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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Restriction Requirement remarks filed on June 1, 2026. Claim(s) 51-69 are pending. Claim(s) 56-61 and 63-67 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant's election of Group I drawn to a method of reducing total gas production and/or methane production with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply is acknowledged.
The traversal is based on undue search burden. Examiner respectfully notes that search burden is not a standard for unity of invention. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 51-55, 62, and 68-69 are examined herein insofar as they read on the elected invention.
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.
Claims 51-55, 62, and 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass (US Patent 3,660,562) of record.
Grass teaches a ruminant feed composition and methods of improving the efficiency in ruminants by feeding them volatile polyhalohydrocarbons that are micro-coated using various resins so to inhibit methanogenesis (column 2, lines 37-42).
Grass teaches the volatile methane inhibitors include bromoform that is premixed into animal feed along with carriers such as soybean meal, corn oil, ground corn, barley, wheat and soyflour (column 4, lines 25-30; lines 40-71).
Grass teaches the effect of encapsulating or coating polyhalogenated volatile liquid or solid compounds is to reducing methane production without causing a reduction in the rate of overall fermentation. The study was designed to observe the suppression of methane in rumen gas samples and the change in volatile fatty acids in rumen liquid samples (column 5, lines 55-63).
Grass teaches the ruminant feeds are specifically for cattle or sheep and that the feed can either be a solid additive or encapsulated liquid and that they also comprise other cellulosic roughage and excipients (column 4, lines 40-50).
Grass indicates the major disadvantage of the chlorine-containing analogues of methane is that they are volatile liquids with a characteristic unpleasant odor and taste (column 2, lines 12-24).
Grass is silent on formulations which contain compounds selected from iodine, bromine, dibromochloromethane, bromochloroacetic acid, and dibromoacetic acid, as required by the limitations of claim 69 (see whole document), therefore the limitations of claim 69 are met.
Grass teaches the animal feeds themselves may also contain cellulosic roughage such as cellulose, hay, stray, corn stalks, cotton seed hulls, oats, barley and cereal brans, natural oils, such as, for example, animal fats, fish oils, safflower oil, peanut oil and cottonseed oil, antioxidants, minerals, vitamins, antibiotics, anthelmintics and other appropriate medicaments (column 5, lines 1-7).
The difference between Grass and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. § 2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
However, based on the above, Grass teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. See M.P.E.P. § 2143).
Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the instant claims are deemed unpatentable over the cited art.
Conclusion
Claims 51-55, 62, and 68-69 are not allowed.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sahar Javanmard whose telephone number is (571)270-3280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached on 571-272-5548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/SAHAR JAVANMARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Prosecution Insights