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 .
Priority
The instant application is a continuation of application 17/830,445 (now US 12,173,167) filed 2 June 2022 which is a CON of application 15/758,828 (now US 11,472,981) filed 9 March 2018 which is the national stage entry of PCT/US2016/050529 filed 7 September 2007. Acknowledgement is made of the Applicant’s claim of domestic priority to provisional US applications 62/343,250 filed 31 May 2016, 62/296,766 filed 18 February 2016, 62/273,054 filed 30 December 2015, and 62/217,250 filed 11 September 2015.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV in the reply filed on 6 August 2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant has amended the claim set to conform with the invention of Group IV, thus the entire claim set is now encompassed by the elected invention. No claims are withdrawn.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected.
Claim 14 is allowable.
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 1-11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeau et al. (US 2020/0199520) in view of Fuisz (US 5,429,836).
Nadeau teaches a method for protecting viability of E. coli (Gram negative bacteria) during a drying process comprising forming particles (i.e. dry powder) of E. coli, alginate, maltodextrin, and trehalose wherein the drying process includes drying said particles (claim 28). The maltodextrin to trehalose ratio can range from 10:1 to 1:10, as shown in Table 1, examples S16-S18. The remaining glutamate salt comprises 1 part in the ratio, which means the maltodextrin can comprise from about 8-83% by weight (Table 1). Moreover, it is shown that maltose can be used in place of trehalose as the disaccharide (Table 1, S19). Upon drying, the dried matrix can be incorporated into a animal feed and then stored in containers [0061, 0119]. Regarding the alginate, the polysaccharide can be present in amounts of from 0.1-20% by weight [0034-0035]. After performing the drying step, the amounts of E. coli preserved were measured and showed about 2.3-4.4 x 1011 CFU on average when using the maltodextrin/trehalose formulations. After storage for 4 weeks, there was no difference in CFU counts for the maltodextrain-comprising feeds [0114-0115].
Nadeau does not teach wherein the maltodextrin has a dextrose equivalent from about 15-20.
Fuisz teaches a saccharide-based matrix (abstract) that can be used in food products (see Examples). Fuisz teaches that in a preferred embodiment, the DE of maltodextrin is less than 40 or between 10-20 (col 3, lns 5-9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to use the method of Nadeau for drying feedstock particles comprising E. coli, alginate, maltodextrin, and trehalose before adding them to a feed and storing in a container. The container is not limited in the art and thus can be any container including an opaque one. Since Nadeau is silent as to the type of maltodextrin, it would have been obvious to look to Fuisz for the teaching that a desired DE range is from 10-20. The resulting feedstock would have been obvious to make by the process of Nadeau comprising mixing together E. coli, alginate (0.1-20 wt%), maltodextrin, and trehalose wherein the ratio of maltodextrin to trehalose or maltose is from 10:1 to 1:10. It would have been obvious to use maltodextrin with a DE of from 10-20, which overlaps with the claimed range, as the maltodextrin of Nadeau since Fuisz teaches it as being suitable for making a feed matrix. The resulting method renders obvious instant claims 1-11, 16-18, and 20.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeau et al. (US 2020/0199520) in view of Fuisz (US 5,429,836) in view of Dicks (US 2005/0287283).
Nadeau and Fuisz, as applied supra, are herein applied in their entirety for the teaching of a method of treating and preserving an animal feedstock with a dried composition of E. coli, alginate, maltodextrin, and trehalose.
Nadeau does not teach treating plant seeds.
Dicks teaches that traditionally grape seeds and husks are dumped or used as compost but that it has now been found that a useful mixed animal feed can be produced using said by-products [0003-0004]. The mixed feed comprises a blend of grass and grape seed in a pelleted form [0007].
It would have been prima facie obvious to prepare the animal feed of Dicks and substitute it into Nadeau, since Nadeau is not specific as to the type of animal feed being used. Nadeau teaches using a pelleted feed, thus the pelleted feed comprising grade seeds of Dicks would have been an obvious substitution. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to substitute one equivalent component or process for another, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06).
The resulting method renders obvious instant claims 1-11 and 15-20.
Claims 1-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeau et al. (US 2020/0199520) in view of Fuisz (US 5,429,836) in view of Shelford et al. (US 6,221,381).
Nadeau and Fuisz, as applied supra, are herein applied in their entirety for the teaching of a method of treating and preserving an animal feedstock with a dried composition of E. coli, alginate, maltodextrin, and trehalose.
Nadeau does not teach including a surfactant or siloxane in the composition.
Shelford teaches methods and compositions for enhancing feed utilization efficiency in a ruminant animal by adding nonionic surfactant to the feed resulting in enhanced weight gain and milk production (abstract). Additional components to be added include polydimethylsiloxane-polyether (a surfactant) in order to enhance the digestive processes (col 7, lns 4-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to further include polydimethylsiloxane-polyether and other surfactants in the feed composition of Nadeau in order to enhance the efficiency of the feed to result in enhanced weight gain and milk production.
Claims 1-13, 16-18, and 20 are accordingly rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Instant claim 14 which requires the composition in the method to further comprise a trisiloxane surfactant. The prior art does not teach or suggest the inclusion of a trisiloxane in a composition comprising maltodextrin and disaccharide wherein the composition is dried. As such, claim 14 is free of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S ROSENTHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-6276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm 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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ANDREW S ROSENTHAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
