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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response, and Amendment filed 10/24/2025 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-20, 22
Withdrawn claims: 1-14, 18-20
Previously cancelled claims: 21
Newly cancelled claims: None
Amended claims: 15
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 15-17, 22
Currently rejected claims: 15-17, 22
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15/1-15/8 and 15/10-15/11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Lengerich (US 6,723,358 B1), hereinafter referred to as “Van”, in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited).
Regarding claim 15/1, Van teaches a method of delivering an active ingredient (corresponding to a biologically active component, pharmaceutical component, nutraceutical component, and/or microorganism) to a human child, wherein the human child is an infant or a toddler (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32) as recited in present claim 15/1. Van teaches that the method comprises administering an edible chew (corresponding to an edible matrix composition that has a chewable texture) to the human child, wherein the edible chew may have a moisture content of less than about 30 wt.% (abstract; column 16, line 64-column 17, line 10). This disclosed moisture content range encompasses the claimed moisture content range recited in present claim 15. Van teaches that the teaches that the edible chew comprises a cereal flour matrix (corresponding to a free-flowing mixture containing flour from grain sources) and a plasticizer (column 3, lines 23-27). Van teaches that the cereal flour matrix may comprise about 45 wt.% to about 75 wt.% flour (column 4, lines 22-26); and that the edible chew may comprise from about 60 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the cereal flour matrix (column 5, lines 17-23), thereby providing amounts of cereal flour matrix in the edible chew that overlap the claimed concentration recited in present claim 15/1.
Wherein Van discloses amounts which encompass or overlap the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Van teaches that the cereal flour matrix has a degree of starch gelatinization of less than about 50% (column 5, lines 10-13). Wherein the degree of starch gelatinization is greater than 0%, the cereal flour matrix qualifies as a pre-gelatinized flour matrix as recited in present claim 15/1. Van also teaches that the edible chew does not have substantial development of an expanded structure after extrusion or cooking (column 16, lines 24-25). Since the phrase “substantial development” means that the cereal flour matrix may undergo even the smallest amount of expansion, wherein the edible chew undergoes any amount of expansion, the cereal flour matrix qualifies as being an expanded cereal flour matrix as recited in present claim 15/1. Since Van discloses that the product is an edible chew for oral consumption (column 18, lines 21-32), Van at least suggests that the edible chew has a texture adapted for helping the human child practice chewing as present claimed since “edible chew” implies that the act of chewing is involved in the oral consumption of the edible chew.
Van teaches that the penetration of water into the matrix of the edible chew may be prevented or delayed by the inclusion of vegetable oil, hydrophobic ingredients, and proteins (column 7, lines 11-13; column 8, lines 8-13, 33-36). Van does not disclose that the edible chew is sized for a human child to hold and to place in their mouth; or that the edible chew takes more than five minutes to dissolve as recited in present claim 15/1.
However, Cleverly teaches a method of delivering an active ingredient [0547], [0550] to a human [0548], the method comprising administering an edible chew (corresponding to chewable formulation) to the human [0548], [0550]. Cleverly teaches that the edible chew comprises a cereal flour matrix (corresponding to oat flour, pea flour, pearled barley flour, rice flour, wheat flour, rye grain flour, and cereal flour) [0453]-[0454] and a plasticizer [0062], [0067]; and that the edible chew takes an average of more than 30 minutes to dissolve (corresponding to an average of 56.6 wt.% of the active ingredient in the chew being released in thirty minutes) (page 22, Table 5). Therefore, the dissolution time of the edible chew falls within the time range recited in present claim 15/1. Since Cleverly teaches that the chew has an outer diameter of 15 mm [0632], which falls within the size range required in present claim 15/4, Cleverly teaches that the chew is sized for a human child to hold the chew and place the chew in their mouth.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the edible chew in the method of Van to be sized for a human child to hold and place in their mouth as taught by Cleverly. Since Van discloses that its edible chew is for infants and toddlers (column 18, lines 21-32), but does not disclose a size of a chew that is suitable for infants and toddlers, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Cleverly in order to determine a suitable size for the edible chew, thereby rendering the limitation that the edible chew is sized for a human child to hold and to place in their mouth obvious.
In reference to the edible chew taking more than five minutes to dissolve, as the dissolution time is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the content of vegetable oil, hydrophobic ingredients, and proteins (column 7, lines 11-13; column 8, lines 8-13, 33-36), the dissolution time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed dissolution time cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the dissolution time in the edible chew of Van to obtain the desired release rate of the active ingredient by using the more than 30 minute dissolution time disclosed by Cleverly as a guide (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 15/2, Van teaches the invention as described above in claim 15/1, including the edible chew contains at least one flavor selected from the group consisting of a cereal (corresponding to grain sources), a fruit (corresponding to fruit juice), a vegetable (corresponding to potatoes or other roots), and a spice (corresponding to salt) (column 2, lines 47-53; column 3, lines 42-46; column 4, lines 29-40).
Regarding claim 15/3, modified Van teaches the invention as described above in claim 15/1, including the edible chew has a water activity of less than 0.6 (Cleverly [0061]), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15/4, modified Van teaches the invention as described above in claim 15/1, including the edible chew has an outer diameter of 15 mm (Cleverly [0632]) which falls within the size range.
Regarding claims 15/5-15/6, Van teaches the invention as described above in claim 15/1, including the edible chew comprises at least one active ingredient selected from the group consisting of a vitamin, a mineral, a prebiotic, a probiotic, a nutraceutical, a pharmaceutical compound, a protein (corresponding to enzymes), an amino acid, a sugar alcohol other than glycol (corresponding to sorbitol), and mixtures thereof (column 5, lines 37-44; column 9, lines 1-24).
Regarding claim 15/7, Van teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 15/1, but does not disclose that the edible chew is formulated to be at ambient temperature. However, the claim does not actually require the edible chew to be at ambient temperature and the edible chew of the prior art containing an expanded pre-gelatinized cereal flour matrix and a plasticizer (column 3, lines 23-27) does not have any ingredients that would prevent it from being at ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 15/8, Van teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 15/1, but does not disclose that the edible chew is formulated to be chilled or frozen. However, the claim does not actually require the edible chew to be chilled or frozen and the edible chew of the prior art containing an expanded pre-gelatinized cereal flour matrix and a plasticizer (column 3, lines 23-27) does not have any ingredients that would prevent it from being chilled or frozen.
Regarding claim 15/10, Van teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 15/1, including the edible chew is gluten-free (corresponding to formulations made without wheat) and nut-free (corresponding to formulations made with grain and a plasticizer) (column 3, lines 23-27, 42-46).
Regarding claim 15/11, Van teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 15/1, including that the cereal flour matrix may comprise about 45 wt.% to about 75 wt.% flour (column 4, lines 22-26); and that the edible chew may comprise from about 60 wt.% to about 95 wt.% of the cereal flour matrix (column 5, lines 17-23) Since any food ingredient has the potential to be an allergen to a human and there is no definitive amount of allergen that has been determined to be effective for early tolerance introduction, the amount of cereal flour taught by Van falls within the claimed range.
Claims 15/9 and 15/12-15/13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) as applied to claim 15/1 above, and further in view of Mahe (US 2016/0143320; previously cited).
Regarding claim 15/9, modified Van teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 15/1, including the edible chew may comprise a coloring agent (Cleverly [0144]). However, the combination of Van and Cleverly does not disclose that the edible chew has a bright color and/or a plurality of colors.
However, Mahe teaches an edible chew formulated for oral consumption [0002], [0056] comprising an expanded pre-gelatinized cereal flour matrix [0007] and a plasticizer (corresponding to component capable of forming hydrogen bonds in pre-gelatinized cereal flour [0065]), wherein the edible chew takes at least one minute of chewing before the product can be ingested [0056]. Mahe teaches that the edible chew has a bright color (corresponding to the edible chew containing blue no. 1, blue no. 2, green no. 3, red no. 3, red no. 40, yellow no. 5, yellow no. 6, annatto, chlorophyllin, cochineal, betanin, turmeric, saffron, and paprika as a colorant) [0063].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the edible chew of modified Van to have a bright color as taught by Mahe. Since modified Van discloses that the edible chew may comprise a coloring agent (Cleverly [0144]), but does not specify a coloring agent, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Mahe in order to determine a suitable coloring agent for an edible chew, thereby rendering the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 15/12 and 15/13, Van teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 15/1, including the edible chew may be shaped into discrete shapes (column 15, lines 8-11). The combination of Van and Cleverly does not disclose that the edible chew has a hollow center or that the chew comprises at least one filling within the hollow center as recited by present claims 15/12 and 15/13.
However, Mahe teaches an edible chew formulated for oral consumption [0002], [0056] comprising an expanded pre-gelatinized cereal flour matrix [0007] and a plasticizer (corresponding to component capable of forming hydrogen bonds in pre-gelatinized cereal flour [0065]), wherein the edible chew takes at least one minute of chewing before the product can be ingested [0056]. Mahe teaches that the edible chew has a hollow center (Fig. 7A). Since the mere presence of a hollow cavity in the center of the edible chew reduces a risk of choking on the edible chew as determined by the disclosure in [0013] of the present specification, the hollow center disclosed by Mahe reduces a risk of choking on the edible chew during oral consumption as presently claimed. Mahe also teaches that the edible chew comprising at least one filling within a hollow center [0079] as presently claimed
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the edible chew of modified Van to have a hollow center or to have at least one filling in a hollow center as taught by Mahe. Since Van discloses that the edible chew may be shaped into discrete shapes (column 15, lines 8-11), but does not specify a formed shape, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Mahe in order to determine a suitable formed shape for an edible chew, thereby rendering the claims obvious.
Claim 15/14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) as applied to claim 15/1 above, and further in view of Barnvos (US 2013/0273125; previously cited).
Regarding claim 15/14, Van teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 15/1, including the release of encapsulated nutraceuticals in the edible chew may be delayed (column 7, lines 65-67). The combination of Van and Cleverly does not teach the edible chew further comprises a holder configured to attach to the edible chew.
However, Barnvos teaches an edible chew [0087]-[0088] for the administration of beneficial agents (abstract) comprising a convenient holder (corresponding to a chew-resistant, non-consumable portion) that securely fits around an end of the edible chew so that the chewable matrix can be held in a relatively fixed position while the animal chews on it [0240].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the edible chew of modified Van by attaching a holder to it as taught by Barnvos. Since Barnvos teaches that a holder is convenient in helping the recipient maintain a grip on an edible chew that delivers nutraceuticals to the recipient (abstract, [0240]), a skilled practitioner would be motivated to incorporate a holder onto the edible chew of modified Van, thereby rendering the claim obvious.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) as applied to claims 15/1-15/8 and 15/10-15/11 above, and further in view of Kovaleski (US 10,212,919; previously cited) and Newton (Newton, A., “The 5 Best Natural Teething Remedies”, 2015, Healthline, https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/natural-teething-remedies; previously cited).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Van teaches the invention as described above in claims 15/1-15/8 and 15/10-15/11, including that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32). The combination of prior art does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler while having a temperature at or less than ambient temperature or that the edible chew is administered while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17.
However, Kovaleski discloses that chew products for animals, infants, and babies are known in the art (column 1, lines 22-25) for the purpose of relieving teething pain (column 1, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include administering the edible chew to an infant or toddler to provide teething support to the infant or toddler who is teething as taught by Kovaleski. Since Van discloses that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32) and since it is known in the art that chew products relieve teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 36-41), the method of modified Van also renders the claimed purpose of providing teething support to a human child who is teething as recited in present claim 15 obvious.
The combination of Van, Cleverly, and Kovaleski does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler while having a temperature at or less than ambient temperature or that the edible chew is administered while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17.
However, Newton teaches that cold is a very popular remedy for teething pain. Newton discloses freezing items such as a chew (corresponding to teether) for the infant or baby (page 2, paragraphs 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include freezing the chew as taught by Newton. Since modified Van discloses that the chew is for infants, babies, and toddlers (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 22-25; column 8, lines 4-7) who have teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 38-40) and using cold to relieve teething pain is known in the art (Newtons, page 2, paragraph 1), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that freezing the edible chew of modified Van and administering the frozen edible chew would help to further relieve teething pain. Therefore, the claimed administration of the chew while having a temperature less than ambient temperature and the claimed administration of the chew while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17 are rendered obvious.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) and Mahe (US 2016/0143320; previously cited) as applied to claims 15/9 and 15/12-15/13 above, and further in view of Kovaleski (US 10,212,919; previously cited) and Newton (Newton, A., “The 5 Best Natural Teething Remedies”, 2015, Healthline, https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/natural-teething-remedies; previously cited).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Van teaches the invention as described above in claims 15/9 and 15/12-15/13, including that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32). The combination of prior art does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler while having a temperature at or less than ambient temperature or that the edible chew is administered while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17.
However, Kovaleski discloses that chew products for animals, infants, and babies are known in the art (column 1, lines 22-25) for the purpose of relieving teething pain (column 1, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include administering the edible chew to an infant or toddler to provide teething support to the infant or toddler who is teething as taught by Kovaleski. Since Van discloses that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32) and since it is known in the art that chew products relieve teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 36-41), the method of modified Van also renders the claimed purpose of providing teething support to a human child who is teething as recited in present claim 15 obvious.
The combination of Van, Cleverly, and Kovaleski does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler while having a temperature at or less than ambient temperature or that the edible chew is administered while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17.
However, Newton teaches that cold is a very popular remedy for teething pain. Newton discloses freezing items such as a chew (corresponding to teether) for the infant or baby (page 2, paragraphs 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include freezing the chew as taught by Newton. Since modified Van discloses that the chew is for infants, babies, and toddlers (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 22-25; column 8, lines 4-7) who have teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 38-40) and using cold to relieve teething pain is known in the art (Newtons, page 2, paragraph 1), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that freezing the edible chew of modified Van and administering the frozen edible chew would help to further relieve teething pain. Therefore, the claimed administration of the chew while having a temperature less than ambient temperature and the claimed administration of the chew while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17 are rendered obvious.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) and Barnvos (US 2013/0273125; previously cited) as applied to claim 15/14 above, and further in view of Kovaleski (US 10,212,919; previously cited) and Newton (Newton, A., “The 5 Best Natural Teething Remedies”, 2015, Healthline, https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/natural-teething-remedies; previously cited).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Van teaches the invention as described above in claims 15/9 and 15/12-15/13, including that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32). The combination of prior art does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler while having a temperature at or less than ambient temperature or that the edible chew is administered while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17.
However, Kovaleski discloses that chew products for animals, infants, and babies are known in the art (column 1, lines 22-25) for the purpose of relieving teething pain (column 1, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include administering the edible chew to an infant or toddler to provide teething support to the infant or toddler who is teething as taught by Kovaleski. Since Van discloses that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32) and since it is known in the art that chew products relieve teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 36-41), the method of modified Van also renders the claimed purpose of providing teething support to a human child who is teething as recited in present claim 15 obvious.
The combination of Van, Cleverly, and Kovaleski does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler while having a temperature at or less than ambient temperature or that the edible chew is administered while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17.
However, Newton teaches that cold is a very popular remedy for teething pain. Newton discloses freezing items such as a chew (corresponding to teether) for the infant or baby (page 2, paragraphs 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include freezing the chew as taught by Newton. Since modified Van discloses that the chew is for infants, babies, and toddlers (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 22-25; column 8, lines 4-7) who have teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 38-40) and using cold to relieve teething pain is known in the art (Newtons, page 2, paragraph 1), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that freezing the edible chew of modified Van and administering the frozen edible chew would help to further relieve teething pain. Therefore, the claimed administration of the chew while having a temperature less than ambient temperature and the claimed administration of the chew while frozen as recited in present claims 16 and 17 are rendered obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) as applied to claims 15/1-15/8 and 15/10-15/11 above, and further in view of Kovaleski (US 10,212,919; previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, modified Van teaches the invention as described above in claims 15/1-15/8 and 15/10-15/11, including that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32). The combination of prior art does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler who has teething pain.
However, Kovaleski discloses that chew products for animals, infants, and babies are known in the art (column 1, lines 22-25) for the purpose of relieving teething pain (column 1, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include administering the edible chew to an infant or toddler to provide teething support to the infant or toddler who has teething pain as taught by Kovaleski. Since Van discloses that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32) and since it is known in the art that chew products relieve teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 36-41), the method of modified Van also renders the claimed purpose of providing teething support to a human child who has teething pain obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) and Mahe (US 2016/0143320; previously cited) as applied to claims 15/9 and 15/12-15/13 above, and further in view of Kovaleski (US 10,212,919; previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, modified Van teaches the invention as described above in claims 15/9 and 15/12-15/13, including that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32). The combination of prior art does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler who has teething pain.
However, Kovaleski discloses that chew products for animals, infants, and babies are known in the art (column 1, lines 22-25) for the purpose of relieving teething pain (column 1, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include administering the edible chew to an infant or toddler to provide teething support to the infant or toddler who has teething pain as taught by Kovaleski. Since Van discloses that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32) and since it is known in the art that chew products relieve teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 36-41), the method of modified Van also renders the claimed purpose of providing teething support to a human child who has teething pain obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (US 6,723,358 B1) in view of Cleverly (US 2015/0190417; previously cited) and Barnvos (US 2013/0273125; previously cited) as applied to claim 15/14 above, and further in view of Kovaleski (US 10,212,919; previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, modified Van teaches the invention as described above in claim 15/14, including that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32). The combination of prior art does not disclose that the edible chew is administered to the infant or toddler who has teething pain.
However, Kovaleski discloses that chew products for animals, infants, and babies are known in the art (column 1, lines 22-25) for the purpose of relieving teething pain (column 1, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Van to include administering the edible chew to an infant or toddler to provide teething support to the infant or toddler who has teething pain as taught by Kovaleski. Since Van discloses that the edible chew may be for infants and toddlers (abstract; column 18, lines 21-32) and since it is known in the art that chew products relieve teething pain (Kovaleski, column 1, lines 36-41), the method of modified Van also renders the claimed purpose of providing teething support to a human child who has teething pain obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 15/1-15/13 and 22 over Cleverly and Mahe; claims 15/14 and 22 over Cleverly, Mahe, and Kovaleski; claims 16 and 18 over Cleverly, Mahe, Kovaleski, and Newton; claims 16 and 17 over Cleverly, Mahe, Kovaleski, Barnvos, and Newton: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered moot.
Applicant amended claim 15 to recite that the edible chew has a moisture content of 12-14 wt.%. Applicant then argued that none of the cited references disclose this claimed moisture content (Applicant’s Remarks, pages 5-6, section labeled “Obviousness Rejections”).
However, in the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 15, the features of claim 15 are now rendered obvious by the combination of: (A) Van and Cleverly; (B) Van, Cleverly, and Mahe; and (C) Van, Cleverly, and Barnvos. As described above in the rejection of claim 15/1, Van teaches that the edible chew may have a moisture content of less than about 30 wt.% (abstract; column 16, line 64-column 17, line 10), which encompasses the moisture content now recited by amended claim 15. The selection of a value within the encompassing range renders the claimed moisture content obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I. Since the claims are now rejected by new combinations of prior art, Applicant’s arguments are moot and the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791