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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I claims 1-10 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 9/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all claims would not present a serious search burden due to the relatedness of the groups. This is not found persuasive because the groups have been found to be independent or distinct, and acquired separate status in the art due to their different classification as stated in the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/16/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-10 and 19-20, delete “Claim” and insert “claim”.
Regarding claim 10, in line 1 insert “added” after “contains the” to place the claim in better form.
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 1-10 and 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the entire claim is indefinite since it is unclear if the method encompasses administering the animal diet or water the animal. The claim as currently drafted recites adding xylanase enzyme and COS to the animal diet or water, but does not recite or otherwise indicate the diet or water is administered to the animal.
The limitations “improving animal performance” in line 1 and “in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance” in lines 3-4 render the claim indefinite since it is unclear what feature(s) is/are encompassed by “animal performance.” The specification does not provide a definition for “animal performance,” only examples. Therefore, the boundary of the claim is unascertainable.
In line 2, the limitation “the animal diet or water” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the animal performance is measured by” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation means the animal performance “measured” as in tracked/recorded, or if the limitation means the scale used to determine the animal performance is one of the claimed alternatives.
The limitation “reduced feed conversion ratio” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the ratio is relative to. While “feed conversion ratio” is recognized by the art, the term is used to measure efficiency of converting feed to a desired output. The desired output of the “reduced feed conversion ratio” in claim 4 is ambiguous. The specification does not provide clarifying detail.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the animal performance is measured by” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation means the animal performance “measured” as in tracked/recorded, or if the limitation means the scale used to determine the animal performance is one of the claimed alternatives.
The limitation “improved egg quality score” renders the claim indefinite since the standard for determining the “quality score” is unclear, and it is unclear what feature(s) is/are encompassed by an “improved” score.
The limitation “increased egg production” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation is directed to rate, weight, or some other feature.
The limitation “improved egg characteristics including egg weight, yolk color, haugh unit and/or proportion of dirty or cracked eggs” renders the claim indefinite since the standard for determining the “improvement” is unclear.
The limitation “dirty” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear where the boundary lies between an egg that is and is not “dirty.”
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the animal performance is measured by” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation means the animal performance “measured” as in tracked/recorded, or if the limitation means the scale used to determine the animal performance as stated for claim 4.
The limitation “decreased serum concentrations of” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation is referring to the serum of the animal, or some other serum.
The limitation “TNF-α, IL-1α, and IL-10” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the terms mean. The specification does not provide clarifying detail regarding the abbreviations.
Regarding claim 18, the entire claim is indefinite since it is unclear if the method encompasses administering the animal diet or water the animal. The claim as currently drafted recites adding xylanase enzyme and COS to the animal diet or water, but does not recite or otherwise indicate the diet or water is administered to the animal.
The limitations “improving monogastric animal performance” in line 1 and “contains an effective amount of xylanase and chito-oligosaccharides (COS)” in lines 2-3 render the claim indefinite since it is unclear what feature(s) is/are encompassed by “animal performance.” The specification does not provide a definition for “animal performance,” only examples. Therefore, the boundary of the claim is unascertainable.
In line 2, the limitation “the animal diet or water” lacks antecedent basis.
In line 3, the limitation “an effective amount of xylanase and chito-oligosaccharides (COS)” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the desired effect is, and therefore unclear what the “effective amount” is.
In line 4, the limitation “the administration of the xylanase alone or the COS alone” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the animal performance is measured by” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation means the animal performance “measured” as in tracked/recorded, or if the limitation means the scale used to determine the animal performance is one of the claimed alternatives.
The limitation “improved egg quality score” renders the claim indefinite since the standard for determining the “quality score” is unclear, and it is unclear what feature(s) is/are encompassed by an “improved” score.
The limitation “increased egg production” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation is directed to rate, weight, or some other feature.
The limitation “improved egg characteristics including egg weight, yolk color, haugh unit and/or proportion of dirty or cracked eggs” renders the claim indefinite since the standard for determining the “improvement” is unclear.
The limitation “dirty” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear where the boundary lies between an egg that is and is not “dirty.”
Claims 2-3, 7-10 and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 4-6 and 19 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.
In the case the limitation “the animal performance is measured by…” recited in the claims is directed to simply indicating the scale used to determine animal performance, the claims do not further limit the subject matter of claims 1 and 18 since the claimed features are inherent to the process. The claims therefore do not recite any further method/processing steps outside those of claims 1 and 18 respectively. 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjing (CN 110179011 A) in view of Elend et al. (US 2015/0366238 A1).
Citations to Nanjing are taken from the EPO translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Nanjing teaches a method of improving animal performance (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito-oligosaccharides (COS), 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin E 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%; Claim 2. the premixed feed for improving egg quality according to claim 1, wherein the composite enzyme preparation comprises protease 8.2% to 14.8%, amylase 12.5% to 20.3%, phytase 4.5% to 9.7%, B-mannanase 20.5% to 38.7%, xylanase 20.3% to 33.8%, glucanase 2.8% to 5.6%, and cellulase 3.5% to 7.5%, the components of the composite enzyme preparation. The sum of the weight percentages is 100%; Claim 9, use of the premixed feed according to any one of claims 1 to 7 for feeding a laying hen or preparing a laying hen feed) comprising the step of adding to the animal diet a composition comprising xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance (paragraphs 27 and 29, Example 1: preparation of premixed feed for improving egg quality; paragraphs 33-37, according to the weight percentage content, the compound enzyme preparation 63.5%, the composite carotenoid preparation 3.75%, the chito-oligosaccharide 1.5%, the xylooligosaccharide 1.5%, the phytosterol 3.5%, the vitamin E 7.5% and the carrier 18.75% were thoroughly mixed. That is, the premixed feed is obtained, the composite enzyme preparation comprises 11.80% protease, 15.75% amylase, 5.51% phytase, 31.50% ß-mannanase, 27.56% xylanase, 3.94% glucanase and 3.94% cellulase).
Nanjing does not teach the xylanase is beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme.
Elend et al. teaches an animal feed product (abstract) comprising xylanase enzyme, where the enzyme is preferably beta 1-4, endo-xylanase (paragraph 88). The product can include chitosan oligosaccharides (paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Nanjing to use beta 1-4, endo-xylanase since the prior art recognizes the enzyme for use in food products with chitosan oligosaccharides, since the particular xylanase enzyme is recognized by the prior art, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed enzyme, and therefore as selection from known xylanases based on desired characteristics e.g., cleave site and affinity.
Regarding claim 2, Nanjing teaches a method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Nanjing further teaches that the composition comprises chito-oligosaccharide which is water-soluble (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito-oligosaccharide, 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin E 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%).
Nanjing teaches that the composition comprises water-soluble chito- oligosaccharide (Claim 1). Based on the teachings of Nanjing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Nanjing to have designed/included a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet or water a composition comprising beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance, wherein the composition is water soluble, through routine experimentation, for providing a premixed feed comprising xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides so as to increase eggshell strength, yolk pigment deposition, egg nutrient content and antioxidant capacity, and improve egg quality (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Nanjing further teaches that the animal is a monogastric animal such as a hen (claim 9; paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 5, Nanjing further teaches that the animal performance is measured by improved egg quality score (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito-oligosaccharide, 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin E 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%; Claim 2. the premixed feed for improving egg quality according to claim 1, wherein the composite enzyme preparation comprises protease 8.2% to 14.8%, amylase 12.5% to 20.3%, phytase 4.5% to 9.7%, B-mannanase 20.5% to 38.7%, xylanase 20.3% to 33.8%, glucanase 2.8% to 5.6%, and cellulase 3.5% to 7.5%, the components of the composite enzyme preparation. The sum of the weight percentages is 100%).
Regarding claim 6, Nanjing does not teach the performance is measured by decreased serum concentrations of the claimed components.
However, the combination applied to claim 1 appears to teach the same method as that of the claimed method. Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the prior art method to yield similarly decreased serum concentrations of the claimed components.
Regarding claim 7, Nanjing teaches a method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Nanjing further teaches that the composition comprises chito-oligosaccharide (COS) is an oligomer of N-acetylglucosamine (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito-oligosaccharide, 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin E 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%).
Nanjing does not teach that the COS is an oligomer of N-acetylglucosamine with an average degree of polymerization between 2 and 6 monomers and a degree of acetylation greater than 90%.
Nanjing does teach that the composition comprises chito-oligosaccharide (COS) is an oligomer of N-acetylglucosamine (Claim 1). Based on the teachings of Nanjing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Nanjing to have designed/included a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet or water a composition comprising beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance, wherein the COS is an oligomer of N- acetylglucosamine with an average degree of polymerization between 2 and 6 monomers and a degree of acetylation greater than 90%, through routine experimentation, for providing a premixed feed comprising xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides so as to increase eggshell strength, yolk pigment deposition, egg nutrient content and antioxidant capacity, and improve egg quality (abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Nanjing teaches a method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Nanjing further teaches that the composition comprises chito-oligosaccharide (COS) is an oligomer of N-acetylglucosamine (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito-oligosaccharide, 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin E 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%).
Nanjing does not teach that the COS has an average molecular weight less than 4kDa.
Nanjing docs teach that the composition comprises chito-oligosaccharide (COS) is an oligomer of N-acetylglucosamine (Claim 1). Based on the teachings of Nanjing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Nanjing to have designed/included a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet or water a composition comprising beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance, wherein the COS has an average molecular weight less than 4kDa, through routine experimentation, for providing a premixed feed comprising xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides so as to increase eggshell strength, yolk pigment deposition, egg nutrient content and antioxidant capacity, and improve egg quality (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Nanjing teaches a method of Claim 8 as discussed above. Nanjing further teaches that the composition comprises chito-oligosaccharide (COS) is an oligomer of N-acetylglucosamine (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito-oligosaccharide, 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin E 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%).
Nanjing does not teach that the COS has an average molecular weight less than 2kDa.
Nanjing does teach that the composition comprises chito-oligosaccharide (COS) is an oligomer of N-acetylglucosamine (Claim 1). Based on the teachings of Nanjing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Nanjing to have designed/included a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet or water a composition comprising beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance, wherein the COS has an average molecular weight less than 2kDa, through routine experimentation, for providing a premixed feed comprising xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides so as to increase eggshell strength, yolk pigment deposition, egg nutrient content and antioxidant capacity, and improve egg quality (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Nanjing teaches a method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Nanjing further teaches that the animal diet contains the composition in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt% to about 0.3 wt% (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito-oligosaccharides (COS), 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%; Claim 2. the premixed feed for improving egg quality according to claim 1, wherein the composite enzyme preparation comprises protease 8.2% to 14.8%, amylase 12.5% to 20.3%, phytase 4.5% to 9.7%, B-mannanase 20.5% to 38.7%, xylanase 20.3% to 33.8%, glucanase 2.8% to 5.6%, and cellulase 3.5% to 7.5%, the components of the composite enzyme preparation. The sum of the weight percentages is 100%; Claim 9, use of the premixed feed according to any one of claims 1 to 7 for feeding a laying hen or preparing a laying hen feed; Claim 10, the method according to claim 9, wherein the application, characterized in that: in laying hens feed mixing process, the percentage content by weight, add 0.05% to 0.3% of any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the egg quality improvement of pre-mixed feed can be).
Nanjing does not teach that the animal diet contains the composition in an amount ranging from about 10 g/ton feed to about 100 g/ton feed.
Nanjing does teach that the animal diet contains the composition in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt% to about 0.3 wt% (Claim 1-2, 9-10). Based on the teachings of Nanjing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Nanjing to have designed/included a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet or water a composition comprising beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance, wherein the animal diet contains the composition in an amount ranging from about 10 g/ton feed to about 100 g/ton feed, through routine experimentation, for providing a premixed feed comprising xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides so as to increase eggshell strength, yolk pigment deposition, egg nutrient content and antioxidant capacity, and improve egg quality (abstract).
Regarding claim 18, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a method of improving monogastric animal performance as stated for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 18 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding the added composition in an effective amount of xylanase and COS compared to administration of xylanase or COS alone, the prior art combination applied to claim 1 teaches adding a composition comprising the claimed components in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance as stated for said claim. Absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the method of the prior art combination to similarly add the composition in an effective amount compared to administration of xylanase or COS alone.
Regarding claim 19, Nanjing teaches improved egg quality score as stated for claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed features would have been obvious as stated for claim 7.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjing (CN 110179011 A) in view of Elend et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Liu (CN 101455272 A).
Citations to Liu are taken from the EPO translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 4, Nanjing teaches a method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Nanjing further teaches animal performance (Claim 1. a premixed feed for improving egg quality, characterized in that: by weight percentage, the premixed feed comprises 55.5% to 70.5% of a composite enzyme preparation, 2.3% to 5.7% of a composite carotenoid preparation, and 1.0% to 2.5% of chito- oligosaccharide, 1.0% to 2.5% of xylooligosaccharide, 2.5% to 5.0% of phytosterols (plant sterol), vitamin E 5.0% to 10.5%, and carrier 12.0% to 25.0%, the weight percentage of each component in the premixed feed. The sum of the contents is 100%).
Nanjing does not teach that the animal performance is measured by increased weight gain or reduced feed conversion ratio.
Liu teaches a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet a composition comprising xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance (paragraph 10, Example 3. preparation of premixes reduce stress piglets respectively activity for conversion, take the temperature amylase 240,000 units, 2.5 million units of neutral protease, pectinase 4,000,000 units, xylanase 6 million units, dry cellulase 5 million units, chito-oligosaccharides 100g, FOS 200g, citric acid 320g, with the purpose of crushing through after 40 Lees made up to 10kg. First chito-oligosaccharides, FOS, citric acid, flavoring agents were mixed to obtain a mixture A; neutral protease were diluted with lees, a- temperature amylase, pectinase, xylanase, cellulase and mixtures A, and then add all the mixture and all the remaining lees to the mixer and mix for 50 minutes. Invention can comprehensively improve the digestibility of piglets and effectively prevent the occurrence of diarrhea. The feed-to-meat ratio and daily weight gain of piglets are significantly higher than those of the control group). Liu further teaches that the animal performance is measured by increased weight gain (paragraph 29, invention can comprehensively improve the digestibility of piglets and effectively prevent the occurrence of diarrhea. The feed-to-meat ratio and daily weight gain of piglets are significantly higher than those of the control group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Nanjing to include that the animal performance is measured by increased weight gain as taught by Liu in the teaching of Nanjing, because Nanjing and Liu are both directed toward a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet or water a composition comprising beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance. Based on the combined teachings of Nanjing and Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed/included a method of improving animal performance comprising the step of adding to the animal diet or water a composition comprising beta 1-4, endo-xylanase enzyme and chito-oligosaccharides (COS) in an amount sufficient to improve animal performance, wherein the animal performance is measured by increased weight gain or reduced feed conversion ratio, through routine experimentation, for providing a premixed feed comprising xylanase enzyme and chito- oligosaccharides so as to increase eggshell strength, yolk pigment deposition, egg nutrient content and antioxidant capacity, and improve egg quality (Nanjing, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
