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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-4 and 6 in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-11, 14-17, 19, 20, 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu (CN 108740366), previously made of record by Applicant.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Liu teaches an additive for a forage inoculant (Paragraph 24 of machine translation previously provided by the Examiner), comprising at least two components capable of reducing non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from forage conservation, as Liu teaches a component capable of facilitating conversion of N20 to N2 by non-denitrifying N20-reducing organisms which includes acetate (Paragraphs 65- 70 of the machine translation), which is recited in Claims 2-3 as being one of the claimed components of the additive. Liu also teaches the forage additive includes a buffer which is conducive to the production of a small amount of lactic acid in the early stage of fermentation to inhibit growth of miscellaneous bacteria and can also inhibit methanogenic bacteria from using the fermentation product acetic acid to produce methane (Paragraph 24 of machine translation), where the buffer used to prevent methane formation meets the limitation of a component capable of inhibiting microbial denitrification activity or methanogenesis, which is also recited in Claims 2-3 as being one of the claimed components of the additive.
Regarding Claim 6, since the claim depends from Claim 2 which recites the limitation of a N20 reducing enrichment culture as one of the possible components and not required, and Claim 6 also does not require the claimed enrichment culture, and Liu teaches the other two components recited in Claim 2, the limitation of the claim is deemed to be met by meeting the limitation of Claim 2, as set forth above.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108740366), previously made of record by Applicant, in view of Prins and Seekles (1967).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claims 1-3 and teach where the component capable of facilitating the conversion of N20 to N2 by non-denitrifying N20-reducing organisms is an acetate or lactate, or set forth above, and also teaches a component capable of inhibiting methanogenesis as Liu also teaches the forage additive includes a buffer which is conducive to the production of a small amount of lactic acid in the early stage of fermentation to inhibit growth of miscellaneous bacteria and can also inhibit methanogenic bacteria from using the fermentation product acetic acid to produce methane (Paragraph 24 of machine translation). Therefore, the buffer used to prevent methane formation meets the limitation of a component capable of inhibiting microbial denitrification activity or methanogenesis. However, Liu does not teach where the component capable of inhibiting methanogenesis is chlorate or chlorite.
Prins and Seekles teaches of components that influence rumen digestion and processes (Abstract) and teaches that chlorates are bactericidal after reduction to the very toxic chlorite anion (Page 885, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Therefore, since Liu teaches of components used in the forage additive to inhibit growth of miscellaneous bacteria and can also inhibit methanogenic bacteria from using fermentation products to produce methane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added a component such as chlorate to the forage additive as it is known to possess bactericidal functionality and can aid in the inhibition of growth of bacteria including methanogenic bacteria, therefore reducing or inhibiting methane gas formation in the forage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights