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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 April 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-2 are pending. The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. The previous 112(b) rejections not repeated below have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. The previous 103 rejection has been modified in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, lines 12-13, recites “and scrapings (4) are obtained with thickness between 22 and 27 lines.” The Remarks submitted 08 April 2025 discloses leather thickness measured in lines typically refers to the number of lines per inch, and a thickness between 22 and 27 lines corresponds to a range of approximately 0.3438 to 0.3906 inches, or 8.73 to 9.92 millimeters (Remarks p4). For the purpose of examination, claim 1, lines 12-13 will be interpreted as scrapings are obtained with thickness between 22 and 27 lines per inch, or 8.73-9.92mm.
Claim 1, line 14, recites “then a scraping (4) is dried (E8), in a dryer with about 40 kg of pressure.” The remarks submitted 08 April 2025 disclose it is noted that the kilogram in general pressure units is an acronym. From the weight of 1 kg acting on an area of 1 cm2, its value is exactly equal to about 105 Pa= 1 bar, which means that what we call 1 kg (pressure) = 1 bar. For the purpose of examination, claim 1, line 14, will be interpreted as: then a scraping (4) is dried (E8), in a dryer with about 40 kg per cm2 of pressure (1 bar).
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
The term “roughest” in claim 1 line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “roughest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine which side of the processed raw hide should be placed upwards in the method step of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that either side of the raw hide can be considered the roughest.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepper (US 2004/0244721 A1 NON-STAINING, CONTRASTING ANIMAL HIDE PET CHEW AND METHOD OF MAKING SAME) in view of Dog Chews Rawhide (2007 How are rawhide chews made? https://web.archive.org/web/20070312172702/http://www.dogchewsrawhide.com/rawhide-chews-made.htm), Axelrod (US 2018/0168127 A1 RAWHIDE ANIMAL CHEW INCLUDING MICROPORES AND METHOD OF FORMING) and Sweet (LYNETTE ANN-CECIL SWEET, 1981. SHORT TERM PRESERVATION OF CATTLEHIDE FOR FOOD AND LEATHER USE. East Central Oklahoma State University. Ada, Oklahoma. Master’s Thesis. https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/34786/Thesis-1981R-S974s.pdf?sequence=1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Tepper teaches a method of making a consumable pet chew for dogs [0002]. The raw hide is obtained from the natural skins of animals subject to: treatment in a processing drum [0058], fleshing in a fleshing machine to remove tissue, and removal of hair by a dehairing machine [0057]. Tepper does not teach use of a pressure fleshing machine for 10 seconds, however, absent any showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any commonly known fleshing machine, including a pressure fleshing machine, for an amount of time required to remove excess tissue from the raw animal hide.
Tepper also teaches the raw hide is also subject to splitting, which is dividing the hide into the inner and outer layers of the hide [0056]. Splitting the hide is considered to meet the claim limitation of “the fleshed leather is arranged on an easel for separation then the division…is carried out in a dividing machine” since the splitting process divides the hide into two layers. Arranging the fleshed leather on an easel can be interpreted as preparing the hide for entering a splitting machine. Tepper does not teach the dividing/splitting machine “with a rotation speed of 35 revolutions per minute (rpm) and scrapings are obtained with thickness between 22 and 27 lines.” As discussed above in the Claim Interpretation. Tepper does not disclose the thickness of the lines, however, changes in size or proportion are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
As to the rotation speed of 35 rpm, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the rotation speed of the splitting/dividing machine, absent any unexpected results, in order to minimize damage to the animal hide.
Tepper teaches removal of excess water from the raw hide by pressing the hide between two pinch rollers [0066], this reads on the claim limitation of “then a scraping is dried in a dryer” because Tepper’s pressing between rollers can be considered drying in a dryer with pressure. Regarding the pressure of about 40 kg per cm2 (see claim interpretation section), Tepper does not disclose the pressure applied by the pinch rollers. However, it is known in the art that the pressure is a result effective variable, the more pressure the more water is removed from the raw hide. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05 II A. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Tepper teaches the animal hide is then cut into strips that are assembled into shapes including retriever rolls and bagels [0066], this meets the claim limitation of “where the scraping is cut into strips, which will be mounted in roll or donut shape” because donuts and bagels have the same shape and the retriever roll is a kind of rolled rawhide product.
Tepper teaches animal hide strips are joined together into the desired configuration by means of tying, binding, rolling, folding, overlaying, looping, braiding, twisting, wrapping [0026]. This meets the claim limitation of “for mounting the rolls, the strips are rolled with the roughest surface upwards, and can optionally have their sides cut with the knife, for the assembly of the donut, a roll is prepared that is finished with another strip that is wrapped over it, joining its two ends” because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine that Tepper’s rolling, looping, wrapping and overlaying could be used to make a roll and a donut with a strip wrapped around its two joined ends. As discussed above in the USC 112(b) rejections, either side of the hide is considered to satisfy the claim limitation of “roughest” and the cutting step is optional.
Tepper teaches drying the hides in a drying room [0067]. This meets the claim limitation of the processed hides being “taken to a greenhouse for drying” because any space used for heating or drying, such as an oven or a drying room, meets the claim limitation of drying in the greenhouse.
Tepper does not disclose the weighing of the rawhide or conditioning of raw hide in a tank containing a solution of 90% by weight sodium metabisulfite and drinking water and the other 10% by weight being the raw hide, wherein a concentration of the sodium metabisulfite is 5% by weight of the raw hide, for 1 hour.
Sweet, also in the field of preservation of animal hides, discloses preservation of animal hides with an aqueous solution of sodium metabisulfite, a biocide, for antimicrobial purposes (page 22, lines 13-16). Sweet further discloses that biocides were required at 3-5% solutions (page 25, lines 17-19) as a percentage based on the weight of the green hide. The claimed concentration of 5% sodium metabisulfite falls within the range of the prior art. Sweet does not disclose the raw hide in the sodium metabisulfite solution for 1 hour, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of time the hide remains in the solution in order to maximize the antimicrobial properties and minimize the damage to the hide from the exposure to the solution. Sweet also does not teach weighing of the hides before making the sodium metabisulfite solution, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to weigh the raw hides beforehand in order to be able to calculate 5% of weight of the hides in order to make the sodium metabisulfite solution.
Tepper also does not disclose the raw hide stretched on a cutting table equipped with jigs prior to cutting. Tepper also does not disclose the shaped raw hide products are packed on conveyors prior to being taken to the drying location.
Dog Chews Rawhide, also in the field of dog chews made from animal hides, discloses raw hides are slapped onto special cutting tables and cut with electric knives into varying shapes including rectangular pieces (strips) (paragraph 5) so they can be rolled and folded into various forms including rolls. This reads on the claim limitation of the raw hide being placed “on cutting tables, equipped with jigs where the scraping is cut into strips” because being cut with electric knives into various shapes is equivalent to being cut with jigs. Dog Chews Rawhide also discloses the final shape are placed on trays and carried on carts to drying rooms for drying and subsequently packaged (page 1, last paragraph). This reads on the claim limitations of the processed raw hide articles “are packed on conveyors and taken to the greenhouse…for drying” because the being placed on trays and carried on carts can be seen as equivalent to transporting by conveyor as in the instant claim.
Dog Chews Rawhide also discloses the final shape dried and subsequently packaged (page 1, last paragraph). Dog Chew Rawhides does not disclose storing in raffia bags and wrapping, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from any known packaging, including raffia and/or cellophane wrapping, to contain the final chew product.
Tepper does not disclose drying at 90o C for 120 minutes until they reach 10% of moisture.
Axelrod, also in the field of animal chew products made from raw hide, discloses stretching the raw hide prior to drying (Claim 12) and drying the hide at 35°C to 80°C for 3-6 days [0024] to a moisture content in the range of 5% to 18% by weight water [0015]. Axelrod does not disclose drying at 90°C for 120 minutes, or further drying at 75°C, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the temperature of drying in order to shorten the amount of time needed to reach the desired moisture level. The instantly claimed moisture level of 10% moisture falls within the range disclosed by the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the dog chew of Tepper with the antimicrobial sodium metabisulfite solution of Sweet, the cutting drying and transporting of Dog Chews Rawhide and the stretching and drying of Axelrod in order to produce a chewable article for dogs with antimicrobial properties that has been dried to a moisture level that reduces the likelihood that mold, bacteria or fungus will grow and contaminate the chew.
Regarding the order of the method steps in claim 1; Tepper, Sweet, Dog Chews Rawhide and Axelrod do not disclose the same order of steps as claimed in the instant application. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV C). Given that Tepper, Sweet, Dog Chews Rawhide and Axelrod provides all of the method steps to produce a chewable article for dogs as claimed, the claimed order of steps is not considered to provide unexpected results.
Regarding the language of claim 2 “wherein said final product of the process (of claim1) comprises leather scrapings formatted in a roll or donut,” Tepper’s fleshing in a fleshing machine to remove tissue, and removal of hair by a dehairing machine [0057] is considered to meet the claim limitation of producing leather scrapings. Tepper teaches the animal hide is then cut into strips that are assembled into shapes including retriever rolls and bagels [0066], this meets the claim limitation of “in a roll or donut.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2025 have been fully considered. To the extent they apply to the above rejections they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 1, it is noted that one skilled in the art (or more basically anyone, hopefully including anyone examining the application) would be able to ascertain, between two surfaces of a strip, which one is the rougher, which is what is disclosed in the claimed invention. Thus, it is believed that the term would be known in the art and would not be indefinite. Remarks p5.
This argument is not persuasive. The term “roughest” in claim 1 line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “roughest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill would not be able to determine which side of the processed raw hide should be placed upwards in the method step of claim 1. There are many ways to measure roughness in the art, by touch comparison, stylus profilometry, optical profilometry, atomic force microscopy, etc. Neither the claims nor the specification disclose the means for comparing roughness.
Applicant argues the corresponding foreign application has been granted in Brazil. Remarks pp5-6.
This argument is not persuasive. The disposition of claims in a patent application in one country has no direct bearing on the disposition of the same claims in another country. Examiners at the US Patent and Trademark Office are not bound by decisions of other countries, as there are no reciprocal patent rights. The merits of the pending claims are the basis for the determination of patentability.
Applicant argues it should also be noted that, in addition to solving technical problems not solved by the prior art, the claimed subject matter provides a process for obtaining a veterinary product that contributes to the strengthening of the muscles of the mouth, neck and front limbs; cleaning of teeth and removal of tartar; also promoting recreation to the animal. Remarks p7.
This argument is not persuasive. Applicant presents no argument or evidence that the rawhide pet chews of the prior art do not provide these advantages to the animal.
Applicant argues Tepper distances itself from the claimed invention by providing appeal-enhancing agents and colors with the pet chews while the invention of the instant claims is free from these agents. Remarks pp8-9.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally the claims are drawn to a process “comprising” the instantly claimed method steps, which allows for the addition of other steps in the prior art. Such as those taught by Tepper to enhance the appeal of the rawhide.
Applicant argues Sweet discloses methods of preservation of hides where the key to quality preservation is dependent on control of the water activity of the hide to prevent and/or delay both microbial and enzymatic reactions while the instant invention provides a process of obtaining a snack-type chewable article for dogs where the article is an attractive snack for dogs and is free from potentially harmful appeal-enhancing agents. Remarks p9.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally the claims are drawn to a process “comprising” the instantly claimed method steps, which allows for the addition of other steps in the prior art. Such as those taught by Sweet with respect to microbial and enzymatic degradation. Also the instant claims do not recite limitations with regard to providing an attractive and natural snack for dogs free from potentially harmful appeal-enhancing agents.
Applicant argues that Dog Chews Rawhide discloses additional steps such as coloring and flavoring the rawhide which are not instantly claimed because the instant invention provides an attractive and natural snack for dogs free from potentially harmful appeal-enhancing agents. Remarks pp9-10.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally the claims are drawn to a process “comprising” the instantly claimed method steps, which allows for the addition of other steps in the prior art. Such as those taught by Dog Chews Rawhide with respect to color and flavor. Also the instant claims do not recite limitations with regard to providing an attractive and natural snack for dogs free from potentially harmful appeal-enhancing agents.
Applicant argues Axelrod describes a process entirely different from the one claimed in the present invention because it is a process that uses different chemical compositions aiming to provide a highly porous product. Therefore Axelrod does not solve the same technical problem as solved by the instant invention. Remarks pp10-11.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally the claims are drawn to a process “comprising” the instantly claimed method steps, which allows for the addition of other steps in the prior art. Such as those taught by Axelrod with respect to porosity.
Applicant argues no possible combination of the references would lead one skilled in the art to the claimed invention because the prior art includes method steps drawn to the inclusion of colors, flavorings, glues or resins while the instant claims are drawn to a product that is attractive even without dyes, flavoring, glues or resins. Applicant argues It should also be noted that although the absence of dyes, flavoring, glues or resins in the chewable article (dependent claim 2) has not been claimed, it is noted, when analyzing the content of claim 1, that, in none of the steps, these components are added, which shows their absence in the product, which is an important technical advantage in relation to the state of the art, which also corroborates the non-obviousness of the subject matter. Remarks pp12-13.
This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above the claims are drawn to a process “comprising” the instantly claimed method steps, which allows for the addition of other steps in the prior art. Such as those including color, flavor and glues and resins.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an article free of dyes, flavoring, glues or resins) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE GLIMM whose telephone number is (571)272-2839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:30-6:30 ET.
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.
/C.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793