DETAILED ACTION
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 Group I in the reply filed on 12/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the left and right margins along the table are less than 1 inch as required per 37 C.F.R. 42.6.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)” is missing.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the superscript language is blurry. Applicant has used a low-quality font in the claims and in parts of the Specification. Application is advised to change this practice.
PNG
media_image2.png
60
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “Formlua” in line 5 is a typo and should state “Formula”.
PNG
media_image3.png
60
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushiki et al. (EP 1331220).
Regarding claims 1, 2, Kushiki (‘220) teaches a granular feed additive comprising lysine and bicarbonate anions which satisfies Formula 1 (See Abs., paras. 9, 37, 50, 51.), however, fails to expressly disclose the claimed molar ratio of anion to lysine in claim 1 and pH from 8.7 to 9.8 for claim 2.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing the claimed molar ratio or pH.
The selection of molar ratio and pH work off each other.
Regarding the pH, both the claims and the pH taught by Kushiki (‘220) teach a neutral pH which is above 7.0.
Kushiki (‘220) teaches the pH of the lysine composition being controlled to 7.2 to 9.0 by carbonate ions to provide a dried granulated product at higher concentration and favorable hygroscopic property and caking property (See paras. 37, 50, 51.).
Claims 1, 4-6 do not have any pH limitation while claim 2 requires a pH of 8.7 to 9.8.
It was well known in the chemical arts that acidic ingredients, like acids, have lower pH and basic ingredients like carbonates, as set forth in Claim 1+, have higher pH. If a pH needs to be raised, then greater molar amounts of basic ingredients can be provided.
Kushiki (‘220) teaches lysine compositions can be more or less acidic and depending on the acidity more or less carbonates need to be present to achieve the desired pH and thus functional properties of the feed.
Since Kushiki (‘220) teaches the same lysine and use thereof with the same targeted pH it would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a lysine composition with an anion lysine ratio that falls within the very broad range as claimed.
It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to adjust the bicarbonate anion amount based on the acidity of the ingredients to provide a granular lysine product having favorable hygroscopic property and caking property.
Regarding claim 4, Kushiki (‘220) teaches wherein a moisture content of the granular feed additive is less than 7 weight% based on the total weight of the granular feed additive (See para. [0008], 5% or less.).
Regarding claim 5, Kushiki (‘220) teaches wherein a content of the lysine is from 50 weight%, to 90 weight% based on the total weight of the granular feed additive (See para. [0008], 40 to 85% by weight.).
Regarding claim 6, Kushiki (‘220) teaches wherein the granular feed additive is produced by microorganism fermentation (See paras. 7-24.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushiki et al. (EP 1331220) in view of Wright et al. (US 20122/0244248).
Regarding claim 3, Kushiki (‘220) teaches a granular feed additive discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose an average diameter of granules of the granular feed additive is from 0.1 to 3.0 mm.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one diameter over another.
Wright (248) teaches a granular lysine additive similar to Kushiki (‘220) and for the same use where the size is 0.3 to 3.0 mm for the purpose of providing a feed for ruminant animals that improves their milk and meat production (See Abs., paras. 46, 47.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a lysine feed material for Kushiki (‘220) as taught by Wright (248) that is of a size, including as claimed, that will allow a ruminant animal to improve their milk and meat production as taught by Wright (248).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 December 6, 2025