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
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1 – 8 and 12 – 19 are rejected.
Claims 9 – 11 and 20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 8 and 12 – 19) in the reply filed on July 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Examination: The elected invention is not allowable over the prior art. Claims 9 – 11 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
90
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 26, 2024, January 20, 2026, May 29, 2026 and July 13, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2 – 4 of the claim: The limitation “… the feed composition comprises one or more feed additives selected from the group consisting of… phytogenic feed additives or botanicals, toxin binders and combinations thereof” is grammatically incorrect because it does not recite proper Markush group language for the group of alternatives. In order to overcome the objection, Applicant may amend the limitation as follows: “… the feed composition comprises one or more feed additives selected from the group consisting of… phytogenic feed additives or botanicals, and toxin binders, or.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 8 and 12 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiumin et al. CN110651910 A, cited in IDS dated May 29, 2026, in view of Broekkamp et al. WO2013/171252 A1.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Xiumin et al. teach providing a nutritional feed suitable for weaned piglets in weaning period. The nutritional feed ensures rapid growth of the piglets while preventing anorexia and diarrhea. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0004], [0006] and [0038]. The nutritional feed comprises feed ingredients such as corn, wheat flour, soybean meal, whey powder, egg powder, acidifier, starter feed and auxiliary additives. See, e.g., paragraphs [0016]. Xiumin further shows data for the ratio of ingredients for a suitable nutritional feed for weaned piglets. See, e.g., paragraphs [0038].
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Compared to claim 1, the difference is that Xiumin does not explicitly teach that the feed composition comprises benzocaine.
Rationale for a prima facie case of obviousness
According to MPEP §2141(III), two of the rationales in the KSR decision states “(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”… (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Broekkamp et al. teach a method of facilitating food intake and food retention in a mammal comprising administering a sufficient dose of a local anesthetic drug. See, e.g., page 2, lines 11-13. Broekkamp defines facilitation as “an increase in the size of a meal, an increase in the frequency of meals or a better acceptance, tolerance, intake and/or retention of food”. See, e.g., page 2, lines 16-18. Broekkamp teaches local anesthetics can be selected from amethocaine, articaine, benzocaine, bupivacaine, chloroprocaine, cinchocaine, cyclomethycaine, dibucaine, diethocaine, etidocaine, larocaine, levobupivacaine, lidocaine, lignocaine, mepivacaine, novocaine, piperocaine, prilocaine, procaine, proparacaine, propoxycaine, QX-222, QX-314, ropivacaine, tetracaine, trimecaine, menthol and eugenol. See, e.g., pg. 5, lines 26-32. Further, working examples in Broekkamp show that doses of 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg of structurally similar compound, lidocaine, were used to prepare feed compositions administered to rats. See, e.g., Examples 1-2. Thus, Broekkamp identifies a finite number of specific local anesthetic drugs, such as lidocaine and benzocaine, can be used to prepare the pharmaceutical compositions.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation, such as adding local anesthetic drug, benzocaine, to prepare and optimize the nutritional feed as taught by Xiumin. The purpose of the routine experimentation would have been to determine which anesthetic drug would be optimal to provide and facilitate food intake and food retention. The PHOSITA would have an expectation of success in preparing such feed composition comprising benzocaine and feed ingredients suitable for weaned piglets in weaning period.
Therefore, the teachings of Xiumin et al. and Broekkamp et al. render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sagar Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-1317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am to 5pm 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, Amy L. Clark can be reached at (571) 272-1310. 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.
/Sagar Patel/Examiner, Art Unit 1626
/MATTHEW P COUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights