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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed December 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
16, 19-21, 25-30, 34-42, 44-45
Withdrawn claims:
25-30, 34-42
Previously canceled claims:
1-15, 17, 22-24, 31-33, 43
Newly canceled claims:
18
Amended claims:
16, 19
New claims:
44-45
Claims currently under consideration:
16, 19-21, 44-45
Currently rejected claims:
16, 19-21, 44-45
Allowed claims:
None
Drawings
Figure 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because it fails to show the circular opening of the second die as described in the specification (p. 8, lines 17-22). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16, 19, 20, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnvos (US 2017/0290298 A1)(IDS Reference filed 10/21/2022) as evidenced by Matveev (Matveev, Yu.I, et al. “The plasticizing effect of water on proteins, polysaccharides and their mixtures. Glassy state of biopolymers, food and seeds”. Food Hydrocolloids, Vol. 14, Issue 5, p. 425-437, published September 2000 [accessed online March 24, 2025]) and further in view of Zaleski (US 2020/0008432 A1) and Chen (US 2019/0191742 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Barnvos teaches a method of making an animal chew comprising mixing protein, starch, and water ([0024]-[0025]), where water is a known liquid plasticizer. Barnvos also teaches extruding the mixture through a die manifold ([0315]). Evidence to support that water is a liquid plasticizer is provided by Matveev. Matveev teaches that water is the most important plasticizer in biological and food systems (p. 1, col. 1, ¶ 1).
Barnvos does not teach producing two physically separate extrudates or wherein at least one of the at least two physically separated openings have a coil shape that coils at least 270[Symbol font/0xB0].
Regarding producing two physically separate extrudates, Zaleski teaches a nozzle for extruding dough through two or more nozzle openings that are separate and that as the multiple strands are extruded, the strands are bonded together ([0034]).
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 the animal chew of Barnvos with the use of a nozzle for extruding dough through two separate nozzles taught by Zaleski. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Regarding wherein at least one of the at least two physically separated openings has a coil shape that coils at least 270[Symbol font/0xB0], Chen teaches of an edible pet chew (Abstract) made by feeding dough through an extruder with a spiral mold shape ([0061],[0067], Fig. 4). Although Chen does not explicitly state the degree that the coil spirals 270°, Figure 4 shows a spiral shape that has more than at least 360[Symbol font/0xB0] of coil, which falls within the claimed range of “at least 270[Symbol font/0xB0]”.
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 invention of Barnvos to have an extruder with a spiral shaped mold as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Chen teaches that a spiral shape aids in the chewability of the pet chew ([0054]).
Regarding claim 19, The Barnvosdoes not teach wherein at least one of the at least two physically separated openings have a coil shape that coils at least 360[Symbol font/0xB0].
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches of an edible pet chew (Abstract) made by feeding dough through an extruder with a spiral mold shape ([0061],[0067], Fig. 4). Although Chen does not explicitly state the degree that the spiral coils, Figure 4 shows a spiral shape that has more than at least 360[Symbol font/0xB0] of coil, which falls within the claimed range of “at least 360[Symbol font/0xB0]”.
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 invention of Barnvos to have an extruder with a spiral shaped mold as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Chen teaches that a spiral shape aids in the chewability of the pet chew ([0054]).
Regarding claim 20, Barnvos does not teach passing the at least two physically separated extrudates through an opening situated in relation to the die such that as the at least two physically separated extrudates pass through the die and the opening, at least a portion of one of the at least two physically separated extrudates presses against at least a portion of another of the at least two physically separated extrudates that are interlocked as the at least two physically separated extrudates exit the die.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zaleski teaches that as the two or more strands of extrudate exit the nozzle openings 46, the rotating nozzle 14 cases the strands to bond together (i.e., the rotation presses the two extrudates together) ([0034], Fig. 5 and 6).
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 extruder of Barnvos with the two separate openings that produce an extrudate that is then pressed together as taught by Zaleski. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Regarding claim 44, Barnvos teaches that the pet chew comprises 9-17% protein (i.e., crude protein; [0007]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “5-15% crude protein. Barnvos also teaches that the composition comprises 2-6% of a fiber (i.e., crude fiber, [0119]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “5-15% crude fiber”.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 45, Barnvos teaches that the chew will have an integrity that will remain non-consumed for an amount such as 5 minutes or more ([0123]), which matches the claimed range of “at least 5 minutes”. Barnvos also teaches that the chew should be sufficiently digestible so that crumbs can be degraded (i.e., dissolved) in the animal’s gut (i.e., stomach and small intestines) to not risk blockage ([0108]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnvos (US 2017/0290298 A1)(IDS Reference filed 10/21/2022) as evidenced by Matveev (Matveev, Yu.I, et al. “The plasticizing effect of water on proteins, polysaccharides and their mixtures. Glassy state of biopolymers, food and seeds”. Food Hydrocolloids, Vol. 14, Issue 5, p. 425-437, published September 2000 [accessed online March 24, 2025]) and further in view of Zaleski (US 2020/0008432 A1) and Chen (US 2019/0191742 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chatel (US 2008/0089989 A1).
Regarding claim 21, The cited prior art does not teach wherein the die is cone shaped.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chatel teaches of a die plate for extruding food products that is cone shaped ([0006]).
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 extruder of Barnvos with the use of a cone shaped die plate as taught by Chatel. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Response to Arguments
Drawings: Applicant has overcome the objections to Figs. 4, 5, and 6 for being hand drawn by virtue of amendment to the drawings.
With respect to the objection to Fig. 4 for lack of structural detail, Applicant argued that openings 12 and 14 are shows in Fig. 2A and 2B and that the spec sufficiently describes the cone shape (Remarks, p. 7, ¶ 4).
This argument has been considered. However, Fig. 4 does not show the essential detail of the circular opening of element 20. One of ordinary skill would not properly understand the invention because of lack of essential structural details.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 16 and 20 over Barnvos and Zaleski; claims 18 and 19 over Barnvos, Zaleski, and Chen; and claim 21 over Barnvos, Zaleski, and Chatel: Applicant' s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent that the claims as presently amended would not be anticipated/obvious in view of Barnvos and Zaleski. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Barnvos, Zaleski, and Chen.
Applicant's arguments as related to claim 16 were determined to be unpersuasive as detailed previously herein. Examiner further maintains that the dependent claims are properly rejected in light of the cited combinations of prior art as described in the claim rejections.
The rejections of claims 16 and 18-21 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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