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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-25
Withdrawn claims:
1-11
Previously canceled claims:
None
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
12
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
12-25
Currently rejected claims:
12-25
Allowed claims:
None
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 12 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod (US 2018/0168127 A1), and further in view of Davison (US 2003/0104020 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Axelrod teaches a method of forming a microporous animal chew (a method of forming a microporous animal chew, [0005]), comprising:
providing a wet rawhide sheet having a thickness in the range of 0.5 millimeters to 4.0 millimeters including water present at 60 % by weight of the total weight of the wet rawhide sheet or greater (providing a wet rawhide sheet including water present, [0005], while wet (water level greater than 60%), thickness is in range of 0.5 mm to 4.0mm, [0018], where both ranges match the respective claimed ranges of “0.5 millimeters to 4.0 millimeters” and “at 60 %...by weight…or greater”);
piercing said wet rawhide sheet with pins and forming micropores in said rawhide sheet (rawhide sheet pierced with pins to form micropores, [0005] where the pins may be hollow, ([0019]), wherein said micropores have a largest linear cross-sectional length in the range of 1 micrometer to 2,000 micrometers (largest linear cross-sectional length in the range of 1 micrometer to 2,000 micrometers, [0005], which matches the claimed range of “1 micrometer to 2,000 micrometers”) and are arranged to provide a pore density in the range of 1 to 100 pores per square centimeter (provide a pore density in the range of 1 to 100 pores per square centimeter, [0005], which matches the claimed range of “1 to 100 pores per square centimeter”);
partially filling said micropores (a support additive may be loaded into the micropores through pins that are hollow and injected upon pore formation; [0023]); and
drying said wet rawhide sheet, wherein said dried rawhide sheet includes 1 to 20 % by weight water of the total weight of the dried rawhide sheet (the rawhide sheet is dried to include includes 1 to 20 % by weight water of the total weight of the rawhide sheet, [0005], which matches the claimed range of “1 to 20 % by weight water”).
Axelrod does not teach filling the hollow pins with chitosan and injecting chitosan into the micropores.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Davison teaches using chitosan on animal chews for oral care in pets ([0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of making a rawhide chew as taught by Axelrod with the use of chitosan taught by Davison as the additive that is inserted during pore formation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Davison teaches that chitosan provides gum and teeth benefits ([0168]). Although Davison teaches applying chitosan to the outside of a pet chew, Axelrod teaches that the micropores extend through the rawhide sheet ([0004]). Therefore, it logically follows that the inside of the micropore can be considered a surface of the rawhide chew. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that filling the micropores of the rawhide chew disclosed by Axelrod with chitosan would bring the chitosan in contact with the animal’s teeth as the animal bites into the rawhide.
Regarding claim 13, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches further comprising removing a portion of water present in said wet rawhide sheet prior to drying (dried or further processed before drying step, [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches further comprising stretching said wet rawhide sheet prior to drying (drying occurs under tension [0024], tension in this instance is synonymous with stretching). If the rawhide is dried under tension, it necessarily follows that the rawhide would have been put under tension prior to drying occurring.
Regarding claim 15, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches wherein said wet rawhide sheet is provided between a carrier plate and a receiving plate, wherein said carrier plate carries said pins, and piercing said wet rawhide sheet includes forcing said plates together (Fig. 3, carrier plate 306 carries pins 304 and receiving plate 308 is where pins are received, [0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 15 as described above. Axelrod also teaches wherein said receiving plate includes holes to receive said pins therein (Fig. 3, receiving plate 308 may contain a plurality of holes 310, [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 15 as described above. Axelrod also teaches further comprising compressing said wet rawhide sheet between said plates to remove at least a portion of water present in said wet rawhide sheet (plates may come together and squeeze excess water from hide, [0021]).
Regarding claim 18, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches wherein said wet rawhide sheet is fed into calendar rollers, wherein one of said rollers includes said pins and said pins pierce said wet rawhide sheet as said pins bear against a bearing roll (Pins are forced through rawhide utilizing equipment that can provide sufficient pressure to pierce the rawhide; example includes calendaring rolls, [0021]. Fig. 4, calendaring equipment 400 with a series of rolls, one roll is bearing roll 404 and one roll is pin roll 406, [0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 18 as described above. Axelrod also teaches further comprising compressing said wet rawhide sheet between a squeeze roll and said bearing roll and removing a portion of said water present in said wet rawhide sheet (Fig.4 squeeze roll 410, which is preloaded against the bearing roll 404, may be used to remove excess water, [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 19 as described above. Axelrod also teaches further comprising stretching said wet rawhide sheet prior to drying by passing said wet rawhide sheet between tenter rolls (Fig. 4, tenter rolls 412, 414, 416, and 418 to apply tension, [0024]). If the rawhide is dried under tension, it necessarily follows that the rawhide would have been put under tension prior to drying occurring.
Regarding claim 21, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches further comprising filling said micropores with a support additive prior to drying (pores are filled with support additives which are retained in the micropores upon drying, [0026]). If the support additive is retained due to shrinking of rawhide during drying, it necessarily follows that the additives must be applied prior to the drying step.
Regarding claim 22, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches wherein said pins pierce said wet rawhide sheet at an angle α relative to a surface of said wet rawhide, wherein α is in the range of 10 to 80 degrees (the angle of micropores may be in the range of 10 to 80 degrees [0024], which matches the claimed range of “in the range of 10 to 80 degrees.”).
Regarding claim 23, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 22 as described above. Axelrod also teaches wherein said micropores exhibit a length that is greater than the thickness of said wet rawhide sheet (Fig. 5, length l greater than thickness t, [0024]).
Regarding claim 24, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches wherein said wet rawhide sheet includes a rawhide resin composition (rawhide can be rawhide resin composition, [0016]).
Regarding claim 25, Axelrod as modified by Davison teach all elements of claim 12 as described above. Axelrod also teaches wherein said dried rawhide has a thickness of 0.1 millimeters to 3.0 millimeters (a lower water levels, sheet has a preferred thickness of 0.1 to 3.0 mm [0015], which matches the claimed range of “thickness of 0.1 millimeters to 3.0 millimeters.”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12 – 21, 23 – 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 – 19 & 21 – 23 of copending Application No. 15/843,680 (reference application) in view of Davison et al. (2003/0104020 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12 – 25 of the instant application are directed to a method of forming a microporous animal chew using rawhide. Claims 10 – 19 & 21 – 23 of the reference application are also drawn to a method of forming a microporous animal chew using rawhide. However, claim 12 of the instant application also includes partially filling the micropores in the rawhide with chitosan. Although the reference application is silent to the use of chitosan on the rawhide, Davison teaches using chitosan on animal chews for oral care in pets ([0168]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of making a rawhide chew as taught by Axelrod with the use of chitosan taught by Davison as the additive that is inserted during pore formation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Davison teaches that chitosan provides gum and teeth benefits ([0168]). Although Davison teaches applying chitosan to the outside of a pet chew, Axelrod teaches that the micropores extend through the rawhide sheet ([0004]). Therefore, it logically follows that the inside of the micropore can be considered a surface of the rawhide chew. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that filling the micropores of the rawhide chew disclosed by Axelrod with chitosan would bring the chitosan in contact with the animal’s teeth as the animal bites into the rawhide.
Claim 22 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 15/843,680 (reference application) in view of Davison et al. (2003/0104020 A1), as applied to instant claim 12 above, and further in view of Axelrod et al. (US 2018/0168127 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of the instant application is drawn to the method of forming a microporous animal chew using rawhide of claim 12 (for the purposes of examination, claim 22 is assumed to be dependent on claim 12 as stated earlier) with the additional limitation regarding the angle of the micropores. The claims of the reference application are silent to the angle of the micropores; however, Axelrod et al. teaches that the angle of micropores may be in the range of 10 to 80 degrees [0024], which matches the claimed range of “in the range of 10 to 80 degrees.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of making the animal chew using rawhide as taught by the reference application in view of Davison with the specification of the angles of the micropores as taught in the disclosure of Axelrod et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because, as shown in Axelrod et al. [0024], providing the micropores at an angle increases the surface area to volume ratio, which would then make the rawhide chew more easily digestible.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 12-25 over Axelrod and Davison: Applicant’s arguments filed September 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that because Davison discloses that chitosan is applied to the outside of the chew, on of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to fill the micropores with chitosan (Remarks, p. 6, ¶ 4- p. 8, ¶ 1).
This argument has been considered. However, as described in the rejection of claim 12 above, Axelrod teaches that the micropores extend through the rawhide sheet ([0004]). Therefore, it logically follows that the inside of the micropore can be considered a surface of the rawhide chew. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that filling the micropores of the rawhide chew disclosed by Axelrod with chitosan would bring the chitosan in contact with the animal’s teeth as the animal’s teeth puncture the rawhide chew.
The rejections of claims 12-25 have been maintained herein.
Claim Rejections – Double Patenting of claims 12-21 and 23-25 over copending Application no. 15/843,680, claims 10-23 in view of Davison and claim 22 over copending Application no. 15/843,680, claim 10 in view of Davison and Axelrod.
Applicant argued that for the same reasons listed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, the double patenting rejection of Axelrod in view of Davison is not proper (Remarks, p. 8, ¶ 3-5).
For the same reasons stated above, Axelrod in view of Davison is considered sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, the double patenting rejections of claims 12-25 are maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p, F 8:00a-12:00p.
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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793