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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/13/2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3 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 has been amended to recite the seal has a specific gravity of 1.8 or higher. Written support is only found for the “fluororesin” to have a specific gravity of 1.8 or higher at ¶ 13 and for the livestock sensor itself to have a specific gravity of 1.8 or higher at ¶ 84. There does not appear to be written disclosure for the seal generically or a perfluororubber possessing the specific gravity characteristic at issue. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
As claim 3 depends from claim 1, it is rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallast (AT505607 A1) in view of Cho (JP2018-113902A) as evidenced by Plastics International (PTFE Information). As the cited AT and JP publications are in a non-English language, machine-translated versions of the publications will be cited to (attached).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Fallast teaches probes/sensors for livestock (Page 1) comprising housing with an interior space having disposed therein a signal processing unit “210” connected to a battery “212” (Figure 7; Bottom of Page 9 and Page 10). The sensor comprises seals / sealing rings to protect against ingress of acidic rumen from entering the interior space of the sensor (Pages 2 and 9; Figure 4), construed as gaskets / o-rings / packing that prevents a body fluid containing organic acid in livestock from entering the interior space of the sensor.
Fallast differs from the subject matter claimed in that resin or rubber free of chlorine atom is not described as particular materials. Cho is also directed toward sensors for rumen liquids of livestock (Abstract; ¶ 1). Cho teaches it was known in the art fluororesins such as polytetrafluoroethylene/Teflon are capable of forming protective sealing films that do not decompose with respect to rumen fluid (¶ 26, 29, 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fluororesins such as polytetrafluoroethylene/Teflon for the seals of Fallast because such materials would be resistant to decomposition within rumen fluid as taught by Cho. As evidenced by Plastics International, polytetrafluoroethylene/Teflon has a density / specific gravity of roughly 2.13-2.22. Since the same materials and same densities are present, it stands to reason such seals would intrinsically facilitate submerging of the livestock sensor in the body fluid in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallast (AT505607 A1) in view of Underwood (US 2016/0289399 A1) as evidenced by DuPont (Kalrez Information). As the cited AT publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to (attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Fallast teaches probes/sensors for livestock (Page 1) comprising housing with an interior space having disposed therein a signal processing unit “210” connected to a battery “212” (Figure 7; Bottom of Page 9 and Page 10). The sensor comprises seals / sealing rings to protect against ingress of acidic rumen from entering the interior space of the sensor (Pages 2 and 9; Figure 4), construed as gaskets / o-rings / packing that prevents a body fluid containing organic acid in livestock from entering the interior space of the sensor.
Fallast differs from the subject matter claimed in that resin or rubber free of chlorine atom is not described as particular materials. Underwood teaches perfluoropolymer materials (Abstract) suitable for use within o-rings / gaskets / seals that are subject to corrosive environments or extreme operating conditions (¶ 3, 7, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the perfluoropolymer materials of Underwood within the seals of Fallast because doing so would provide seals that are resistive to corrosive environments and operating conditions as taught by Underwood. Underwood describes embodiments using Kalrez perfluoroelastomers (¶ 25). As evidenced by DuPont, Kalrez elastomers generally have densities / specific gravities spanning 1.9-2.0 (Page 2). Since the same materials and same densities are present, it stands to reason such seals would intrinsically facilitate submerging of the livestock sensor in the body fluid in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 3, Underwood teaches the perfluoroelastomers are terpolymers of tetrafluoroethylene, perfluoroalkylvinyl ether, and perfluorinated curesite monomer (¶ 24), construed as a tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) copolymer.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallast (AT505607 A1) in view of Parker (Parker O-Ring Handbook).
Regarding Claim 1, Fallast teaches probes/sensors for livestock (Page 1) comprising housing with an interior space having disposed therein a signal processing unit “210” connected to a battery “212” (Figure 7; Bottom of Page 9 and Page 10). The sensor comprises seals / sealing rings to protect against ingress of acidic rumen from entering the interior space of the sensor (Pages 2 and 9; Figure 4), construed as gaskets / o-rings / packing that prevents a body fluid containing organic acid in livestock from entering the interior space of the sensor.
Fallast differs from the subject matter claimed in that resin or rubber free of chlorine atom is not described as particular materials. Parker describes known characteristics/materials used for O-rings, particularly with respect to chemical compatibility (Sections II and VII). Parker notes perfluoroelastomers (FFKM) are known in the art as having especially good chemical resistance, including with inorganic and organic acids (Section 2.2.14 of Page 2-8; Table of Page 2-12), such as low organic acids of acetic acid and propionic acid (Pages 7-2 and 7-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize perfluoroleastomers as seals within the sensors of Fallast because such elastomers exhibit excellent chemical resistance, particularly with respect to acidic environments as taught by Parker. Parker teaches FFKMs are known to be tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) copolymers (Page 2-8). As there is no perceivable difference between the FFKM materials taught by Parker and those set forth within the specification, such materials are seen to intrinsically possess a specific gravity of 1.8 or higher in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The same holds for the ability of such seals to facilitate submerging of the livestock sensor in bodily fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the written description rejection, Applicant argues ¶ 70 of the specification describes the perfluororubber as being of “high specific gravity” and ¶ 13 indicates it is desirable that fluororesin have a specific gravity of 1.8 or higher. Applicant urges one of ordinary skill would understand the 1.8 or higher value applies to both fluororesin and perfluororubber. Applicant also reasons that since a seal is a component of the sensor, it is implied the sensor would have the particular specific gravity of 1.8 or higher.
This is not found persuasive. The phrase “high specific gravity” does not convey a particular numerical value associated with density. As stated in the rejection, ¶ 70 and 84 only associate the particular “1.8 or higher” range with either fluororesin or to the whole sensor. In contrast, claim 1 indicates the seal generically (which only “comprises” fluororesin or perfluororubber) has the particular density value. The Examiner fails to find any written support for the seals generically to possess the particular specific gravity range. The Examiner fails to find any written support for a perfluororubber to possess the particular specific gravity range. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant generally argues Cho’s sealing material is in the form of films applied to electrode surfaces as opposed to a packing/o-ring/gasket. This is not found persuasive. Fallast unambiguously teaches seals in the form of packing/o-ring/gasket. Cho teaches polytetrafluoroethylene was a well known sealing material that is resistant to rumen liquids of livestock. Informed by the teachings of Cho, one of ordinary skill would find sufficient motivation to utilize the sealing materials of Cho in the packing/o-ring/gaskets of Fallast.
Applicant further argues Cho teaches a different livestock sensor structure than that claimed. This is not found persuasive as such features are met by combination with Fallast. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to Underwood, Applicant argues Underwood does not describe livestock sensors in particular. This is not found persuasive as such features are met by combination with Fallast. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues there is also no description of rumen fluids in Underwood in particular. This is not found persuasive. Perfluoroelastomers are widely known chemically resistant materials as is indicated by Underwood. See also the relevant teachings of Parker with respect to FFKM materials. Underwood teaches perfluoropolymer materials (Abstract) suitable for use within o-rings / gaskets / seals that are subject to corrosive environments or extreme operating conditions (¶ 3, 7, 18). Rumen fluids are acidic / corrosive environments. Thus, informed by the teachings of Underwood, one of ordinary skill would find sufficient motivation to utilize the materials therein.
Applicant argues the highly acidic / corrosive environment alluded to by Underwood is a generic statement and Underwood alludes to numerous applications such as semiconductors and aerospace industries. The examiner agrees that perfluoroelastomers are widely known chemically resistant materials that find application in numerous industries where such chemical resistance is required. See Parker. Informed by the teachings of Underwood, one of ordinary skill would find sufficient motivation to utilize the materials therein within the sensors of Fallast with a reasonable expectation that such materials would be resistant toward the acidic environment in rumen fluids. Applicant has failed to provide any explanation or evidence as to how or why one of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of success in using such widely used conventional materials for their intended purpose (chemically resistant sealing, particular in acidic environments).
Applicant argues Fallast/Underwood fail to describe using a specific gravity of 1.8 to facilitate submerging in body fluids. Applicant asserts the specific gravity is “not merely a material property”. This is not found persuasive. In contrast to what is stated within applicant’s remarks, specific gravity is a material property that is met by the prior art. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV). This notwithstanding the concept of adjusting specific gravity for facilitating submerging livestock sensors is widely known. See for instance Col. 4, Lines 36-39 and Col. 8, Lines 44-46 of Brune (U.S. Pat. No. 5,984,875).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights