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 .
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.
Claims 13, 14, 66 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rourke (US 5477815) in view of Ackroyd (US 2017/0233901) in view of Dalziel (WO 2004/016509) and Brent, Jr. (US 9480275).
Regarding claim 13, O’Rourke discloses a method of making an animal toy, comprising: providing non-toxic, semi-crystalline, polymeric fibers (core 14, col. 3, II. 55-59, Nylon or Orion are known to be semi-crystalline); immersing the non-toxic, semi-crystalline, polymeric fibers into a liquid medium comprising a natural food flavor composition comprising one or more ingredients (col. 7, ll. 6-9 and col. 6, ll. 55-57, beef extract) and braiding the non-toxic, semi-crystalline, polymeric fibers into a rope (col. 5, II. 1-8, fig. 1) but fails to teach the non-toxic, semi-crystalline, polymeric fibers being non-cylindrical and one or more 2017 FEMA GRAS compliant ingredients, wherein the one or more 2017 Fema GRAS compliant ingredients are 2017 AAFCO compliant ingredients. However, Ackroyd teaches non-cylindrical fibers that provide functional benefits, such as wettability (para. 0009, ll. 12-25, 0013, ll. 5-9 and 0014, ll. 1-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shape of O’Rourke’s fibers with a shape of fibers as taught by Ackroyd to promote a particular characteristic i.e., crunchy sound, durability, softness and/or wettability to appeal to a variety of users e.g., small breed animals, large breed animals, sick and/or elderly animals. Dalziel teaches GRAS i.e., generally recognized as safe, ingredients (pg. 5, ll. 15-16 and 32-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Rourke’s beef extract with an extract from GRAS list as taught by Dalziel to provide a product that was safe to ingest should an animal chewing on a chew toy consume any portion of the toy or the juices produced while chewing on the toy. And Brent, Jr. teaches AAFCO compliant ingredients (col. 2, ll. 5-9 and col. 4, ll. 61-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Rourke’s beef extract with an AAFCO compliant ingredient as taught by Brent, Jr. to provide a product that was safe to ingest should an animal chewing on a chew toy consume any portion of the toy or the juices produced while chewing on the toy.
Regarding claim 14, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Ackroyd further teaches wherein the fibers are coated and/or shaped to promote wicking (para. 0009, a yarn made relatively round fibers is less expensive than a yarn made of technically shaped fibers, but the trilobal yarn, for example, has other qualities that are better, such as better moisture wicking i.e., a shape that promotes wicking).
Regarding claim 66, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Ackroyd further teaches wherein the non-toxic, semi-crystalline, non-cylindrical polymeric fibers are multi-lobal fibers (para. 0009, a yarn … but the trilobal yarn, for example, has other qualities that are better, such as better moisture wicking, fig. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 67, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Ackroyd further teaches wherein the multi-lobal fibers are tri-lobal fibers (para. 0009, a yarn … but the trilobal yarn, for example, has other qualities that are better, such as better moisture wicking, fig. 4 and 5).
Claims 59-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rourke in view of Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent, Jr.
Regarding claim 59, O’Rourke teaches an animal toy, comprising: a plurality of semi-crystalline, non-toxic polymeric fibers, wherein the non-toxic polymeric fibers are braided into a rope (col. 5, ll.1-8) but fails to teach each having a non-cylindrical shape that promotes wicking and comprises a natural food flavor composition that comprises one or more 2017 FEMA GRAS compliant ingredients that are also 2017 AAFCO compliant ingredients. However, Ackroyd teaches non-cylindrical shape that promotes wicking (para. 0009, 0013 and 0014, a yarn made relatively round fibers is less expensive than a yarn made of technically shaped fibers, but the trilobal yarn, for example, has other qualities that are better, such as better moisture wicking). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shape of O’Rourke’s fibers with a shape of fibers as taught by Ackroyd to promote a particular characteristic i.e., crunchy sound, durability, softness and/or wettability to appeal to a variety of users e.g., small breed animals, large breed animals, sick and/or elderly animals. Dalziel teaches a generally recognized as safe ingredients (pg. 5, ll. 15-16 and 32-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Rourke’s beef extract with an extract from GRAS list as taught by Dalziel to provide a product that was safe to ingest should an animal chewing on a chew toy consume any portion of the toy or the juices produced while chewing on the toy. And Brent, Jr. teaches a natural food flavor composition that comprises one or more 2017 FEMA GRAS compliant ingredients that are also 2017 AAFCO compliant ingredients (col. 2, ll. 5-9 and col. 4, ll. 61-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Rourke’s beef extract with an AAFCO compliant ingredient as taught by Brent, Jr. to provide a product that was safe to ingest should an animal chewing on a chew toy consume any portion of the toy or the juices produced while chewing on the toy.
Regarding claim 60, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and O’Rourke further teaches wherein the animal toy comprises a core section and an outer section (col. 2, ll. 45-50), the semi-crystalline non-toxic polymeric fibers comprising the plurality of semi-crystalline non-toxic polymeric fibers are a first type of semi-crystalline, polymeric fibers, the core comprises the first type of semi-crystalline, non-toxic polymeric fibers, and the outer section comprises a second type of semi-crystalline, non-toxic, polymeric fibers (col. 3, ll. 25-27 and 64-65).
Regarding claim 61, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Ackroyd teaches wherein the semi-crystalline, non-toxic polymeric fibers comprising the plurality of semi-crystalline, non-toxic polymeric fibers are multi-lobal fibers (para. 0009, a yarn… but the trilobal yarn, for example, has other qualities that are better, such as better moisture wicking).
Regarding claim 62, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Ackroyd further teaches wherein the multi-lobal fibers are tri-lobal fibers (para. 0009, a yarn… but the trilobal yarn, for example, has other qualities that are better, such as better moisture wicking).
Regarding claim 63, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and O’Rourke further teaches wherein the semi-crystalline, non-toxic polymeric fibers in the plurality of semi-crystalline, non-toxic polymeric fibers comprise polyethylene terephthalate fibers (col. 3, ll. 25-27, polyester).
Regarding claim 64, O’Rourke as modified by Ackroyd, Dalziel and Brent Jr. teaches the invention substantially as claimed and O’Rourke further teaches wherein the animal toy comprises a core section and an outer section, and the core section comprises the plurality of semi-crystalline, non-toxic polymeric fibers (col. 3, ll. 25-27 and col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
