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 Application
The claims filed 15 April 2024 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
US 11,992,032 B2
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,032 (herein referred to as ‘032) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, ‘032 discloses a method of forming a high fat feed block (animal feed) where the method comprises an admixture comprising water and a hardening agent and high fat pellets, wherein the admixture exotherms and the high fat pellets comprise at least one high melting point fat having a melt temperature equal to or greater than 60oC such that the high fat pellets remain discrete in the exotherming admixture and allowing the admixture to harden into a feed block (‘032 claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘032 claim 1 discloses wherein the exotherming admixture contains a total fat content of about 7-33 wt%.
Regarding claim 3, ‘032 claim 2 discloses the high fat pellets constitute about 5-50 wt% of the exotherming admixture.
Regarding claim 4, ‘032 claim 3 discloses wherein the high fat pellets have a total fat content of at least 40 wt % based on pellet weight.
Regarding claim 5, ‘032 claims 4 and 5 disclose wherein the high fat pellets comprise two fat sources and wherein the two fat sources include the at least one high melting point fat and a second fat, the second fat having a melting point less than that of the at least one high melting point fat.
Regarding claim 6, ‘032 claim 6 discloses wherein the at least one high melting point fat is disposed substantially at a surface of the high fat pellets.
Regarding claim 7, ‘032 claim 7 discloses wherein the hardening agent comprises one or more hardening agents selected from the group consisting of: magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, or ionic salts of magnesium or calcium.
Regarding claim 8, ‘032 claim 8 discloses further comprising adjusting a viscosity of the exotherming admixture before pouring the exotherming admixture into the container.
Regarding claim 9, ’032 discloses further comprising dividing the feed block into two or more smaller feed blocks.
Regarding claim 10, ‘032 claim 10 discloses wherein the high fat pellets include one or more fats selected from the group consisting of: an animal fat, a vegetable fat, or hydrogenated vegetable fat.
Regarding claims 11-13, ‘032 claims 11-13 disclose wherein the feed block further comprises an intake modifier, wherein the intake modifier is present in the feed block at about 1.0 wt% to 3.5 wt% and wherein the intake modifier comprises one or more intake modifiers selected from the group consisting of: calcium chloride, a chloride ion, ammonium sulfate, calcium sulfate, salt, sodium hydroxide, diammonium phosphate, fish oil, coconut oil, palm kernel oil, meat meal, chlorinated fat, or acidulated fat.
Regarding claim 14, ‘032 claim 14 discloses wherein the exotherming admixture is formed in a batch process, a continuous process, or a semi-continuous process.
Regarding claim 15, ‘032 claim 15 discloses further comprising cooling the
feed block to a temperature ranging from about -20°C (-4°F) to 40°C (104°F).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, ‘032 claim 1 discloses a method of forming a high fat feed block (high fat animal feed composition), the method comprising: pouring an exotherming admixture into a container, the exotherming admixture comprising a sugar-containing component, water and high fat pellets, the exotherming admixture at an elevated temperature such that the exotherming admixture is pourable into the container, wherein the exotherming admixture contains a total fat content of about 7 wt % to 33 wt %, and wherein the high fat pellets comprise at least one high melting point fat having a melt temperature equal to or greater than 60° C. (140° F.) such that the high fat pellets remain discrete in the exotherming admixture; and allowing the exotherming admixture to harden into a feed block.
Regarding claim 18, ‘032 claim 18 discloses wherein the elevated temperature is between about 40° C. (104° F.) and 60° C. (140° F.).
Regarding claim 19, ‘032 claim 19 discloses further comprising adjusting a viscosity of at least one of the premix or the admixture such that the viscosity of the admixture does not exceed 8000 cP while pouring.
Regarding claim 20, ‘032 discloses wherein the high fat pellets constitute about 5 wt % to 50 wt % of the exotherming admixture.
US 11,304,429 B2
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,304,429 B2 (herein referred to as ‘429. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1 and 2, ‘429 claim 1 discloses a method of forming a high fat feed block (animal feed composition), the method comprising: pouring an exotherming admixture into a container, the exotherming admixture comprising water, a hardening agent, and high fat pellets, the exotherming admixture at an elevated temperature such that the exotherming admixture is pourable into the container, wherein the exotherming admixture contains a total fat content of about 7 wt % to 33 wt %, and wherein the high fat pellets comprise at least one high melting point fat having a melt temperature of greater than 60° C. (140° F.) such that the high fat pellets remain discrete in the exotherming admixture; and allowing the exotherming admixture to harden into a feed block.
Regarding claim 3, ‘429 claim 8 discloses wherein the exotherming admixture contains about 5 wt % to about 50 wt % of the high fat pellets.
Regarding claim 4, ‘429 does not disclose the total fat content of the high fat pellets, however, it is known in the art that the quantity of fat is a result effective variable, change the quantity of fat and as a result the calorie content of the feed changes. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05 II A. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding claim 5 and 6, ‘429 claim 5 discloses wherein the high fat pellets further comprise at least one low melting point fat disposed beneath a surface of the pellets.
‘429 does not disclose the at least one high melting point fat is disposed substantially at a surface of the high fat pellet, however since ‘429 discloses the low melting point fat beneath the surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have elected to try the high melting point fat substantially at a surface of the high fat pellet since it would constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, ‘429 claim 3 discloses wherein the hardening agent is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, and ionic salts of magnesium or calcium.
Regarding claim 8, ‘429 claim 1 discloses pouring an exotherming admixture into a container and allowing the exotherming admixture to harden into a feed block. ‘429 claim 6 discloses wherein the exotherming admixture further comprises one or more viscosifiers, which meets the claim limitation of “adjusting a viscosity.”
Regarding claim 9, ‘429 discloses forming a high fat feed block (claim 1). ‘429 does not disclose dividing the feed block into two or more smaller feed blocks, however changes in size or shape are obvious variations and are not patentable distinct. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 10, ‘429 does not disclose the high fat pellets include animal fat, vegetable fat or hydrogenated vegetable fat, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have elected to try animal or vegetable fat since it would constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11-13, ‘429 claim 18 discloses wherein the exotherming admixture contains about 2.5 wt % to about 4.2 wt % of calcium chloride (an intake modifier of the instant claims). The 2.5-4.2wt% of intake modifier of ‘429 overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 14, ‘429 does not disclose the batch process, continuous process or semi-continuous process of the instant claims, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have elected to try a batch, continuous or semi-continuous process since it would constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, ‘429 claim 7 discloses further comprising maintaining the exotherming admixture at a temperature of about 40° C. to about 60° C, which overlaps with the claimed rage of -20oC to 40oC. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 16-17, ‘429 discloses a method of forming a high fat feed block (animal feed composition), the method comprising: pouring an exotherming admixture into a container, the exotherming admixture comprising water, a hardening agent, and high fat pellets, the exotherming admixture at an elevated temperature such that the exotherming admixture is pourable into the container, wherein the exotherming admixture contains a total fat content of about 7 wt % to 33 wt %, and wherein the high fat pellets comprise at least one high melting point fat having a melt temperature of greater than 60° C. (140° F.) such that the high fat pellets remain discrete in the exotherming admixture; and allowing the exotherming admixture to harden into a feed block.
Regarding claim 18, ‘429 claim 2 discloses wherein the elevated temperature of the exotherming admixture is at least about 50° C, which overlaps with the claimed range of 40oC to 60oC. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 19, ‘429 claim 6 discloses wherein the exotherming admixture further comprises one or more viscosifiers, which meets the claim limitation of adjusting the viscosity. ‘429 does not disclose keeping the viscosity below 8000 cP, however it is known in the art that the viscosity is a result effective variable, change the viscosity and the pourability of the composition changes. Since claim 1 of ‘429 discloses pouring the exotherming admixture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a viscosity that still allows for ease of pouring. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05 II A. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method/product disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding claim 20, ‘429 claim 8 discloses wherein the exotherming admixture contains about 5 wt % to about 50 wt % of the high fat pellets.
US 10,588,333 B2
Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 10, 15, 16 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,333 B2 (herein referred to as ‘333). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1-2, ‘333 claim 1 discloses s method of forming a high fat feed block (an animal feed composition), the method comprising: blending a pourable composition, the composition comprising water, and a hardening agent, wherein the pourable composition exotherms to produce a pourable composition at an elevated temperature; admixing high fat pellets with the pourable composition at the elevated temperature to form a pourable admixture containing a total fat content of about 7 wt % to 33 wt %, wherein the high fat pellets comprise at least one high melting point fat having a melt temperature of greater than 60° C. (140° F.) such that the high fat pellets remain discrete in the pourable admixture; pouring the pourable admixture into a container; and allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block.
Regarding claim 3, ‘333 claim 21 recites wherein the pourable admixture contains about 5 wt% to about 20 wt% high fat pellets, which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, ‘333 claim 5 recites wherein the hardening agent is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, and ionic salts of magnesium or calcium.
Regarding claim 8, ‘333 claim 1 recites pouring the pourable admixture into a container; and allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block and ‘333 claim 10 recites wherein the pourable admixture further comprises one or more viscosifiers, which meets the claim limitation of adjusting the viscosity of the admixture.
Regarding claim 9, ‘333 claim 1 discloses allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block. ‘333 does not disclose dividing the feed block into two or more smaller feed blocks, however changes in size or shape are obvious variations and are not patentable distinct. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 10, ‘333 does not disclose the high fat pellets include animal fat, vegetable fat or hydrogenated vegetable fat, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have elected to try animal or vegetable fat since it would constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, ‘333 does not disclose the batch process, continuous process or semi-continuous process of the instant claims, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have elected to try a batch, continuous or semi-continuous process since it would constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, ‘333 claim 16 recites further comprising maintaining the pourable admixture at a temperature of about 40° C. to about 60° C, which overlaps with the claimed range of -20oC to 40oC. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 16-17, ‘333 claim 1 discloses a method of forming a high fat feed block (high fat animal feed composition), the method comprising: blending a pourable composition, the composition comprising a sugar-containing component and water, wherein the pourable composition exotherms to produce a pourable composition at an elevated temperature; admixing high fat pellets with the pourable composition at the elevated temperature to form a pourable admixture containing a total fat content of about 7 wt % to 33 wt %, wherein the high fat pellets comprise at least one high melting point fat having a melt temperature of greater than 60° C. (140° F.) such that the high fat pellets remain discrete in the pourable admixture; pouring the pourable admixture into a container; and allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block.
Regarding claim 18, ‘333 claim 16 discloses maintaining the pourable admixture at a temperature of about 40° C. to about 60° C.
Regarding claim 19, ‘333 claim 10 recites wherein the pourable admixture
further comprises one or more viscosifiers (adjusting a viscosity) and claim 15 recites wherein a viscosity of the pourable admixture does not exceed 8000 cP prior to hardening.
Regarding claim 20, ‘333 claim 21 recites wherein the pourable admixture contains about 5 wt% to about 20 wt% high fat pellets, which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Claims 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,333 B2 in view of Weakley (US 2010/0330251 A1).
Regarding claims 4-6, ‘333 is relied on as above for the disclosure of claim 1.
‘333 does not disclose wherein the high fat pellets have a total fat content of at least 40 wt% based on pellet weight (instant claim 4).
‘333 does not disclose wherein the high fat pellets comprise two fat sources include the at least one high melting point fat and a second fat, the second fat having a melting point less than that of the at least one high melting point fat (instant claim 5).
‘333 does not disclose the at least one high melting point fat is disposed substantially at a surface of the high fat pellets (claim 6).
Weakley is drawn to high fat feed particles (abstract). Weakley discloses animal particles may be pellets (para 0003). Weakley discloses fat content of at least about 45% (para 0005). Weakley discloses high melting point fat and a low melting point fat (para 0005). Weakley discloses the melting point of the fat is above 110° F (43oC) (para 0031). Weakley discloses the pellets (feed particles) lead to enhanced energy intake by the livestock (para 0012). Weakley discloses the low melting point fat is disposed beneath a surface of the pellets (low melting point fat that is generally in the interior of the particles and a high melting point that is generally on the exterior and/or the outer sections of the particles, para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the pellets, as claimed in ‘333, with pellets having two fat sources, as taught in Weakley, to obtain a pourable composition comprising high fat pellets wherein the pellet comprise two fat sources because Weakley discloses the high fat pellets (feed particles) of Weakly lead to enhanced energy intake by the livestock (Weakley, para 0012).
Claims 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,333 B2 in view of Theuninck (US 4,957,769).
Regarding claims 11-13, ‘333 is relied on as above for the disclosure of claim 1.
‘333 does not disclose the feed block further comprises an intake modifier (claim 11); wherein the intake modifier is present in the feed block at about 1.0 to 3.5 wt. % (claim 12); and wherein the intake modifier is selected from calcium chloride, a chloride ion, ammonium sulfate, calcium sulfate, salt, sodium hydroxide, diammonium phosphate, fish oil, coconut oil, palm kernel oil, meat meal, chlorinated fat, or acidulated fat (claim 13).
Theuninck is drawn to animal feed blocks (abstract). Theuninck discloses a common goal in the practice of animal husbandry is to supply supplemental nutrients and/or medicaments to animals (col. 1, ln. 16-18). Theuninck discloses incorporation of nutrients and/or medicaments into the feed block allows for free-choice feeding and a reduction in labor requirements for provision of the feed supplement to the animal (col. 1, ln. 18-21). Theuninck discloses it is desirable to maintain control over feed supplement consumption rates in order to optimize animal intake of supplemental nutrients and/or medicaments (col. 1, ln. 21-25). Theuninck discloses a chloride salt will provide a chloride ion that controls the feed intake of animals (col. 4, ln. 41-43). Theuninck discloses about 1 to about 12 percent by weight (col. 4, ln. 44-45). Theuninck discloses the use of the chloride salt and the chloride anion provide therefrom controls intake (col. 4, ln. 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an intake modifier in an amount of about 1 to about 12 percent by weight chloride salt, as taught in Theuninck, in the feed block, as claimed in ‘333, to obtain a method of forming a high fat feed block that comprises about 1 to about 12 percent by weight chloride salt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the chloride to control the feed intake of animals (col. 4, ln. 41-43), which allows one to optimize animal intake (col. 1, ln. 21-25). Overlapping ranges establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
US 9,936,720 B2
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,936,720 B2 (herein referred to as ‘720). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, ‘720 claim 1 discloses a method of forming a high fat feed block (an animal feed composition), the method comprising: blending a pourable composition, the composition comprising water and a hardening agent, wherein the pourable composition exotherms to produce a pourable composition at an elevated temperature; admixing high fat pellets with the pourable composition at the elevated temperature to form a pourable admixture the high fat pellets comprising at least one high melting point fat, the high melting point fat having a melt temperature of greater than 60° C. (140° F.) such that high fat pellets do not melt or blend with the pourable composition and remain discrete in the pourable admixture pouring the pourable admixture into a container and allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block.
Regarding claim 2, ‘720 claim 1 discloses wherein the total fat content of the pourable admixture is about 7 wt% to 33 wt%.
Regarding claim 3, ‘720 claim 1 discloses a pourable admixture containing about 5 wt % to about 20 wt % high fat pellets, which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, ‘720 claim 1 discloses the high fat pellets having a total fat content of at least 40 wt % based on pellet weight.
Regarding claim 8, ‘720 claim 1 discloses pouring the pourable admixture into a container and allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block and ‘720 claim 6 discloses wherein the blending further comprises adjusting the viscosity.
Regarding claim 9, ‘720 claim 1 discloses allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block. ‘720 does not disclose dividing the feed block into two or more smaller feed blocks, however changes in size or shape are obvious variations and are not patentable distinct. MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 10, ‘720 does not disclose the high fat pellets include animal fat, vegetable fat or hydrogenated vegetable fat, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have elected to try animal or vegetable fat since it would constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, ‘720 does not disclose the batch process, continuous process or semi-continuous process of the instant claims, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have elected to try a batch, continuous or semi-continuous process since it would constitute choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, ‘720 claim 8 discloses wherein the hardening is allowed by maintaining the pourable admixture at about 40°C to 60oC, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range,. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 16, ‘720 claim 1 discloses a method of forming a high fat feed block (a high fat animal feed composition), the method comprising: blending a pourable composition, the composition comprising a sugar containing component and water, wherein the pourable composition exotherms to produce a pourable composition at an elevated temperature; admixing high fat pellets with the pourable composition at the elevated temperature to form a pourable admixture the high fat pellets comprising at least one high melting point fat, the high melting point fat having a melt temperature of greater than 60° C. (140° F.) such that high fat pellets do not melt or blend with the pourable composition and remain discrete in the pourable admixture pouring the pourable admixture into a container and allowing the pourable admixture to harden into a feed block.
Regarding claim 17, ‘720 claim 1 discloses wherein the total fat content of the pourable admixture is about 7 wt% to 33 wt%.
Regarding claim 18, ‘720 claim 4 discloses wherein the elevated temperature of the pourable composition is between about 50° C. and 60° C. (122° F. and 140° F.), which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, ‘720 claim 6 discloses wherein the blending further comprises adjusting the viscosity to between about 1000 cP and 6500 cP at 57° C. (135° F.), which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, ‘720 claim 1 discloses a pourable admixture containing about 5 wt % to about 20 wt % high fat pellets, which falls within the instantly claimed range.
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,936,720 B2 in view of Weakley (US 2010/0330251 A1).
Regarding claim 5-6, ‘720 is relied upon as above for the disclosure of claim 1.
‘720 does not disclose wherein the high fat pellets comprise two fat sources include the at least one high melting point fat and a second fat, the second fat having a melting point less than that of the at least one high melting point fat (instant claim 5).
‘720 does not disclose the at least one high melting point fat is disposed substantially at a surface of the high fat pellets (claim 6).
Weakley is drawn to high fat feed particles (abstract). Weakley discloses animal particles may be pellets (para 0003). Weakley discloses fat content of at least about 45% (para 0005). Weakley discloses high melting point fat and a low melting point fat (para 0005). Weakley discloses the melting point of the fat is above 110° F (43oC) (para 0031). Weakley discloses the pellets (feed particles) lead to enhanced energy intake by the livestock (para 0012). Weakley discloses the low melting point fat is disposed beneath a surface of the pellets (low melting point fat that is generally in the interior of the particles and a high melting point that is generally on the exterior and/or the outer sections of the particles, para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the pellets, as claimed in ‘720, with pellets having two fat sources, as taught in Weakley, to obtain a pourable composition comprising high fat pellets wherein the pellet comprise two fat sources because Weakley discloses the high fat pellets (feed particles) of Weakly lead to enhanced energy intake by the livestock (Weakley, para 0012).
Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,936,720 B2 in view of Theuninck (US 4,957,769).
Regarding claim 7, ‘720 is relied on as above for the disclosure of claim 1.
‘720 claim 1 discloses the composition comprises a hardening agent.
‘720 does not disclose the hardening agent comprises one or more hardening agents selected from the group consisting of: magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, or ionic salts of magnesium or calcium.
Theuninck is drawn to animal feed blocks (abstract). Theuninck discloses a common goal in the practice of animal husbandry is to supply supplemental nutrients and/or medicaments to animals (col. 1, ln. 16-18). Theuninck discloses a hardened feed block with improved control over the rate of ad libitum consumption of the block by the animal (col 1, ln. 12-15). Theuninck discloses the mixture, which includes magnesium oxide forms a rigid block (col. 1, ln 54-59). Theuninck discloses the magnesium oxide reacts with the water in the blend for forma a magnesium hydroxide. This reaction ties up free water in the composition. As time and temperature increase, the proportion of magnesium oxide to magnesium hydroxide decreases until the flowable blend becomes a rigid block (col 3, ln. 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the magnesium oxide of Theuninck in the feed block of ‘720 because both are drawn to feed blocks for animals that harden to form rigid blocks and Theuninck discloses the magnesium oxide facilitates the hardening of the block.
Regarding claims 11-13, ‘720 is relied on as above for the disclosure of claim 1.
‘720 does not disclose the feed block further comprises an intake modifier (claim 11); wherein the intake modifier is present in the feed block at about 1.0 to 3.5 wt. % (claim 12); and wherein the intake modifier is selected from calcium chloride, a chloride ion, ammonium sulfate, calcium sulfate, salt, sodium hydroxide, diammonium phosphate, fish oil, coconut oil, palm kernel oil, meat meal, chlorinated fat, or acidulated fat (claim 13).
Theuninck is drawn to animal feed blocks (abstract). Theuninck discloses a common goal in the practice of animal husbandry is to supply supplemental nutrients and/or medicaments to animals (col. 1, ln. 16-18). Theuninck discloses incorporation of nutrients and/or medicaments into the feed block allows for free-choice feeding and a reduction in labor requirements for provision of the feed supplement to the animal (col. 1, ln. 18-21). Theuninck discloses it is desirable to maintain control over feed supplement consumption rates in order to optimize animal intake of supplemental nutrients and/or medicaments (col. 1, ln. 21-25). Theuninck discloses a chloride salt will provide a chloride ion that controls the feed intake of animals (col. 4, ln. 41-43). Theuninck discloses about 1 to about 12 percent by weight (col. 4, ln. 44-45). Theuninck discloses the use of the chloride salt and the chloride anion provide therefrom controls intake (col. 4, ln. 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an intake modifier in an amount of about 1 to about 12 percent by weight chloride salt, as taught in Theuninck, in the feed block, as claimed in ‘720, to obtain a method of forming a high fat feed block that comprises about 1 to about 12 percent by weight chloride salt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the chloride to control the feed intake of animals (col. 4, ln. 41-43), which allows one to optimize animal intake (col. 1, ln. 21-25). Overlapping ranges establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE GLIMM whose telephone number is (571)272-2839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:30-6:30 ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 C.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1793