Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1,9-11,13,16,17,25,26,29,31,33,40 and 42 in the reply filed on 8/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2,3,18,19,20,20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product/method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/27/2026.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear how the product of claim 1 cannot contain a phosphate when a nucleotide is required in option b of claim 1. A nucleotide such as GMP and IMP contains a phosphate. For the purposes of this action, a nucleotide such as GMP and IMP is excluded from the “phosphate” in claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1,9-11,13,16,25,26,29,31,33,40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mcgrane(WO2014/068047A1).
Regarding claims 1,9,10,11,13,42, Mcgrane teaches administering a pet food product to a cat. The pet food product comprises water with added 25mM proline(a first amino acid capable of activating a umami response) and 25mM histidine(a second amino acid not capable of activating the umami receptor)(example 1). Therefore, the first and second amino acids have a 1:1 molar ratio.
Mcgrane teaches that the composition caused the cats to drink more water than a control(example 1). Since increased hydration is known to prevent/treat kidney disease, Mcgrane teaches a method preventing/treating chronic kidney disease.
Regarding claim 16, Mcgrane teaches the presence of a phosphate in the form of GMP. However, since GMP is one of the nucleotides as allowed in claim 1, GMP is not considered a “phosphate” as prohibited in claim 16. As such, Mcgrane does not require any other phosphates and meets claim 16. See the 112(b) rejection as stated above.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Mcgrane does not teach the presence of a nucleotide derived from yeast. However, Mcgrane teaches option (a) in claim 1, a combination of amino acids. Option (b) reciting a nucleotide is not required in claim 1. Therefore, further limiting of option (b) in claims 25 and 26 is not limiting to claim 1 if option (a) is chosen.
Regarding claims 29 and 31, Mcgrane teaches the presence of a furan in an amount of 4ppm(example 1).
Regarding claim 33, Mcgrane teaches that the pet food further contains GMP and IMP which contains a phosphate(example 1).
Regarding claim 40, Mcgrane teaches that the pet food can be a packaged drinking water(p.5, line 1-5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcgrane(WO2014/068047A1) in view of Eichelburg(US 4265913).
Regarding claim 17, Mcgrane does not teach the presence of yeast. However, Eichelburg teaches that the addition of yeast to food and medicine products for animals such as cats acts as a palatability enhancer(abstract, background). It would have been obvious to include yeast in the pet product of Mcgrane as taught in Eichelburg in order to increase palatability of the product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights