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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 28/12/2025.
Claims 1 and 40-64 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13-28 are newly cancelled. Claims 40-64 are newly presented. Claims 1 and 40-64 are hereby examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “a center of each portion” should read “a center of each of the one or more portions”; and line 7, “the holes of each of the portions” should read “the holes of each of the one or more portions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 40-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a thickness for the one or more portion being 0.1- 5 cm, measured in a cross-section direction of the axis. The examiner does not find support for such a limitation. To this end, Fig. 2 along with page 10, line 4-7 of the instant specification appears to suggest that the thickness is measured in the longitudinal axis direction (see part 160 of Fig. 2, and page 10 line 5 which says that 160 is 0.1-5 cm).
Claims 40-59 ultimately depend from claim 1, and therefore necessarily incorporate the written description deficiency therein.
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.
Claims 1, 40-59 and 60-64 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each individual portion of the one or more portions has a maximum thickness measured in a cross-section direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis from about 0.1 cm to about 5 cm ”. It is unclear what the limitation means. In particular, it is unclear what individual portion of the one or more portions means. The examiner further notes that the instant specification does not have support for such a recitation. Clarification is required.
Claims 40-59 ultimately depend from claims 1, and therefore necessarily incorporate the indefinite subject matter therein. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 depends from claim 1 and recites that the pet chew comprises two or portions. It is unclear whether the two or more portions limits the one or more portions of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, claim 46 is interpreted to mean that the one or more portions of claim 1 comprises two or more portions that are substantially the same in shape, size and thickness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 recites that the two or more portions are substantially the same in thickness. It is unclear how the thickness of the one or more portions is measured. Is it the thickness in the longitudinal axis direction, or the thickness measured in the cross-action direction? Clarification is required.
Claim 60 recites that the one or more portions have a thickness measured in a cross-section direction from about 0.1-5 cm. It is unclear whether the cross-section direction is for the chew stick. If that is the case, the examine submits that the claim might be subjected to 35 USC 112 (a) rejection, since there is no support in the disclosure as originally filed for a limitation that a thickness of 0.1-5 cm for the portions is measured in a cross-section direction of the longitudinal axis direction of the major body. Clarification is required.
Claims 61-64 depend from claim 60 and therefore necessarily incorporate the indefinite subject matter therein. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 40-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbour US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0181449 A1 (cited in the IDS submitted 01/06/2023, hereinafter referred to as Harbour) in view of Teconchuk US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0008389 A1 (cited in the IDS submitted 07/18/2024, hereinafter referred to as Teconchuk) and Xu US Patent No. 8,776,728 (hereinafter referred to as Xu).
Regarding claims 1, 40-43, 47-49, 57-60 and 62, Harbour teaches a pet chew (e.g., a pet treat) comprising a chew stick that comprises rawhide or pizzle that has a longitudinal axis, a first end, a second end, and a major body (0013; 0036; Fig. 7), and one or more portions that are formed by a plant base or a meat base disposed onto the chew stick such that the pet chew gives the appearance of a shish kabob (0013, the portions are positioned onto a chew stick); wherein the portions have a thickness of between 0.64 and 3.18 cm (e.g., between 0.25 inch and 1.5 inch, para. 0053); wherein each of the portions has a hole (Fig. 7 and 0052, the portions are wrapped around the chew stick); wherein the chew stick is substantially straight (Fig. 7) and the major body of the chew stick has a substantially uniform cross-section through the length of the major body (Fig. 7). The thickness as disclosed by Harbour falls within the ranges as recited in instant claims 1, 57 and 60, and overlaps with range as recited in claims 58-59. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Harbour teaches that the portion are positioned onto the chew stick but is silent regarding that the portions are rotatable around the longitudinal axis or the major body of the chew stick, that the portions are strung onto the chew stick through the holes positioned in approximately the center of the portions, and that the holes of the portions are larger in size than the diameter or cross-section of the major body. Harbour is further silent regarding that the two ends of the chew stick are larger in size than the diameter of the chew stick major body or the holes of the portions.
Teconchuk in the same field of endeavor teaches a pet chew comprising a chew stick (e.g., a shaft) that comprises rawhide or compressed proteinaceous materials that has a longitudinal axis, a first end, a second end, and a major body (0010; Fig. 1; 0040), and one or more portions (e.g., edible treats) disposed onto the chew stick and are retained by two end portions which are larger than the chew stick (0054; Fig. 1, Fig. 6; Fig. 7; 0038-0039; 0043); wherein the one or more portions (e.g., the treats) are cylindrical shape or other shapes and have a central through hole, and are capable of slidably engaging through the entire length of the shaft (0038; 0044; 0054). Teconchuk further teaches that the pet chew could provide mental stimulation for animals, are capable of keeping animals occupied for significant lengths of time, etc.(0010). Reasonably the holes in the treats are larger than the diameters of the chew stick such that the sliding of the treats along the shaft can be implemented, and the treats are rotatable around the major body since they are capable of sliding through the length and have a center hole.
Xu in the same field of endeavor teaches a pet chew that is a twisted (e.g., rolled) knotted sheets of rawhide resembling a bone shape, and to make the bone shape, a sheet of wet rawhide is rolled into a cylindrical form and while the rawhide is still wet, two ends are knotted to similar animal joint. Then the rolled and knotted rawhide is dried and hardened (column 1, line 26-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Harbour by configuring the portions of Harbour such that the holes thereon are in the center, are strung onto the chew stick, are capable of slidably engaging through the entire length of the stick and rotating around the major body. Doing so would help to promote the mental stimulation for animals, and to keep animals occupied for longer time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Harbour by twisting a rawhide sheet into a cylindrical form and forming two end knots, or knotting a soft pizzle at the both end in the process of making the pet chew. Doing so would result in a chew stick that resembles a bone. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size of the knots so as to ensure they are larger than the diameter of the holes on the portions to ensure that the portions do not slide off the pet chew stick.
Regarding claims 44-45, Harbor teaches that although the portions are generally made cylindrical in shape, the portions can be made with other shapes and conformations. For example, the geometrical shape of the base of the cylinder can be selected as desired, such as made round or flat. In addition, the portions can be shaped so as to form, generally round-shaped meat pieces, cubic-shaped meat pieces, cylindrical-shaped meat pieces, polygonal-shaped meat pieces, pyramidshaped meat pieces, heart-shaped meat pieces, flat-wafershaped, or other more complex-shaped meat pieces (0053).
Further, MPEP 2144.04 I states that aesthetic design changes is prima facie case obvious, and MPEP 2144.04 IV. B states that changes in shape is prima facie case obvious.
Regarding claim 46, the examiner submits that disposing two identical portions onto the chew sticks are mere design choice, absent a showing of the criticality associated with having two portions that have different size, thickness and shape. Further, Teconchuk appears to teach that multiple treats are of the same size, shape and thickness (0069; Fig. 11-12).
Regarding claim 50-53 and 63-64, Harbour teaches that the portions comprise a meat such as pork beef, chicken, duck, goat, horse, buffalo, venison, elk, moose, liver, fish, lamb, etc. (0022), a fruit or plant such as apple, apricot, banana, blackberry, artichoke, asparagus, avocado, etc. (0026-0027), and an auxiliary ingredients such as a binding agent, a sugar, an acid, a flavoring, an aroma, a coloring, etc. (0042).
Regarding claims 54-56, Harbour teaches that the pet chew comprises glycerin, lycopene, and caramel coloring (0047; 0031; 0046).
Regarding claim 61, Harbour teaches drying the pet chew at elevated temperature to form a final pet chew (Fig. 6).
Claims 1, 40, 41, 43-45 and 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crabtree US Patent No. 9,339,011 B1 (cited in the IDs submitted 07/18/2024, hereinafter referred to as Crabtree).
Regarding claims 1, 40, 41, 43 and 57-60, Crabtree discloses (column 3, line 41 - column 4, line 67; figures 1-4; claim 1) a pet chew (e.g., a chew piece carrier) comprising a chew stick having a longitudinal axis or a major body, a first end portion and a second end portion (e.g., an elongated rigid shaft, which appears to be straight and have substantially uniform cross-section through a length of the major body, judging from Fig. 2 and 4); and a portion (e.g., a hollow chew piece, which has a hole, and Fig. 3 shows that the hole is approximately in the center of the hollow chew piece) disposed onto the chew stick, wherein the hollow chew piece is rotatable around the longitudinal axis (e.g., the portion is slidable along the axis of the stick as explained in column 4, lines 42-48, thus necessarily the hollow chew piece is strung onto the chew stick through the hole, and are rotatable around the major body), wherein the diameter of the hole is larger than that of the shaft (claim 1; Fig. 3 and column 2, line 54-55), and wherein the end portions have larger cross-section in size than the shaft or the hole (column 4, line 49-58, Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; column 2, line 60-61). Crabtree further teaches disposing/positioning the hollow chew piece onto the chew stick through the holes of the hollow chew piece (column 3, line 58-60).
On the thickness of the hollow chew piece: judging from Fig. 3, the thickness of the hollow chew piece is the difference of D1 (e.g., the exterior diameter of the hollow chew piece, see column 4, line 51-52) and d1 (e.g., the interior diameter of the hollow chew piece). Crabtree teaches that D1 is in a range of 2-3.5 inches and d1 is the in a range of 0.75-2.75 inches (column 4, line 48-52), thus the difference of two overlaps with the ranges as recited in claims 1 and 57-60 (for example, when d1 is 0.75 inch and D1 is 2 inch, the difference is 1.25 inch or 3.2 cm, or when d1 is 2 inch and D1 is 2.5 inch, the difference is 0.5 inch or 1.25 cm, or when d1 is 1.5 inch and D1 is 2 inch, the difference is 0.25 inch or 0.6 cm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claims 44-45, Crabtree teaches a hollow chew piece, which necessarily has a shape (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4). Crabtree is silent regarding that the hollow chew piece has a disk or round shape, however, MPEP 2144.04 I states that aesthetic design changes is prima facie case obvious, and MPEP 2144.04 IV. B states that changes in shape is prima facie case obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection over Harbour as modified by Teconchuk and Xu, applicant argues on page 8, bottom para. of the Remarks that Harbour fails to teach the feature that each of the one or more portions has a hole positioned in approximately a center of each portion.
The argument is considered but found piecemeal. Claim 1 is rejected over Harbour as modified by Teconchuk and Xu, not over Harbour alone. To this end, the feature that that each of the one or more portions has a hole positioned in approximately a center of each portion is taught by Teconchuk.
Applicant argues on page 9 first para. of the Remarks that Teconchuk does not teach the feature that "the hole of each of the portions being larger in size relative to the cross-section of the major body" and the portions are "rotatable around the longitudinal axis and slidable along the major body."
The argument is considered but found not persuasive. Reasonably the holes in the treats of Teconchuk are larger than the diameters of the chew stick such that the sliding of the treats along the shaft can be implemented, and the treats are rotatable around the major body since they are capable of sliding through the length and have a center hole. On the other hand, if the hole of the treat of Teconchuk is not larger than the size of the major body, the treat will not move at all on the stick thus there will be no need for the reference to include the two bigger end portions.
Applicant argues on page 9, 2nd para. that Xu does not teach the feature that the portions with center holes are strung on the chew stick.
The argument is considered but found piecemeal. Claim 1 is rejected over Harbour as modified by Teconchuk and Xu, not over Xu alone. To this end, the feature that the portions with center holes are strung on the chew stick is taught by Teconchuk.
Regarding the rejection over Crabtree alone, applicant argues on page 9 third para. that Crabtree’s piece is designed as a single hollow carrier rather than multiple discrete portions strung on the chew stick.
The argument is considered but not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that claim 1 recites “ one or portion” as opposed to “multiple discrete portions”. As such, Crabtree meets instant claim 1.
Applicant argues on page 9 fourth para. that amened claim 1 specifies “thickness measured in a cross-section direction” which represents a different measurement approach than Crabtree’s diameter-based measurement.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive. The diameter-based measurement as disclosed by Crabtree is actually a measurement that is done in a cross-section direction. See Fig. 3 of Crabtree.
Applicant’s argument over Teconchuk alone is considered but found moot here since the instant office action does not include a 35 USC 103 rejection over Teconchuk alone.
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791