Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/365,651

Novel System and Method for Finishing Cattle for Whole Grind Primal Cut Processing and a Lean Product Produced Thereby

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 01, 2021
Examiner
DIOU BERDECIA, LUIS EUGENIO
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Burns Farms LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
45%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
52%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 45% of resolved cases
45%
Career Allow Rate
23 granted / 51 resolved
-19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
79
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.1%
+13.1% vs TC avg
§102
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 51 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 3/16/26 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application. Claim Status Claims 1-4 are currently pending in this US patent application. Claims 1-2 and 4 are currently under examination. Claim 3 was previously withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation in step d) of slaughtering the calf “regardless of a weight of the calf”, and claim 2 has been amended to include the limitation in step d) of slaughtering the yearling “regardless of a weight of the yearling”. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farm Credit of the Virginias [From birth to steak, March 30, 2018], in view of Gutkin et al. [RU 2145164 C1], hereinafter Gutkin, and evidenced by Agrilife.org [Beef cattle bovine, 2015], hereinafter Agrilife, and Todd Elliot [Quora, At what age should cows be slaughtered for the best quality beef?, 2019], hereinafter Todd. Regarding claims 1(a-c, e)-2(ii-iii) and 4, Farm Credit of the Virginias teaches: a method for producing a ground beef product, the method comprising the steps of: Facilitating the birth of a calf [Calves, bullets 1-6]; Weaning the calf when calf reach a weaning age of approximately 9 months [Weaning, bullet 1]; Finishing the calf after weaning (equivalent to backgrounded for several months after weaning feeding forage), until the calf reach approximately one year (about 12 months of age) of age [Weaning, bullet 3-4]; Processing the slaughtered calf to produce the ground beef product, wherein the processing the slaughtered calf comprise slaughtering the calf to produce a carcass, deboning the beef carcass (trim away bone), [Processing, bullet 3], and whole-grinding the beef carcass (the carcass will be cut into ground beef), [Processing, bullet 4]. PNG media_image1.png 408 234 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 368 230 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 476 234 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 432 234 media_image4.png Greyscale Further regarding claim 4, where the carcass comprise a plurality of primal cuts, Farm Credit of the Virginias teach the carcass may be cut into steaks, roasts and other cuts and shows various types of primal cuts (see annotated Figure below, found above Processing and bullet 4 in the attached PDF). PNG media_image5.png 240 388 media_image5.png Greyscale Farm Credit of the Virginias does not explicitly teach: After the calf reaches approximately one year of age and regardless of a weight of the calf/yearling, slaughtering the calf/yearling, as required by instant claims 1(d), and 2(d,i). Gutkin teaches a method for producing a beef/meat product [Gutkin, Abstract], the method comprising the step of determining the optimum/desired slaughter age of young calves/cattle [Gutkin, Abstract, p.3, par.4]. The method determines the readiness of young calves for slaughter based on the protein to fat ratio, which is the optimal indicator of the biological maturity of meat (i.e., meat composition with a protein to fat ratio in the range of 1:0.65-0.75) rather than the weight of the animal [Gutkin, p.1, par. 4; p.2, par.1-2]. The disclosure teaches different breeds of beef calves such as Aberdeen Angus, Kazakh White-Headed, Shorthorn, and Santa Gertrude having an optimum/desired slaughter age (age ranges from 8-12 months and 12-15.5 months for Aberdeen Angus, Kazakh White-Headed, and Shorthorn breeds, and age ranges from 6-12 months and 12-15 months for Santa Gertrude breed) having optimal maturity of meat (protein to fat ratio in the ranges of from 1:0.65-0.75) [Gutkin, p.4, par.1; Tables 1-2]. For example; Aberdeen Angus at age ranges of 8-12 months and 12-15.5 months have an optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio in the ranges of from 1:0.63-0.97 [Gutkin, p.4, par.1; Table 1]; Kazakh White-Headed at age ranges of 8-12 months and 12-15.5 months have an optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio in the ranges of from 1:0.55-0.65 [Gutkin, Table 1]; Shorthorn at age ranges of 8-12 months and 12-15.5 months have an optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio in the ranges of from 1:0.55-0.69 [Gutkin, Table 1]; and Santa Gertrude at age ranges of 6-12 months and 12-15 months have an optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio in the ranges of from 1:0.51-0.66 [Gutkin, Table 2]. Therefore, because different breeds show the desired optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio encompassing the ranges of from 1:0.65-0.75 at the age of 12 months (1 year or yearling, see Agrilife, p.6, Terminology for the term yearling being used for cattle that is 1-2 years of age), it is reasonable to conclude that Gutkin teaches slaughtering the calf/yearling regardless of the weight of the calf/yearling an based on the desired optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio. Moreover, Todd teaches that some people prefer to slaughter the calf at younger age and less weight compared to other feed lot beef which is slaughter at 1,300 pounds or more (older calf). This produce a longer carcass and more cuts of steaks from younger age calves with no loss of flavor or tenderness [Todd, p.2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slaughter the calf/yearling at approximately one year of age and regardless of the weight of the calf/yearling an based on the desired optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio as taught by Gutkin and slaughter the calf at younger age and less weight than traditionally feed lot beef slaughtering methods that slaughter at older age and heavier weights as evidenced by Todd in the method of Farm Credit of the Virginias, because Gutkin teach that the method of his invention provides data in the form of control tables that are used for the slaughtering of cattle at the desired optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio, which may be used at large industrial complexes for cattle fattening, to timely correct the course of fattening, and identify the livestock that has reached biological maturity of the meat and is ready for slaughter [Gutkin, p.3, par.7], and because Todd evidences that slaughtering the calf at younger age and less weight produce a longer carcass and more cuts of steaks from younger age calves with no loss of flavor or tenderness [Todd, p.2]. Further it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to slaughter the calf/yearling at approximately one year of age and regardless of the weight of the calf/yearling an based on the desired optimal maturity of meat or protein to fat ratio as taught by Gutkin because Gutkin teaches that this would have the advantage of providing economic efficiency for predicting timing of fattening and slaughter of young animals for meat by reducing the timing of fattening, saving all types of feed and labor costs [Gutkin, p.4, par.4]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant arguments are directed to the prior art of Long [US 20040040513 A1], which is no longer being relied upon in view of the amendment of claims 1 and 2 which requires slaughtering the animal at approximately 1 year of age regardless of the weight. 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 LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30. 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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. /L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792 /ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2021
Application Filed
May 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 01, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
May 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12568989
COCOA AND/OR MALT BEVERAGE PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557936
Method for preparing a beverage, preferably milk froth or hot milk
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12507722
METHOD FOR ROASTING COFFEE BEANS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12460237
TREHALOSE-RICH YEAST EXTRACT
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12426605
SYSTEM FOR MOULDING COMPRISING A MOULD MEMBER, A METHOD FOR MOULDING AND A METHOD FOR CONFIGURING A MOULD MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
45%
Grant Probability
52%
With Interview (+7.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 51 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month