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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 12, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A feed product comprising at basic feed ingredient” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “A feed product comprising a basic feed ingredient” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the fermented composition comprising a fermented seaweed and/or algae” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “wherein the fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “convention feed products” in line 3. It appears the claim should recite “conventional feed products” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 4 recites elements (c) and (d). It appears the claim should recite elements (a) and (b) as is conventional practice in listing items to start with element (a).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “Feed product according to claim 1” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “The feed product according to claim 1” for grammatical purposes.
It appears the first instance of the term “a” in Claim 11 should be capitalized for grammatical purposes.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the fermented composition comprising a fermented seaweed and/or algae” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “wherein the fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the fermented composition comprising a fermented seaweed and/or algae” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “wherein the fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A feed product comprising at basic feed ingredient” in line 1 as well as the limitation “the feed product comprises less than 25% (w/w) crude protein and more than 30% (w/w) cereal product” in lines 4-5. Crude protein and cereal product broadly reads on a basic feed ingredient. It is unclear if the claimed “basic feed ingredient” is different from crude protein and/or cereal product or if the claimed “basic feed ingredient encompasses crude protein and/or cereal product.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the feed product comprises less than 25% w/w crude protein and more than 30% w/w cereal product” in lines 4-5. Srinivasan et al. US 2010/0206780 discloses that it was known in the food art that animal feeds have a protein content (‘780, Paragraph [0039]) wherein one or more cereal grains (wheat) naturally contain crude protein (‘780, Paragraph [0015]). Jakel et al. US 2003/0224496 also discloses animal feed comprising one or more cereal grains (corn meal) (‘496, Paragraph [0020]) naturally contain crude protein (‘496, Paragraph [0087]). It is unclear if the claimed crude protein content encompasses any crude protein that is naturally present in the one or more cereal grains or if the crude protein content encompasses only crude protein content that is independent of any crude protein that is naturally present in the one or more cereal grains.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “in particular the cereal product has not been subjected to lactic acid bacteria fermentation” in lines 2-3. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the content of protein is reduced” in line 2. The term “reduced” is a term that compares one thing to another. It is unknown what standard of basis of comparison the content of protein is “reduced” relative to.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the content of cereal product is increased relative to convention feed products” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what content of cereal product “conventional” feed products contain. Immig et al. US 2006/0210611 discloses conventional animal feeds are used based on the type of feed animal (‘611, Paragraph [0040]). The claims do not specify the particular type of feed animal that is to consume the claimed feed product. Different animals contain different nutritional requirements, which nutritional requirements would be affected by the cereal content of the product.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “such as” as well as “e.g.” multiple times throughout Claim 4. The phrase "such as" and “e.g.” 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 5 recites the limitation “wherein the content of protein in the feed product may be reduced relative to the content of protein in a conventional feed product while the growth of the mammal consuming the feed product is substantially maintained or improved” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what content of cereal protein “conventional” feed products contain.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “preferably” in line 2. The phrase "preferably" 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 10 recites the limitation “preferably a piglet” as well as “preferably a chicken” in line 2. The phrase "preferably" 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 11 recites the limitation “preferably a skin infection in a pig such as a piglet” in line 4 The phrase "preferably" and “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).
Clarification is required.
Claims 6, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base 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)(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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Legarth US 2016/0128357 as further evidenced by Mondal “Greasy pig disease – Anexudative dermatitis in low aged pigs” (published February 1, 2021) and Jerez-Timaure et al. “Effect of Dietary Brown Seaweed (Macrocystis pyrifera) Additive on Meat Quality and Nutrient Composition of Fattening Pigs” (published July 26, 2021).
It is noted that normally only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent (MPEP § 2131.01). To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in view of Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.III.).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Legarth discloses a feed product (‘357, Paragraph [0001]) comprising a basic feed ingredient (rapeseed) (‘357, Paragraph [0119]) and a fermented composition (‘357, Paragraph [0142]). The fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae in combination with a fermented plant material (‘357, Paragraphs [0032]-[0039]).
Further regarding Claims 11-12, the limitations “for the treatment of, alleviation, and/or prophylaxis of a skin infection in a mammal, preferably a skin infection in a pig such as a piglet wherein the skin infection is ear wounds, Ear tip necrosis, tail wound or a combination thereof” are intended use limitations with respect to the intended use of the feed product. In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further regarding Claims 11-12, although Legarth by itself does not explicitly state that the feed product is used for the treatment, alleviation, and/or prophylaxis of a skin infection in a mammal of ear wounds, ear tip necrosis, and/or tail wound, products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties in view of In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2112.01.II.). Legarth teaches a feed product made of the same basic feed ingredient (rapeseed as disclosed by applicant), and a fermented composition comprising a fermented seaweed and/or algae in combination with a generic fermented plant material. Furthermore, Legarth discloses the feed composition being an eatable material suitable for animal consumption (‘357, Paragraph [0138]) wherein the fermented seaweed and/or algae is brown seaweed (‘357, Paragraph [0104]). Mondal provides evidence that it was known in the art that skin disease in pigs is a very common ailment (Mondal, Page 144) due to infection of gram positive bacteria Staphylococcus hyicus that can be complicated with nutritional deficiency of vitamin A, D, and zinc (Mondal, Page 145) wherein a dose of vitamin A is given intramuscularly or orally to regenerate the skin tissues (Mondal, Page 148). Jerez-Timaure et al. provides evidence that it was known in the animal feed art that brown seaweed contains vitamin A and has been used in feeding pigs (Jerez-Timaure et al., Page 2). It would have been expected that the use of the eatable/orally ingestible feed product containing brown seaweed of Legarth would also be capable of being used to treat and/or alleviate skin infections such as ear wounds, ear tip necrosis, and/or tail wounds of pigs and reduce or limit the growth or development of Staphyloccus hyicus as evidenced by Mondal and since Jerez-Timarue et al. provides evidence that it was known in the animal feed art that brown seaweed contains vitamin A and has been used in feeding pigs wherein orally administering vitamin A to said pigs has been shown to treat and alleviate skin conditions in pigs as evidenced by Mondal.
Regarding Claim 13, Legarth discloses a feed product (‘357, Paragraph [0001]) comprising a basic feed ingredient (rapeseed) (‘357, Paragraph [0119]) and a fermented composition (‘357, Paragraph [0142]). The fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae in combination with a fermented plant material (‘357, Paragraphs [0032]-[0039]).
Further regarding Claim 13, the limitations “for reducing or limiting the growth or development of Staphylococcus hyicus” are intended use limitations with respect to the intended use of the feed product. In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further regarding Claim 13, Legarth discloses the feed product containing inoculum comprising lactic acid to avoid contamination of the harvested seaweeds/algae by undesired microorganisms wherein addition of the lactic acid bacteria lower the pH of the composition to limit the risk of contamination of other microorganisms (‘357, Paragraphs [0113]-[0114]). Although Legarth by itself does not explicitly state that the limited risk of contamination of other microorganisms is specifically the reduction or limited growth or development of Staphylococcus hyicus, products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties in view of In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2112.01.II.). Legarth teaches a feed product made of the same basic feed ingredient (rapeseed as disclosed by applicant), and a fermented composition comprising a fermented seaweed and/or algae in combination with a generic fermented plant material. Furthermore, Legarth discloses the feed composition being an eatable material suitable for animal consumption (‘357, Paragraph [0138]) wherein the fermented seaweed and/or algae is brown seaweed (‘357, Paragraph [0104]). Mondal provides evidence that it was known in the art that skin disease in pigs is a very common ailment (Mondal, Page 144) due to infection of gram positive bacteria Staphylococcus hyicus that can be complicated with nutritional deficiency of vitamin A, D, and zinc (Mondal, Page 145) wherein a dose of vitamin A is given intramuscularly or orally to regenerate the skin tissues (Mondal, Page 148). Jerez-Timaure et al. provides evidence that it was known in the animal feed art that brown seaweed contains vitamin A and has been used in feeding pigs (Jerez-Timaure et al., Page 2). It would have been expected that the use of the eatable/orally ingestible feed product containing brown seaweed of Legarth would also be capable of being used to treat and/or alleviate skin infections such as ear wounds, ear tip necrosis, and/or tail wounds of pigs and reduce or limit the growth or development of Staphyloccus hyicus as evidenced by Mondal and since Jerez-Timarue et al. provides evidence that it was known in the animal feed art that brown seaweed contains vitamin A and has been used in feeding pigs wherein orally administering vitamin A to said pigs has been shown to treat and alleviate skin conditions in pigs as evidenced by Mondal. It would have expected that the use of lactic acid bacteria to limit of the risk of contamination of other microorganisms of Legarth would also reduce or limit the growth of development of Staphyloccus hycius as claimed.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095 as further evidenced by The Ohio State University “Eat some soybeans!” <https://tpsgp.osu.edu/news/eat-some-soybeans> (published November 6, 2020) (herein referred to as “The Ohio State University”) in view of National Hog Farmer “Fermenting Soybeans Offers Weaned Pigs New Protein Source” <https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/fermenting-soybeans-offers-weaned-pigs-new-protein-source> (published November 1, 2013) (herein referred to as “National Hog Farmer”).
Regarding Claim 1, Erickson et al. discloses a feed product comprising a basic feed ingredient (further fat source) (‘095, Paragraphs [0013] and [0022]) and a fermented composition (CARS/delipidated Stramophiles biomass suspension) (‘095, Paragraphs [0003 and [0008]) wherein the fermented composition comprises algae in combination with a plant material from the family Fabaceae (soybean meal) (‘095, Paragraph [0021]). The Ohio State University provides evidence that soybeans is a species that is part of the Fabaceae family of flowering plants (The Ohio State University, Page 1). Erickson et al. further discloses the feed product comprises 50 to 80 wt% dry matter of cereal grains (‘095, Paragraphs [0006]-[0007]), which falls within the claimed cereal product content of more than 30% w/w cereal product of the feed product. Erickson et al. also discloses 20 to 40 wt% crude protein (‘095, Paragraph [0017]), which overlaps the claimed content of less than 25% w/w crude protein of the feed product. Where the claimed cereal product concentration and crude protein concentration of the feed product overlaps cereal product concentration and crude protein concentration of the feed product ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Erickson et al. discloses algal fermentation of dextrose for producing condensed algal residue solubles (CARS)/delipidated Stramenopiles biomass suspension is useful for the animal feeds (‘095, Paragraphs [0003] and [0008]), i.e. the algae is fermented algae. However, Erickson et al. is silent regarding the plant material from the family Fabaceae in the form of soybean meal to be a fermented plant material of soybean.
National Hog Farmer discloses fermenting soybeans eliminates anti-nutritional factors such as oligosaccharides and antigens that restrict its use in diets fed to weaned pigs wherein fermented soybeans is a potential lower cost substitute for animal protein in starter diets and is tolerated by weanling pigs (National Hog Farmer, Page 1) wherein digestibility of crude protein and amino acids in fermented soybeans meal is the same or greater than that of soybean meal wherein digestibility values for most amino acids are greater in fermented soybean meal than in fish meal and fermented soybean meal could replace fish meal in starter diets without negatively affecting the energy content or digestible amino acid content of the diets (National Hog Farmer, Page 2).
Both Erickson et al. and National Hog Farmer are directed towards the same field of endeavor of animal feeds. Both animal feed of Erickson et al. and National Hog Farmer contain soybeans. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the animal feed product of Erickson et al. that contains a plant material from the family Fabaceae in the form of soybeans and use fermented soybeans as taught by National Hog Farmer in order to increase the digestibility of the crude protein by eliminating anti-nutritional factors such as oligosaccharides and antigens (National Hog Farmer, Pages 1-2). Furthermore, the selection of a known material (fermented soybeans) based on its suitability for its intended use (as an ingredient in an animal feed) supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). National Hog Farmer teaches that there was known utility in the animal feed art to incorporate fermented soybeans into animal feeds.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations wherein the cereal product has not been subjected to microbial fermentation” are product by process limitations. Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process in view of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113.I.). Nevertheless, Erickson et al. does not disclose or suggest the cereal product being subjected to microbial fermentation. Therefore, Erickson et al. reads on the claimed cereal product not being subjected to microbial fermentation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095 as further evidenced by The Ohio State University “Eat some soybeans!” <https://tpsgp.osu.edu/news/eat-some-soybeans> (published November 6, 2020) (herein referred to as “The Ohio State University”) in view of National Hog Farmer “Fermenting Soybeans Offers Weaned Pigs New Protein Source” <https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/fermenting-soybeans-offers-weaned-pigs-new-protein-source> (published November 1, 2013) (herein referred to as “National Hog Farmer”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of CJ Bio “Reducing the crude protein content in broiler diet and its impingement” <https://cjbio.net/tech_article/reducing-the-crude-protein-content-in-broiler-diet-and-its-impingement> (published August 25, 2020) (herein referred to as “CJ Bio”) as further evidenced by Slinde et al. US 2003/0059416.
Regarding Claim 3, Erickson et al. as further evidenced by The Ohio State University in view of National Hog Farmer is silent regarding the content of the protein being reduced.
CJ Bio discloses poultry diets with lower crude protein have lowering feed costs, improved feed utilization, reduced environmental impacts, and minimizes health and welfare concerns wherein reduced protein levels in animal feed reduces nitrogen excretion (CJ Bio, Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the feed product of modified Erickson et al. and reduce the protein content of the feed product relative to the protein content of a “conventional” feed product since CJ Bio teaches that lower crude protein lowers feed costs, improves feed utilization, and minimizes health and welfare concerns and also reduced nitrogen excretion (CJ Bio, Page 1).
Further regarding Claim 3, Slinde et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that “conventional” fermented cereal makes up 10 to 40% by weight of animal feed (‘416, Paragraph [0023]). Erickson et al. discloses the feed product comprising 50 to 80 wt% dry matter of cereal grains (‘095, Paragraphs [0006]-[0007]), which cereal content of the feed product is greater than that of the cereal content of “conventional” feed products disclosed by Slinde et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095 as further evidenced by The Ohio State University “Eat some soybeans!” <https://tpsgp.osu.edu/news/eat-some-soybeans> (published November 6, 2020) (herein referred to as “The Ohio State University”) in view of National Hog Farmer “Fermenting Soybeans Offers Weaned Pigs New Protein Source” <https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/fermenting-soybeans-offers-weaned-pigs-new-protein-source> (published November 1, 2013) (herein referred to as “National Hog Farmer”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of CJ Bio “Reducing the crude protein content in broiler diet and its impingement” <https://cjbio.net/tech_article/reducing-the-crude-protein-content-in-broiler-diet-and-its-impingement> (published August 25, 2020) (herein referred to as “CJ Bio”) and Baucells “Crude protein in piglet diets” <https://www.3tres3.com/en/articles/crude-protein-in-piglet-diets_3207/> (published August 25, 2010) (herein referred to as “Baucells”) (cited on Information Disclosure Statement December 12, 2024).
Regarding Claim 4, National Hog Farmer discloses fermented soybean meal having the same or greater digestibility of crude protein and amino acids as that of soybean meal (National Hog Farmer, Page 2). However, Erickson et al. as further evidenced by The Ohio State University in view of National Hog Farmer is silent regarding the feed product comprising less than 160 g digestible protein per kg feed and/or less than 13.5 MJ digestible protein per kg feed.
CJ Bio discloses poultry diets with lower crude protein have lowering feed costs, improved feed utilization, reduced environmental impacts, and minimizes health and welfare concerns wherein reduced protein levels in animal feed reduces nitrogen excretion (CJ Bio, Page 1). Baucells discloses a diet low in protein as a prevention factor for piglet diarrhea is suggested since part of crude protein will not be digested (Baucells, Pages 1-2).
Although CJ Bio and Baucells does not explicitly disclose the feed product comprising less than 160 g digestible protein per kg feed and/or less than 13.5 MJ digestible protein per kg feed, CJ Bio and Baucells both suggest limiting protein intake for animals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the feed product of modified Erickson et al. and adjust the digestible protein concentration per kg feed to the low amounts as claimed since differences in the concentration of digestible protein per kg feed will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of digestible protein per kg feed is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of digestible protein per kg of feed of modified Erickson et al. to be lower such as those low concentrations claimed since CJ Bio teaches poultry diets with lower crude protein has lowering feed costs, improved feed utilization, reduced environmental impacts, and minimizes health and welfare concerns wherein reduced protein levels in animal feed reduces nitrogen excretion (CJ Bio, Page 1) and since Baucells teaches a diet low in protein is a prevention factor for piglet diarrhea since part of the crude protein will not be digested (Baucells, Pages 1-2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095 as further evidenced by The Ohio State University “Eat some soybeans!” <https://tpsgp.osu.edu/news/eat-some-soybeans> (published November 6, 2020) (herein referred to as “The Ohio State University”) in view of National Hog Farmer “Fermenting Soybeans Offers Weaned Pigs New Protein Source” <https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/fermenting-soybeans-offers-weaned-pigs-new-protein-source> (published November 1, 2013) (herein referred to as “National Hog Farmer”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of CJ Bio “Reducing the crude protein content in broiler diet and its impingement” <https://cjbio.net/tech_article/reducing-the-crude-protein-content-in-broiler-diet-and-its-impingement> (published August 25, 2020) (herein referred to as “CJ Bio”).
Regarding Claim 5, Erickson et al. as further evidenced by The Ohio State University in view of National Hog Farmer is silent regarding the content of protein in the feed product being reduced relative to the content of protein in a “conventional” feed product.
CJ Bio discloses poultry diets with lower crude protein have lowering feed costs, improved feed utilization, reduced environmental impacts, and minimizes health and welfare concerns wherein reduced protein levels in animal feed reduces nitrogen excretion (CJ Bio, Page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the feed product of modified Erickson et al. and reduce the protein content of the feed product relative to the protein content of a “conventional” feed product since CJ Bio teaches that lower crude protein lowers feed costs, improves feed utilization, and minimizes health and welfare concerns and also reduced nitrogen excretion (CJ Bio, Page 1).
Further regarding Claim 5, the limitations “while the growth of the mammal consuming the feed product is substantially maintained or improved” are seen to be recitations regarding the intended use of the “feed product.” In this regard, applicant’s attention is invited to MPEP § 2114.I. and MPEP § 2114.II. which states features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on in view of In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does in view of Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed in view of Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Furthermore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095 as further evidenced by The Ohio State University “Eat some soybeans!” <https://tpsgp.osu.edu/news/eat-some-soybeans> (published November 6, 2020) (herein referred to as “The Ohio State University”) in view of National Hog Farmer “Fermenting Soybeans Offers Weaned Pigs New Protein Source” <https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/fermenting-soybeans-offers-weaned-pigs-new-protein-source> (published November 1, 2013) (herein referred to as “National Hog Farmer”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Legarth US 2016/0128357.
Regarding Claim 6, Erickson et al. as further evidenced by The Ohio State University in view of National Hog Farmer is silent regarding the feed product further comprising one or more lactic acid bacteria.
Legarth discloses a feed product (‘357, Paragraphs [0001] and [0138]) comprising a basic feed ingredient (rapeseed) (‘357, Paragraph [0117]) and a fermented composition wherein the fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae in combination with a fermented plant material (‘357, Paragraphs [0074]-[0082]) wherein the plant material is at least one proteinaceous plant material of a leguminous crop (‘357, Paragraph [0119]) and the feed product comprises cereal product (grain or bran) (‘357, Paragraphs [0105]-[0106]) wherein the feed product comprises one or more lactic acid bacteria to avoid contamination of the harvested seaweed/algae (‘357, Paragraph [0113]) wherein the proteinaceous plant material comprises leguminous crops of beans (‘357, Paragraphs [0118]-[0119]).
Both modified Erickson et al. and Legarth are directed towards the same field of endeavor of animal feed products. Both feed products of modified Erickson et al. and Legarth contains seaweed and/or algae, at least one proteinaceous plant material, and one or more cereal products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the feed product of modified Erickson et al. and incorporate one or more lactic acid bacteria as taught by Legarth in order to avoid contamination of the harvested seaweeds/algae by undesired microorganisms (‘357, Paragraph [0113]). Furthermore, the selection of a known material (one or more lactic acid bacteria) based on its suitability for its intended use (as an ingredient in an animal feed) supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Legarth teaches that there was known utility in the animal feed art to incorporate one or more lactic acid bacteria into animal feeds.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095 as further evidenced by The Ohio State University “Eat some soybeans!” <https://tpsgp.osu.edu/news/eat-some-soybeans> (published November 6, 2020) (herein referred to as “The Ohio State University”) in view of National Hog Farmer “Fermenting Soybeans Offers Weaned Pigs New Protein Source” <https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/fermenting-soybeans-offers-weaned-pigs-new-protein-source> (published November 1, 2013) (herein referred to as “National Hog Farmer”) as applied to claim 1 as further evidenced by Thomas US 2016/0257087.
Regarding Claim 7, Erickson et al. discloses the feed product comprising by products from distillers/ethanol industry (‘095, Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]). Erickson et al. also discloses a particular example using wet distillers grain (‘095, Paragraphs [0084]-[0085]). Thomas provides evidence that it was known in the food and beverage art that wet distiller grain contains primarily unfermented grain residues (‘087, Paragraph [0005]). Therefore, the disclosure of Erickson et al. of the animal feed product comprising wet distillers grain reads on the claimed feed product comprising at least one unfermented plant material in the form of wet distillers grains as evidenced by Thomas that wet distillers grain primarily contains unfermented grain residues.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095 as further evidenced by The Ohio State University “Eat some soybeans!” <https://tpsgp.osu.edu/news/eat-some-soybeans> (published November 6, 2020) (herein referred to as “The Ohio State University”) in view of National Hog Farmer “Fermenting Soybeans Offers Weaned Pigs New Protein Source” <https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-nutrition/fermenting-soybeans-offers-weaned-pigs-new-protein-source> (published November 1, 2013) (herein referred to as “National Hog Farmer”) as applied to claim 1 above as further evidenced by Nyachoti et al. “Low Crude Protein Diet and Its Effect on Diarrhea” (published 2012) (herein referred to as “Nyachoti et al.”).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Erickson et al. discloses the animal feed containing CARS/delipidated Strameonopiles (‘095, Paragraphs [0003] and [0006]-[0008]) wherein the inclusion of CARS are processed by the liver (‘095, Paragraph [0112]). National Hog Farmer discloses the fermented soybean meal having greater digestibility of crude protein than that of unfermented soybean meal (National Hog Farmer, Page 2). an animal diet for early weaned pigs using low crude protein (LCP) supplemented with crystalline amino acids (AA) to prevent incidences of post weaning diarrhea in newly weaned pigs (Nyachoti et al., Page 17) wherein a LCP diet has been suggested as a strategy to mitigate diarrhea disease in weaned piglets as several studies have shown that it not only reduces the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria but also their ability to cause infection and combining a LCP diet with other feed additives may further enhance gut health outcomes in piglets (Nyachoti et al., Page 21). Therefore, the low crude protein animal feed disclosed by Erickson et al. (‘095, Paragraph [0017]) necessarily treats and/or alleviates intestinal disorders in a mammal of nutritional diarrhea as evidenced by Nyachoti et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Erickson et al. discloses the feed product being fed to a pig (swine) or poultry (‘095, Paragraphs [0073]-[0074]). National Hog Farmer also discloses the feed product being fed to a pig (National Hog Farmer, Page 2).
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 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2 and13-14 of copending Application No. 18/036,568 in view of Erickson et al. US 2021/0386095.
Claims 1 and 13-14 of the copending ‘568 application teaches a feed product comprising a basic feed ingredient of at least one lactic acid and a fermented composition wherein the fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae in combination with a fermented plant material selected from the family Fabaceae.
Claims 1 and 13-14 of the copending ‘568 application is silent regarding the feed product comprising less than 25% w/w crude protein and more than 30% w/w cereal product.
Erickson et al. discloses a feed product comprising a basic feed ingredient (further fat source) (‘095, Paragraphs [0013] and [0022]) and a fermented composition (CARS/delipidated Stramophiles biomass suspension) (‘095, Paragraphs [0003 and [0008]) wherein the fermented composition comprises algae in combination with a plant material from the family Fabaceae (soybean meal) (‘095, Paragraph [0021]). Erickson et al. further discloses the feed product comprises 50 to 80 wt% dry matter of cereal grains (‘095, Paragraphs [0006]-[0007]), which falls within the claimed cereal product content of more than 30% w/w cereal product of the feed product. Erickson et al. also discloses 20 to 40 wt% crude protein (‘095, Paragraph [0017]), which overlaps the claimed content of less than 25% w/w crude protein of the feed product.
Both Claims 1 and 13-14 of the copending ‘568 application and Erickson et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of feed products Both feed products of the copending ‘568 application and Erickson et al. comprises a fermented composition comprises a fermented seaweed and/or algae in combination with a fermented plant material from the family Fabaceae. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and adjust the feed product to have the claimed concentration of crude protein and the claimed concentration of cereal product as taught by Erickson et al. since where the claimed cereal product concentration and crude protein concentration of the feed product overlaps cereal product concentration and crude protein concentration of the feed product ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al. “Feeding excess crude protein: effects on growth performance and carcass traits of finishing pigs” <https://www.3tres3.com/en/swine_abstracts/feeding-excess-crude-protein-effects-on-growth-performance-and-carcas_1878/> (published October 22, 2009) discloses excess crude protein (CP) in diets for finishing pigs reduces energetic efficiency, causes greater organ weights, and leads to decreased carcass yield (Williams et al., Page 1).
Karvelis “Feeding modern pigs low protein diets” <https://www.wattagnet.com/home/article/15506340/feeding-modern-pigs-low-protein-diets> (published March 18, 2013) discloses many genetic suppliers today recommend pig diets with low levels of crude protein while at the same time maintaining high energy levels for all growth phases since modern pigs are able to consume more feed and receive the required amount of nutrients on a daily basis (Karvelis, Page 1) wherein low protein diets ensure that no excess will end up in the large intestine to function as a substrate for the microflora wherein a positive relationship between low dietary crude protein and enhanced carcass quality characteristics such as increased loin and ham intramuscular fat and decreased back fat thickness exists wherein low protein diets reduce nitrogen excretion by 30-50 percent depending on the magnitude of reduction in dietary protein concentration wherein for each percentage unit reduction in dietary crude protein, nitrogen extraction is expected to be lower by approximately 8 percent and low protein diets contributes to a more sustainable agriculture industry by preserving precious resources and reduces environmental pollution (Karvelis, Page 2).
Linden “Nutritional Value of Soy Products Fed to Pigs” <https://www.thepigsite.com/articles/nutritional-value-of-soy-products-fed-to-pigs> (published August 1, 2013) discloses soybeans is a crop primarily used for animal feed wherein soybean meal (SBM) and other soy products contribute high quality protein to diets fed to pigs because soy protein is rich in the limiting amino acid lysine, threonine, and tryptophan that are present in relatively low concentrations in the most commonly fed cereal grains wherein amino acids in soy protein have a greater digestibility by pigs than amino acids in most other commonly fed protein sources wherein soybeans contain anti-nutritional factors that may limit growth of pigs wherein all soybean products must be heat treated prior to inclusion in swine diets to destroy trypsin inhibitors and lectins wherein fermentation and enzyme treatment eliminate or greatly reduces allergenic proteins and oligosaccharides which oligosaccharides can also be reduced or eliminated by extracting the carbohydrates from soybean meal in an aqueous solution resulting in production of soy protein concentrate wherein fermented soybean meal, enzyme treated soybean meal, and soy protein concentration can be used in pig diets because of the low concentrations of oligosaccharides (Linden, Page 1) wherein non-dehulled soybean meal contains approximately 44 percent crude protein and is referred to as low protein soybean meal (Linden, Page 2).
Berger “Whole Raw Soybeans as a Cost Competitive Protein Supplement for Cows and Calves” <https://beef.unl.edu/beefwatch/whole-raw-soybeans-cost-competitive-protein-supplement-cows-and-calves/> (published October 1, 2018) discloses soybeans are approximately 40% crude protein and should be introduced gradually into the diet (Berger, Page 1) wherein soybeans should not be feed a level higher than needed to meet protein requirements in the diet wherein soybeans should be limited to 7% of the diet in growing calves (Berger, Page 2).
Shackford “Sustainable seaweed: Researchers explore algae-based animal feed” <https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/01/algae-may-be-sustainable-alternative-animal-feed> (published January 18, 2012) discloses algae is used to replace some of the corn and soybean meal mix traditionally given to food producing animals wherein dried defatted algae derived from biofuel production can replace up to one third of soybean meal in diets for pigs and chickens and is high in protein (20-70 percent) compared with corn (about 10 percent) and soy (40 percent) (Shackford, Page 4).
Shewry et al. “Cereal seed storage proteins: structures, properties, and role in grain utilization” (published 2002) discloses the total protein content of cereal seed varies from about 10-15% of the grain dry weight resulting in nutritional deficiencies in amino acids when fed to monogastric livestock such as pigs and poultry wherein it is usual to combine cereals with other surface of amino acids for animal feed such as soybean legume seeds which combination of cereals and legume seeds is favored as these two types of seeds are essentially complementary in their composition of essential amino acids since cereals tend to be rich in sulphur containing amino acids and low in lysine and legume seeds vice versa (Shewry et al., Page 954).
Shad et al. “Corn distillers dried grains with solubles: Production, properties, and potential uses” (published April 28, 2021) discloses the fiber, water, oil, protein, and other unfermented components of grain and yeast cells that remain after distillation of ethanol are called whole stillage which whole stillage mixture is usually centrifuged to separate solids from liquid thin stillage which remaining thin stillage is concentrated to remove addition moisture to produce CDS wherein WDGS wet distillers grains with solubles is sold to animal feed manufacturers (Shad et al., Page 1002).
Ter Beek “Piglets benefit from fermented rapeseed and seaweed” <https://www.foodagribusiness.world/pigs/piglets-benefit-from-fermented-rapeseed-and-seaweed> (published December 18, 2021) discloses adding a blend of lacto-fermented rapeseed and seaweed has been observed to benefit gut health for piglets (ter Beek, Page 1) and also improves the colon mucosa barrier with altered microbiota composition and a more diverse microbiome, a reduced number of intra-epithelial lymphocytes indicating reduced inflammation and less blood urea nitrogen relative to piglets fed the unsupplemented diet wherein a diverse gut microbiome is considered to be a good indicator for gut health (ter Beek, Pages 2-3).
Roper “Treating infections in pigs” <https://www.vettimes.com/news/vets/livestock/treating-infections-in-pigs> (published November 23, 2015) discloses Staphylococcus hyicus is an opportunistic pathogen in pigs causing exudative epidermitis known as “greasy pig disease” usually seen in growing pigs that can be serious as the toxins can have systemic effects wherein it is important to consider tissue penetration when treating skin conditions (Roper, Pages 8-9).
Kjaerulff US 2021/0177028 discloses an animal feed product comprising at least one fermented plant material (‘028, Paragraph [0056]) and one or more lactic acid bacteria strains (‘028, Paragraphs [0072]-[0073]) wherein piglets receive the animal feed (‘028, Paragraph [0140]) and the animal feed is supplemented with Brassica napus and seaweed (‘028, Paragraph [0151]).and contains at least one fermented seaweed material of algae (‘028, Paragraphs [0051]-[0052]) capable of improved intestinal adsorption when eaten (‘028, Paragraph [0001]) and a reduced incidence of diarrhea (‘028, Paragraphs [0137] and [0147]).
Lei US 2016/0150809 discloses an algal based animal feed composition (‘809, Paragraph [0002]) for feeding pigs or chickens (‘809, Paragraph [0076]) wherein the animal feed comprises one or more grains in an amount totaling 48-70% w/w of the composition (‘809, Paragraph [0011]) wherein the animal feed composition comprises a non-algal protein source of soybean (‘809, Paragraph [0059]).
Piechocki et al. US 2015/0320086 discloses a method for providing feed to an animal (‘086, Paragraph [0003])wherein the animal is swine or poultry (‘086, Paragraph [0009]) wherein the feed comprises cereal product (corn) (‘086, Paragraph [0029]).
Brinicombe US 2023/0263853 discloses seaweed extract comprising crude protein (‘853, Paragraph [0054]).
Ellis et al. US 2022/0322702 discloses a seaweed blend as a feed supplement for domesticated animals (‘702, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the seaweed blend modifies the relative abundance of species of the genus Lactobacillus which has been used as a growth promoting feed supplement preventing and treating diarrhea of weaned piglets and maximizing average daily gain of crude protein apparent digestibility and serum specific IgG level (‘702, Paragraph [0032]).
Lei US 2017/0202894 discloses algae contains different amount of crude protein between species of 6-71% (‘894, Paragraph [0005]).
Lei US 2015/0201649 discloses an algal based animal feed composition (‘649, Paragraph [0002]) comprising one or more grains in an amount totaling 50-70% w/w of the composition and a non-algal protein source and algae (‘649, Paragraph [0001]) wherein defatted diatom is added to the diet in replacement of an equivalent weight of soybean meal or a mixture of soybean and corn wherein the defatted diatom contains 19% crude protein in contrast to 48% crude protein in soybean meal (‘649, Paragraph [0140}).
Allen et al. US 6,391,331 discloses an animal feed product for piglets (‘331, Column 6, lines 5-8) wherein the animal feed comprises seaweed supplement (‘331, Column 2, lines 51-57) wherein the seaweed supplement is seaweed meal or flour obtained by dehydrating the seaweed comprising 6.0% crude protein (‘331, Column 4, lines 41-52).
Allen et al. US 6,312,709 discloses a mammal and poultry feed comprising seaweed (‘709, Column 1, lines 13-27) in the form of seaweed supplement of seaweed meal or flour obtained by dehydrating the seaweed (‘709, Column 5, lines 63-67) wherein the seaweed meal comprises 6.0% crude protein (‘709, Column 6, lines 1-9).
Castagneto Gissey US 2021/0038547 discloses a hen diet containing 17.0% crude protein (‘547, Paragraph [0060]).
Fallourd et al. US 2020/0178580 discloses animal feed (‘580, Paragraph [0598]) comprising one or more grains (barley malt sprout fractions) comprising 22.5-37% crude protein (‘580, Paragraphs [0040]-[0042]).
Dull US 2014/0370151 discloses a rice bran composition comprising between about 14% and about 16% crude protein (‘151, Paragraph [0023]) wherein the bran is used as an animal feed (‘151, Paragraph [0065]).
Clarkson et al. US 5,902,581 discloses a cereal based animal feed comprising xylanase enzymes which hydrolyze soluble xylans thereby reducing digesta viscosity which is an important constraint in the process of digestion wherein the inclusion of a thermostable xylanase in the animal feed enables the crude protein value and/or digestibility and/or amino acid content and/or digestibility coefficients of the feed to be increased to enable a reduction in the amounts of alternative protein sources and/or amino acids supplement.
Norton et al. US 2013/0309351 discloses an animal feed ration comprising about 10% to about 30% crude protein (‘351, Paragraph [0044]).
Yun US 2012/0004304 discloses an animal feed composition comprising 5 to 30% by weight of crude protein (‘304, Paragraph [0025]).
McGowen et al. US 2005/0163911 discloses an animal feed product containing about 12 to 25 weight% crude protein wherein the animal feed product is obtained by mixing an animal feed supplement with a low crude protein animal feedstuff and other animal feed ingredients wherein protein equivalents such as urea may be used to supply a portion of the crude protein in the animal feed product wherein the amount of protein equivalents used depends upon the animal feed ingredients and feedstuffs used in the process and the end use intended for the animal feed product wherein the protein equivalent may be adjusted to the desired level by simply controlling the ratio of animal feed supplement, animal feedstuff, and other animal feed ingredients fed to the animal (‘911, Paragraph [0041]).
Ligt et al. US 2004/0043107 discloses an animal feed including about 18 to 30 wt% crude protein (‘107, Paragraphs [0013] and [0025]).
Miller et al. US 2003/0068390 discloses typically dry animal feed contains anywhere from about 16 weight percent crude protein to about 28 weight precent crude protein (‘390, Paragraph [0033]).
Morgan US 6,117,458 discloses a dry feed for swine comprising at least 21% crude protein.
Kuehnle et al. US 2020/0232003 discloses an animal feed (‘003, Paragraph [0298]) wherein seaweed is used in skin care products (‘003, Paragraph [0210]).
Contag US 2008/0293086 discloses accumulated microorganisms and unfermented substrate being processed as animal feed (‘086, Paragraph [0214]).
Rhoades et al. US 3,968,254 discloses an animal feed product (‘254, Column 1, lines 54-64)
Kano et al. US 2019/0274333 discloses a feed product used in the livestock industry (‘333, Paragraph [0001]) for raising pigs or poultry (‘333, Paragraph [0050]) wherein the feed comprises fermented soybean paste (‘333, Paragraphs [0030]-[0032]) wherein the feed comprises a mixture of unfermented plant material of blackcurrant and fermented plant material of blackcurrant (‘333, Paragraph [0055]).
Schneider et al. US 2015/0072382 discloses L-methionine is often present in conventional feedstuff plants such as soya or cereals in amounts which are too low to ensure optimum animal nutrition for pigs and poultry wherein it is advantageous to add methionine as an additive to the animal feed (‘382, Paragraph [0002]).
Bell et al. US 2021/0204566 discloses animal feed comprising fermented vegetable protein which binds together the ingredients of the feed homogeneously better than currently available feed materials which fermented vegetable protein is absorbed or digested more readily by the animal than other feed materials (‘566, Paragraph [0042]).
Seo et al. US 2014/0322387 discloses a feed additive added to feed at a proper compositional ratio as a high content vegetable protein supply source capable of replacing animal proteins (‘387, Paragraph [0060]) wherein the feed additive is added to an animal feed to supply a large amount of vegetable proteins and improve a digestion since the feed additive contains fermented corn gluten (‘387, Paragraph [0061]).
Garner et al. US 2011/0189132 discloses it is well established that the addition of probiotic microorganisms to animal feed can improve animal efficiency and health including increased weight gain to feed intake ratio and improved average daily weight gain (‘132, Paragraph [0011]).
Bootsma et al. US 2011/0086149 discloses whole stillage residual matter comprising water, soluble components, oil and unfermented solids, e.g. solids component of the beer with substantially all ethanol removed, which can be dried into dried distillers grains (DDG) and sold as an animal feed product (‘149, Paragraph [0004]).
Pohl et al. US 2021/0002686 discloses a known and widely used animal feed is dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) which consists of dried spent grains and dried thin stillage concentrate having a dry matter content of approximately 90% wherein the drying process concentrates the contained nutrients in comparison to the liquid whole stillage resulting in a higher quality feed (‘686,Paragraph [0015]).
Zhang US 2020/0071685 discloses an animal feed (‘685, Paragraph [0224]) comprising one or more feed materials of cereals, one or more grains, and by products from cereals such as corn gluten meal or distillers dried grains (DDG or DDGS) and protein derived from soya (‘685, Paragraph [0227]).
Bao et al. US 2018/0320158 discloses an animal feed composition comprising one or more feed materials of cereals, by products from cereals such as corn gluten meal and distillers dried grain solubles (DDGS), and soya protein (‘158, Paragraph [0183]).
Bootsma US 2014/0242251 discloses dried distiller grains (DDG) is a type of unfermented solid used as an animal feed product (‘251, Paragraph [0005]).
Hachen US 2005/0255220 discloses a fermentation and processing of fermentation by products into useful feed products (‘220, Paragraph [0002]).
McCurdy et al. US 2018/0340067 discloses distillers dried grain include unfermented grain solids (‘067, Paragraph [0111]) used in an animal feed product (‘067, Paragraph [0003]).
Miyaghishima et al. US 2021/0147791 discloses algae containing vitamin A (‘791, Paragraph [0193]) used as an ingredient in animal feed for pigs (‘791, Paragraph [0448]).
The prior art made of record, cited on a previous Information Disclosure Statement, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Legarth WO 2020/038897 discloses an animal feed product comprising a basic feed ingredient (basic feed compound) and a fermented composition (fermented ingredient) wherein the fermented composition (fermented ingredient) comprises a fermented seaweed in combination with a fermented plant material (‘897, Page 2, lines 25-34) and fermented algae (‘897, Page 7, lines 21-25) wherein the feed protein comprises one or more cereals (‘897, Page 6, lines 20-25) wherein the feed product comprises one or more lactic acid bacteria (‘897, Page 9, lines 20-28) wherein the fermented plant material is at least one proteinaceous plant material of a vegetable plant from the Brassicaceae family or the Cruciferae family (‘897, Page 8, lines 4-13) and the one or more vegetable proteins is soybean meal (‘897, Page 6, lines 27-29).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights