that may occur in practice, and high was considered to represent a worst-case scenario (5x low) (Section 2.1). Overall, five out of eight cows in the low treatment group consumed all seaweed mix as planned, while none of the cows in the medium and high treatment groups consumed all seaweed mix (Section 3.4). Additionally, while CHBr3 does not accumulate in animal tissue, it can be excreted in urine and milk (Conclusion; Section 4.4). The bromoform content in the A. Taxiformis is 1.26 mg/kg DM (Section 3.2, 1st sentence). By Examiner’s calculation, the bromoform content used in low, medium, and high treatments of A. taxiformis are 84 mg/kg DM, 167 mg/kg DM, and 419 mg/kg DM. Thus, the low bromoform amount is within the claimed range in Claim 12 and is near the range in Claim 17.
Muizelaar teaches bromoform but does not expressly teach iodoform. However, A. taxiformis contains not only bromoform, but also iodoform, as taught by Burreson (Table 1).
Iodoform and bromoform are both structurally similar to methane and are methane analogs. Muizelaar relates concern for human consumption of halomethanes in dairy milk, and recommend maximum limits for trihalomethanes in animal products if A. taxiformis in feed are used to reduce enteric methane emissions (Section 4.5). MPEP 2144.09.II. states that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties for compounds that are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the seaweed containing bromoform in the feed taught by Muizelaar with an iodoform-containing composition, which Burreson teaches is also present at small quantities in A. taxiformis. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, from the disclosure in the prior art Muizelaar, to make the modifications required to arrive at the instant invention with reasonable expectation of success for obtaining a feed additive comprising a different haloform with the same utility, i.e. inhibiting methanogenesis. The motivation to make the change would be to make an additional/different additive for the intended purpose and/or investigate low concentration requirement for iodoform vs. bromoform.
Regarding the amount of iodoform in Claims 12-13 and 17, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One would start with the low amount taught by Muizelaar for bromoform in A. taxiformis, 84 mg/kg DM, and adjust according to the results obtained. One would also be motivated to optimize the concentration to minimize amount of halomethane transferred to milk in lactating cows while still reducing enteric emission.
Regarding Claim 14, the instant specification does not define total mixed ration (TMR), but describes TMR feed to include all dietary components, e.g. forage, silage and concentrate (p. 6, last paragraph). Muizelaar teaches was determined all treatments included A. taxiformis offered in a mix of dextrose, wheat, dehydrated beet pulp, and water, called seaweed mix, which meets the required admixed feature of the claim (Section 2.1; Table 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Muizelaar teaches lactating dairy cows, and milking the cows (Title; Section 2.1)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muizelaar in view of Burreson, as applied to Claim 12 above, and in view of Abbott et al. (Animals 10.12 (2020): 2432; Of record), hereinafter Abbott.
The teachings of Muizelaar have been set forth above, and the claimed amount rendered obvious. Muizelaar is silent on the bolus dose form of iodoform.
Abbott is in the same field and teaches recognizes the use of seaweed and seaweed bioactives, including bromoform from A. taxiformis, for mitigation of enteric methane (Abstract). Abbott also teaches that inclusion of seaweeds in the diet of cows could also increases the milk
iodine output in early lactation dairy cows fed high-forage diets, supporting the addition/substitution with iodoform halomethane in feed (p. 20, last sentence of 1st paragraph). Regarding Claim 15, Abbott teaches delivery mechanisms of seaweeds/seaweed bioactive compounds with CH4-reducing potential to ruminants include the use of purified seaweed bioactives provided in a capsule or in injectable or bolus forms (p. 19, bottom paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Abbott with Muizelaar and deliver the methane analogs taught by Muizelaar in view of Burreson in the form of a capsule, injectable or bolus form. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muizelaar et al. (Foods 2021, 10, 584; Of record), hereinafter Muizelaar, in view of Lanigan et al. (Aust. J. Agric. Res., 1978, 29, 1281-92; cited in IDS; Of record), hereinafter Lanigan.
The teachings of Muizelaar have been set forth supra.
Regarding Claim 12, Muizelaar but does not expressly teach iodoform.
Lanigan is in the same field, and recognizes iodoform as antimethanogenic drug, teaching its administration to sheep as pellets or in capsules (p. 1283, 4th paragraph).
As stated supra, iodoform and bromoform are both methane analogs. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the bromoform in the feed taught by Muizelaar with iodoform, which Lanigan also teaches to be antimethanogenic. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, from the disclosure in the prior art Muizelaar, to make the modifications required to arrive at the instant invention with reasonable expectation of success for obtaining a feed additive comprising a different haloform with the same utility, i.e. inhibiting methanogenesis. The motivation to make the change would be to make an additional/different additive for the intended purpose and/or investigate low concentration requirement for iodoform vs. bromoform.
Regarding the amount of iodoform in Claims 12-13 and 17, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One would start with the low amount taught by Muizelaar for bromoform in A. taxiformis, 84 mg/kg DM, and adjust according to the results obtained. One would also be motivated to optimize the concentration to minimize amount of halomethane transferred to milk in lactating cows while still reducing enteric emission.
Regarding Claims 14, 16 and 18 have been rendered obvious by Muizelaar. See rejection above.
Regarding Claim 15, because Lanigan teaches oral administration with iodoform pellets, the bolus dose is rendered obvious (p. 1283, bottom paragraph to p. 1284; Table 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Lanigan with Muizelaar and deliver the methane analogs taught by Muizelaar in the form of a capsule or pellet for immediate dosing. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Remarks:
Applicant appears to argue that the iodoform claimed range of 5-100 mg/kg DM is critical because they showed dose-dependent reductions in methane emission of up to about 80% at higher dosages while improving in feed efficiency. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application would not have predicted the specific and advantageous functional relationship between iodoform dosage and rumen methane suppression in bovine.
The Examiner has considered the argument, and notes that the rejection above and previously issued have rendered the amount obvious. It would be obvious to replace bromoform with iodoform because Muizelaar teaches that halogenated methane analogues inhibit CH4 formation in the rumen of sheep (Abstract). Iodoform and bromoform are both well-known methane analogues known to inhibit methanogenesis, as evidenced by the teachings of Muizelaar (Introduction) and Lanigan (p. 1282, 1st paragraph). It is well within the skill of an ordinary artisan to explore known methane analogues, and replace the bromoform with another halomethane known . As such, it would also be obvious to start with the amount taught by Muizelaar for bromoform in A. taxiformis, 84 mg/kg DM, as the starting amount for iodoform and adjust accordingly.
Applicant states that the cited references lack any motivation to replace bromoform with iodoform in A. taxiformis because Muizelaar focuses on bromoform-containing seaweed, does not investigate iodoform.
First, iodoform inherently already exists in the A. taxiformis taught by Muizelaar, as evidenced by Burreson. As stated in the rejection supra, iodoform and bromoform are both structurally similar to methane and are methane analogs; and that both are present in the A. taxiformis indicates possible contribution of iodoform in antimethanogenesis property of the seaweed. MPEP 2144.09.II. states that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties for compounds that are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the seaweed containing bromoform in the feed taught by Muizelaar with an iodoform-containing composition, starting for example with the concentration of bromoform in the seaweed determined to be effective in addressing methanogenesis, and lowering this concentration for iodoform. Skilled artisans in the field of chemistry knows substitutions of halogens affect the properties of compounds, and such modifications are well-practiced in the field. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, from the disclosure in the prior art Muizelaar, to make a feed additive comprising a different haloform with the same utility, i.e. inhibiting methanogenesis, with an eye towards efficacy, cost, commercial availability, ease of preparation etc. For example, one would make an additional/different additive for the intended purpose and/or investigate low concentration requirement for iodoform vs. bromoform. By “additional/different additive”, one skilled in the art could either replace the bromoform-containing seaweed altogether, OR supplement with an iodoform-containing composition. As Applicant pointed out, Muizelaar focuses on bromoform-containing seaweed, and has not performed any investigation on iodoform. One of ordinary skill in the art, knowing from Burreson that A. taxiformis contains not only bromoform, but also iodoform in small amount, would be highly motivated to investigate iodoform and its antimethanogenesis efficacy by itself or with bromoform.
Applicant appears to allege teaching away, i.e. the reports outcomes would discourage a skilled artisan to use seaweed in bovine feed additives because i) Muizelaar teaches the addition of the seaweed (which contains bromoform) to the feed had the effect that "animals regularly refused the seaweed mix"; and ii) Muizelaar teaches concern for human consumption of halomethanes in dairy milk and recommend maximum limits for trihalomethanes in animal products if A. taxiformis in feed are used to reduce enteric methane emissions.
The Examiner has considered the argument but was not persuaded. Applicant's statements are tantamount to an assertion that Muizelaar fails to provide an enabling disclosure because "animals regularly refused the seaweed mix". Applicant is reminded the reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) constitute prior art for all they teach. See MPEP §2121.01 (II), which states, “Therefore, ‘a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.’ Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” Furthermore, while Muizelaar described the animals refusing the seaweed mix in some instances, it still teaches instances of complete uptake of the feed with seaweed mix: “Overall, five out of eight cows in the low treatment group consumed all seaweed mix as planned, while none of the cows in the medium and high treatment groups consumed all seaweed mix” (p. 9, 1st paragraph).
The same reasoning applies to the argument that Muizelaar teaches concern for human consumption of halomethanes in dairy milk. Contrary to Applicant’s allegation that “Muizelaar…recommend maximum limits for trihalomethanes in animal products if A. taxiformis in feed are used to reduce enteric methane emissions”, Muizelaar actually recites that “To the best of our knowledge, no maximum limits for trihalomethanes are set for animal products
like milk”, and recommends investigation of such limits (p. 14, Section 4.5). It is within the skills of an ordinary artisan to determine IF and WHAT the limits are, and would therefore try to use the amount taught by Muizelaar for bromoform and investigate the maximum amount of iodoform for incorporation in feed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Swick, R. A. ("Dietary factors influencing the toxicity of tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) in animals." (1979)) teaches that halogenated methane derivatives (e.g. chloroform, iodoform, etc.) elicit rumen methane inhibition.
EFSA (EFSA Journal 2013;11(2):3100) teaches the authorized maximum iodine concentrations in feed for dairy cows is 2-3 mg/kg feed.
Lanigan, G. W. "Metabolism of pyrrolizidine alkaloids in the ovine rumen. IV. Effects of chloral hydrate and halogenated methanes on rumen methanogenesis and alkaloid metabolism in fistulated sheep." Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23.6 (1972): 1085-1091. Lanigan teaches 5 halogenated methane analogues, including bromoform and iodoform, as methane formation inhibitors in the sheep's rumen as well as in rumen fluid in vitro.
No claims are allowed.
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 JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights