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 02/03/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant elected Group III, Claims 12-16. Applicant did not indicate traversal of the requirement; therefore, the response will be treated as one without traverse. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn. Accordingly, Claims 12-16 correspond to the elected subject matter and are herein acted on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2024 and 12/28/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
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 13 and 16 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.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected for the recitation of “such as”. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is further rejected for indefiniteness. The claim recites “…the ruminant is a bovine selected from the group consisting of cattle and cows, such as a lactating cow.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation cattle, and the claim also recites cows which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. While often used interchangeably, all cows are cattle, but not all cattle are cows. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muizelaar et al. (Foods 2021, 10, 584.), hereinafter Muizelaar, in view of Burreson et al. (J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1976), 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 Claim 12, 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.
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 halomathanes 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 bromoform in the feed taught by Muizelaar with iodoform, 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, 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 16, 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.), hereinafter Abbott.
Muizelaar is silent on the bolus dose 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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muizelaar et al. (Foods 2021, 10, 584.), hereinafter Muizelaar, in view of Lanigan et al. (Aust. J. Agric. Res., 1978, 29, 1281-92; cited in IDS), 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, 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 and 16 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).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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