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 .
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/18/2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all claims would not present a serious search burden due to relatedness of Groups I-III. This is not found persuasive because the product can be used in a completely different method of disinfecting household surfaces. Group III requires specific method steps that require application to animal feed which is not required in Group I.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/7/2024, 10/02/2024, 12/18/2024 and 2/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “peroxyacid in an amount effective to reduce Salmonella present in animal feed to less than detection level within 24 hours” which is indefinite. The metes and bounds of what concentration is effective to reduce Salmonella is not defined in the specification. One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine the amount based on the disclosure because it is critical. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is taken to read on any concentration of peroxyacid effective against bacteria. Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 and 3 recite the peroxyacid is selected from propionic acid, which is not a peroxyacid, rather it is a carboxylic acid from which peroxypropionic acid is derived. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oakes et al. (WO 94/23575; October 27, 1994).
Applicant claims a feed additive comprising one or more peroxyacids with C1-C10 alkyl chains, wherein the composition does not contain formaldehyde.
Oakes et al. disclose samples 6-10 which are effective against S. aureus and E.coli (Table XI). Sample 6 comprises 25 ppm peracetic acid, a C2 acid and 25 ppm peroxyglutaric acid, a C5 acid. Sample 7 comprises 25 ppm peracetic acid and 50 ppm peroxyglutaric acid, a C5 acid. Sample 8 comprises 25 ppm peroxyglutaric acid, a C5 acid and 5 ppm peroctanoic acid, a C8 acid. Sample 9 comprises 50 ppm peroxyglutaric acid, a C5 acid and 5 ppm peroctanoic acid, a C8 acid. Sample 10 comprises 25 ppm peracetic acid, a C2 acid and 5 ppm peroctanoic acid, a C8 acid. Combinations of peroxyglutaric acid with either peroxyacetic acid or peroxyoctanoic acid were surprisingly active and synergistic against E. coli (page 32, lines 1-25).
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes et al. (WO 94/23575; October 27, 1994).
Applicant claims a feed additive comprising one or more peroxyacids with C1-C10 alkyl chains, wherein the composition does not contain formaldehyde.
Oakes et al. disclose sample 6-10 in the above rejection which are effective against S. aureus and E.coli (Table XI).
With respect to claim 4, Oakes teach the concentrate can be diluted to form antimicrobial sanitizing solutions with pH in the range of about 2 to 8 to clean and sanitize facilities and equipment used in food processing (page 5, lines 18).
With respect to claim 6, Oakes teach the composition may further comprise a surfactant hydrotrope coupling agent or solubilizer that permits blending of acids in solution (page 9, lines 25-33). The hydrotrope coupling agent is selected from dialkyl sulfosuccinic acid esters and sugar esters (page 10, lines 1-7). Alkyl phosphate esters are added to suppress foam and have some antimicrobial activity of their own which contribute to the antimicrobial properties of the final composition (page 10, line 29 through page 11, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oakes et al. to adjust the pH to about 7 to 8 and further add esters with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before to time of filing to adjust pH to about 7 to 8 because Oakes et al. teach solutions have a pH in the range of about 2 to 8 to clean and sanitize facilities and equipment used in food processing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to further add esters because Oakes et al. teach esters can act as hydrotrope coupling agents and aid in suppressing foam while contributing to the antimicrobial properties of the formulation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oakes et al. (WO 94/23575; October 27, 1994) in view of Kataria et al. (Evaluating the efficacy of peracetic acid on Salmonella and Campylobacter on chicken wings at various pH levels, Poultry Science 99:5137-5142, 2020).
Applicant claims a feed additive comprising one or more peroxyacids with C1-C10 alkyl chains, wherein the composition does not contain formaldehyde.
The teachings of Oakes et al. are addressed in the above rejection.
With respect to claim 5, Oakes teach the concentrate can be diluted to form antimicrobial sanitizing solutions with pH in the range of about 2 to 8 to clean and sanitize facilities and equipment used in food processing but does not specify the buffer composition contains sodium hydroxide. It is for this reason that Kataria et al. is joined.
Kataria et al. teach peracetic acid is commonly used in poultry processing with buffers of sodium hydroxide, pH 11 (abstract). Adding sodium hydroxide to scald water is known to result in a bacterial effect and reduces Salmonella and when combined with peracetic acid has a combined antibacterial effect (page 5142, paragraph 3).
Both Oakes and Kataria et al. are drawn to the use of peracetic acid in food processing. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oakes et al. and Kataria et al. to include sodium hydroxide buffer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before to time of filing to adjust pH to about 7 to 8 with sodium hydroxide because Kataria et al. teach peracetic acid can be buffered with sodium hydroxide and can provide a combined antibacterial effect against Salmonella.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights