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 .
Response to Amendment
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
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, 3, and 6 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 claims 3 and 6 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 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, 3, and 6, Fallast teaches probes/sensors for livestock (Page 1) comprising seals / sealing rings to protect against ingress of acidic rumen from entering a space that contains sensors/substrate 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 a space that contains sensors/substrate 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, 3, and 6 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 Claims 1 and 6, Fallast teaches probes/sensors for livestock (Page 1) comprising seals / sealing rings to protect against ingress of acidic rumen from entering a space that contains sensors/substrate 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 a space that contains sensors/substrate 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, the combination of references suggests the use of perfluororubber, which satisfies “a resin or a rubber” of claim 1. As claim 3 only serves to further limit the resin option of claim 1, the disclosure of the prior art is still seen to meet the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues use of fluororesin / perfluororubber seals are favorable toward livestock sensor seals owing to their acid-resistance characteristics. This is not found persuasive. Fluororesins are already known suitable materials for livestock sensors (see Cho above). Cho essentially teaches the seals are preferable since they do not decompose with respect to rumen fluid. Underwood teaches it was already well known in the art perfluoroelastomers also exhibit chemical resistance generally associated with fluoropolymers; even indicating such is useful as seals in implants for animal bodies (¶ 18) whereby their usefulness extends to corrosive environments or extreme operating conditions (¶ 3). Thus, the use of such materials would have been obvious in view of the cited art.
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 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