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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Balaz et al [US 4,055,681], as evidenced by Schulze [US 2,690,011] or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Balaz et al, in view of Gumudavelli et al [US 2015/0374014A1] and Kimihiko [JP 2002238469A].
Balaz et al teach a dry-type pet food composition (title) made by extruding, expanding/aerating, cooling, and cutting (Figure 3, #11, 32, 14, 15), cutting the expanded and cooled extrudate with a dicer (Figure 3, #15) such as the dicer of Schulze US 2,690,11 (column 6, line 26); and the product using up to 25% amylaceous ingredients such as cereal grains (column 4, lines 23-43), 4-60% proteinaceous adhesive such as modified wheat gluten (column 3, lines 22-31), and 2-40% plasticizer such as corn syrup or molasses (column 4, lines 10-22) which together provided the claimed 60-90% cereal. Schulze disclosing that the dicer created “small cubes” (column 2, line 34). The act of dicing the extrudate sheet naturally producing uncut surfaces on the top and bottom of the cubes and cut surfaces on the four lateral sides of the cubes of Balaz et al.
The system of Balaz et al would have inherently provided the claimed product properties, including four faces with at least 10% openings, two faces with less than 8% openings, and a cross section opening ratio of 0.4-2; due to the use of the same materials and processing steps as those used by applicant, namely extrusion, expansion, cooling, and cutting (Figure 5 of application).
In the instance that Balaz et al do not inherently possess the claimed properties:
Kimihiko et al teach a pet food product (abstract) made by a system using extrusion, expansion, and cutting (Figure 3), comprising cut surfaces with many openings or voids (Figure 5, #14), an uncut surface with no openings or voids (Figure 5, #12), and the product made by cutting an extrudate after it has expanded and cooled (page 2, paragraph 0008).
Gumudavelli et al teach an aerated pet treat (title) comprising air bubbles which make up at least 10% of the interior matrix of the product (paragraph 0006), the product having a hard crunchy exterior and a squishy spongey interior with bubbles (paragraph 0021), the product made by aerating the mixture (paragraph 0023), and shaping into a cube (paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed opening ratios into the invention of Balaz et al, in view of Kimihiko et al and Gumudavelli et al, since all are directed to pet food products, since Balaz et al already included an expanded/aerated product with cut and uncut surfaces but simply did not mention the amount of openings, since pet food products commonly included air bubbles which make up at least 10% of the interior matrix of the product (paragraph 0006) and the product having a hard crunchy exterior and a squishy spongey interior with bubbles (paragraph 0021) as shown by Gumudavelli et al, since extruded pet food products also commonly included cut surfaces with many openings or voids (Figure 5, #14) and uncut surfaces with no openings or voids (Figure 5, #12) as shown by Kimihiko et al, and since the claimed openings ratios would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the size and type of pet meant to consume the pet food, the types and amounts of ingredients used, the degree of heating in the extruder, the degree of cooling of the extrudate, and/or the desired degree of interior softness and exterior crunchiness in the pet food product of Balaz et al, in view of Kimihiko et al and Gumudavelli et al.
In conclusion, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Balaz et al did not disclose 60-90% cereals. However, Balaz et al clearly taught the product using up to 25% amylaceous ingredients such as cereal grains (column 4, lines 23-43), 4-60% proteinaceous adhesive such as modified wheat gluten (column 3, lines 22-31), and 2-40% plasticizer such as corn syrup or molasses (column 4, lines 10-22) which together provided the claimed 60-90% cereal as wheat and corn are types of cereal.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Langford teaches a puffed pet treat with dense surface areas surrounding an aerated core (Figure 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights