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 2-5, 10-21, 25-27, 29, and 32 are pending (claim set as filed on 6/5/2026). Claims 1, 6-9, 24, 28, and 30-31 are cancelled. Claims 2-5, 10, 29, and 32 are withdrawn after an election/restriction requirement. Claims 11-21 and 25-27 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-5, 10, 29, and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected composition, method and product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/5/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-14, 18, and 26-27 in the reply filed on 6/5/2026 is acknowledged.
The election of species requirement for claim 18, as set forth in the Office Action mailed on 4/16/2026, has been reconsidered and is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the election of species requirement, applicant is advised that if any of the claim represented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claims may be subject to provisional statutory and/or non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP §804.01.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. AU2021904257 and AU2021904258, both filed on 12/23/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and thus this application has priority to the earliest effective filing date of 12/23/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024, 1/31/2025, 6/5/2025, 9/23/2025, and 6/2/2026 have been initialed, considered, and attached hereto. The submission are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or most postbiotics”. Appropriate correction is required to correct to “one or more postbiotics”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The invention appears to employ novel biological materials, specifically a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain FNZ129 deposited in the National Measurement Institute of Australia (NMIA), accession no. V21/015446. Since the biological materials are essential to the claimed invention they must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise readily available to the public. If the biological materials are not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the biological materials.
If the deposit is made under the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the specific biological materials have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the biological materials will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.801-1.809, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, showing that:
(a) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to
the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon
granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5
years after the last request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be made
(see 37 C.F.R. § 1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
Applicant's attention is directed to M.P.E.P. §2400 in general, and specifically to §2411.05, as well as to 37 C.F.R. § 1.809(d), wherein it is set forth that "the specification shall contain the accession number for the deposit, the date of the deposit, the name and address of the depository, and a description of the deposited material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination." The specification should be amended to include this information; however, Applicant is cautioned to avoid the entry of new matter into the specification by adding any other information.
Although Applicants have noted on page 32, ¶ 2 of the specification that the biological material was deposited according to the Treaty of Budapest, a statement that the biological materials will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent is additionally required.
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 13-14, 16, 18, and 26-27 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 27 recite the word “preferably” which 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).
Regarding claims 14 and 25-27, the phrase "for example" 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).
Regarding claim 18, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Berger (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2014/0112889 A1 – date of publication 4/24/2014).
Berger’s disclosure relates to a method of reducing methane production in animals by administering a bacterium (see abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Berger teaches a method of reducing methane production in animals (see Berger [0005]) by administering an effective amount of bacteria comprising a Lactobacillus strain (see Berger [0009]), wherein Lactobacillus rhamnosus is a preferred embodiment (see Berger [0012]). Berger does not specify that the Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain was specifically FNZ129, however it teaches a Lactobacillus rhamnosus species that has the same function to reduce methane production in animals as the FNZ129 strain does. Therefore, it appears the prior art teaches the same strain based on the function or an obvious variant. Furthermore, the claim is also directed towards a “derivative thereof” which encompasses mutants and homologues of the bacteria, killed or attenuated bacteria, and material derived from the bacteria (see specification pg. 33, ¶ 4). As such, minor variations in the prior art bacterial strain would still anticipate the claimed limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Alternatively, regarding claim 11 and for compact prosecution regarding the strain FNZ129, if the strains are not the same but are obvious variants, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use any Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain with the same function, including the instant FNZ129 strain taught by Berger. One would be motivated to do so because Berger teaches the Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain in the prior art has the same function of reducing methane production in animals (see [0005]) as the deposited Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain. So it would be prima facie obvious to do a simple substitution of one Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain for another as they are functionally the same and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 12, Berger teaches the animal is a ruminant animal (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Berger teaches the method inhibits the methanogen growth in the rumen, a part of the forestomach, of the animal as measured by the reduced effect of methane in comparison to a reference group (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Berger teaches administering the bacteria through an animal feed composition (see [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Berger teaches the bacteria is administered in animal feed, such as hay (see [0061]).
Regarding claim 16, Berger teaches administering the bacteria at a concentration range of 1x105-1x1013 colony forming units/day (see [0058]). This prior art range encompasses the claimed 1x106-1x1013 colony forming units/day optional claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 17, Berger teaches administering a derivative of the Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain in the form of a bacterial culture supernatant (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, Berger teaches further administering an additional microorganism, specifically a Propionibacterium species (see [0005]). As noted in the restriction/election section above, the requirement for the election of species was withdrawn as so this reads on the additional microorganism limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Berger teaches administering the bacteria simultaneously with a short-chain galactoogligaosaccharide galactose (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Berger teaches the method of administering the bacteria increases the milk fat production in animals (see [0020]).
Regarding claim 21, Berger teaches the animal is a ruminant animal (see [0005]), where in preferred embodiments it is a bovine cattle (see [0025]).
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.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2014/0112889 A1 – date of publication 4/24/2014) and further in view of Gottlieb (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0277833 A1 – date of publication 9/12/2019).
The teachings of Berger have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 25-27, Berger teaches a method of reducing methane production in animals (see [0005]) by administering an effective amount of Lactobacillus rhamnosus (see [0012]). Berger generally teaches the administration to cattle for easing digestion.
Regarding claim 25, although Berger teaches cattle, Berger does not teach specifically teach wherein the animal is a pre-weaning animal.
Regarding claim 26, Berger does not teach wherein the animal is a pre-weaning animal and wherein the reduction of methane emissions persists post-weaning.
Regarding claim 27, Berger does not teach wherein the reduction of methane emissions in the animal persists for a period of time.
Gottlieb’s general disclosure relates to treating gastrointestinal disorders by modulating methanogenesis enzymes (see abstract) and providing methods of reducing methane emissions in ruminant animals (see [0319]).
Regarding claim 25, Gottlieb teaches administering a formula to reduce methane emissions in ruminant animals (see [0319]), wherein the animal is exemplarily embodied as a pre-weaning animal, such as a calf (see [0318]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a pre-weaning animal such as a calf as taught in Gottlieb to the method of administering the bacteria to an animal as taught in Berger. One would be motivated to do so because Berger teaches the administration to ruminant animals and Gottlieb teaches the method is administered to ruminant animals such as cattle, goats, sheep, giraffe, bison, yaks, water buffalo, deer, camels, alpacas, llamas, wildebeest, antelope, pronghorn, or nilgai as well as calves (see Gottlieb [0318]). The ordinary artisan would have found it prima facie obvious to administer Berger’s bacteria to a pre-weaned calf to improve digestion and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as Gottlieb teaches that the method improves digestion in such ruminant animals by reducing methane emissions by up to 95% (see Gottlieb [0319]).
Regarding claim 26, Gottlieb teaches the animal is exemplarily embodied as a pre-weaning animal, such as a calf (see [0318]) and that reduction of methane emissions persists post-weaning as the anti-methanogenic therapy can be maintained for the subject indefinitely (see [0297]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this reads on the claim as the anti-methanogenic therapy would continue without stopping past the animal’s weaning stage if administered indefinitely.
Regarding claim 27, Gottlieb teaches the reduction in methane emissions persists indefinitely as the anti-methanogenic therapy is maintained for the subject during this period (see [0297]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this reads on the claim as “indefinitely” means without end and thus this period of time would encompass the life of the animal.
Therefore, regarding claims 26-27, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date to add the reduction of methane emissions persisting for the life of the animal as taught in Gottlieb to the method of administering the bacteria to an animal as taught in Berger. One would be motivated to do so because Gottlieb teaches this indefinitely-administered therapy maintains the lower levels of methane in the subject (see Gottlieb [0297]). Thus, this addition would be advantageous in Berger’s disclosure which states a need for a time period of administration that effectively reduces methane production in the animal (see Berger [0063]) and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding this component because Gottlieb teaches that the initial therapy, which is later maintained indefinitely, is used to eradicate methanogens (see Gottlieb [0296]).
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.
Claims 11-21 and 25-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-12 of Application No. 14/113,927.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain to a ruminant animal (claims 11-21 and 25-27)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism (claim 18)
Copending Application No. 14/113,927 claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain to a ruminant animal (claims 5-12)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism (claims 9-11)
Claims 11-21 and 25-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-20 and 22-23 of copending Application No. 18/876,939. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a ruminant or monogastric animal (claims 11-21 and 25-27)
Wherein the method inhibits growth of methanogens in the animal’s forestomach for a period of time (claims 13 and 27)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 14-15)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 17)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 18-19)
Wherein the method increases milk fat production in the animal (claim 20)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claims 25-26)
Copending Application No. 18/876,939 claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a ruminant animal (claims 10-20 and 22-23)
Wherein the method inhibits growth of methylotrophic methanogens in the animal’s forestomach for a period of time (claims 11 and 23)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 13-15)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 16)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 17-18)
Wherein the method increases milk fat production in the animal (claim 19)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claim 22)
As such, both the instant application and the copending application no. 18/876,939 are directed to overlapping subject matter.
Claims 11-21 and 25-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 18/259,014. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a ruminant or monogastric animal (claims 11-21 and 25-27)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 14-15)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 17)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 18-19)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claims 25-26)
Copending Application No. 18/259,014 claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a monogastric animal (claims 1-27)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 6-9)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 10)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 11-12)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claim 19 and 21-22)
As such, both the instant application and the copending application no. 18/259,014 are directed to overlapping subject matter.
Claims 11-21 and 25-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/258,950. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a ruminant or monogastric animal (claims 11-21 and 25-27)
Wherein the method inhibits growth of methanogens in the animal’s forestomach for a period of time (claims 13 and 27)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 14-15)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 17)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 18-19)
Wherein the method increases milk fat production in the animal (claim 20)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claims 25-26)
Copending Application No. 18/258,950 claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a ruminant animal (claims 1-26)
Wherein the method inhibits growth of methanogens in the animal’s forestomach for a period of time (claims 5 and 25)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 6-9)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 10)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 11-12)
Wherein the method increases milk fat production in the animal (claim 15)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claims 21 and 24)
As such, both the instant application and the copending application no. 18/258,950 are directed to overlapping subject matter.
Claims 11-21 and 25-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-22 of copending Application No. 18/723,369. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a ruminant or monogastric animal (claims 11-21 and 25-27)
Wherein the method inhibits growth of methanogens in the animal’s forestomach for a period of time (claims 13 and 27)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 14-15)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 17)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 18-19)
Wherein the method increases milk fat production in the animal (claim 20)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claims 25-26)
Copending Application No. 18/723,369 claims are directed towards:
A method of administering a Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain or a derivative thereof to a ruminant animal (claims 10-22)
Wherein the method inhibits growth of methanogens in the animal’s forestomach for a period of time (claims 11 and 22)
Wherein the bacteria is administered in a composition at a specific CFU range (claims 12-14)
Wherein the derivative is a metabolite or culture supernatant of the strain (claim 15)
Wherein the bacteria is administered with another microorganism and probiotic (claims 16-17)
Wherein the method increases milk fat production in the animal (claim 18)
Wherein the animal is pre-weaned and the methane reduction persists post-weaning (claims 20-21)
As such, both the instant application and the copending application no. 18/723,369 are directed to overlapping subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmalee R. Williams whose telephone number is (571)272-5472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/E.R.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights