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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and were examined on their merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too short to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code at Pg. 15. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of the terms DNEASY™, NEXTERA™, GENBANK™, ZUPREVO™, NEXTSEQ™ and HISEQ™, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
With regard to Claims 1, 8 and 15, the claim preambles of; ”decreasing incidence of liver abscess in cattle on feedlots”, “decreasing severity of liver abscess in cattle on feedlots” and “improving scoring of a beef carcass at harvest” have been interpreted as recitations of the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which will be examined for a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See the MPEP at 2111.02, II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (2021), cited in the IDS, in view of Mani et al. (US 2017/0027984 A1).
Smith et al. teaches a method comprising administering to cattle a probiotic supplement containing an effective amount (0.5 g/steer/d) of B. subtilis PB6 (Pg. 3, Column 1, Lines 10-16 and Table 1) and a liquid supplement comprising inorganic and organic zinc mixed into animal diet for 140 days before harvest (Pg. 3, Table 1), wherein administration results in a lower incidence of fecal Salmonella (Pg. 1, Abstract), and reading on Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-19.
The teachings of Smith et al. were discussed above.
Smith et al. did not teach a method wherein the supplement includes butyric acid, as required by Claims 1, 8 and 15.
Mani et al. teaches the administration of zinc and butyric acid to animals to improve intestinal integrity and reduce the effects of heat stress, enteric disease challenges and other intestinal stress conditions (Pg. 6, Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. of administering a probiotic and zinc supplement to cattle to include butyric acid in the supplement as taught by Mani et al. because this would provide additional benefits to the cattle being treated. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve intestinal integrity and reduce the effects of heat stress, enteric disease challenges and other intestinal stress conditions in the treated cattle. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, animal feed supplements.
With regard to Claims 1, 8 and 15, both the claimed invention and the prior art are drawn to the administration of B. subtilis PB6, zinc and butyric acid to cattle. Therefore, there is no manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art and the preambles are not given patentable weight.
Claims 1, 2, 3-6, 8, 9, 10-13, 15, 16 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (2021), cited in the IDS, in view of Mani et al. (US 2017/0027984 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Harlow et al. (2020).
The teachings of Smith et al. and Mani et al. were discussed above.
Neither of the above references taught a method wherein the supplement further comprises red clover, as required by Claims 2, 9 and 16.
Harlow et al. teaches that red clover hay supplementation suppresses hyper-ammonia-producing rumen bacteria (Pg. 14, Lines 6-7) and promotes cellulolytic bacteria and fiber catalysis (Pg. 15, Line 7 and Pg. 16, Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. and Mani et al. of administering a probiotic, zinc and butyric acid supplement to cattle to include red clover in the supplement as taught by Harlow et al. because this would provide additional benefits to the cattle being treated. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to suppress hyper-ammonia-producing rumen bacteria and promote cellulolytic bacteria and fiber catalysis in the treated cattle.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, beneficial animal feed supplements.
Claims 1, 3-6, 7, 8, 10-13, 14, 15, 17-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (2021), cited in the IDS, in view of Mani et al. (US 2017/0027984 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Clostat (08/2022).
The teachings of Smith et al. and Mani et al. were discussed above.
Neither of the above references taught a method wherein the supplement is top-dressed and mixed with the diet at the time of feeding, as required by Claims 7, 14 and 20.
Clostat teaches that cattle can be administered top-dressed B. subtilis PB6 (Pg. 14, Lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. and Mani et al. of administering a probiotic, zinc and butyric acid supplement mixed with animal diet to cattle to top-dress the supplement as taught by Clostat because the reference teaches that this is a suitable means of administering a supplement. It would have been further obvious to mix the top-dressed supplement with the diet at the time of feeding because supplements may only be mixed prior to or at the time of feeding. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to provide a beneficial supplement to cattle. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, beneficial animal feed supplements.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm 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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL C MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1653 07/28/2026
Prosecution Insights