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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/22/2024 has been entered.
Claim 17 is pending and has been considered on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thrift et al. (Applied Animal Sci., vol. 19, p. 329-341, 2003).
Thrift teaches a cross-bred Bos indicus-taurus ungulate animal (p. 329-331, 1st full parag., Potential factors contributing section).
Thus, the reference anticipates the claimed subject matter.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the claimed product is the same or obvious from a product in the prior art (i.e., the product disclosed in the cited reference), the claim is unpatentable even though the reference product was made by a different process. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be identical with or slightly different than the claimed product-by-process, rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and/or 35 U.S.C 103 are proper. (MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. (J. of Anim. Science, vol. 69, p. 3544-3563, 1991).
Green teaches a cross-bred Bos indicus-taurus ungulate animal (abstract, p.3544-3548, Fig. 1, table 1, 2A).
Thus, the reference anticipates the claimed subject matter.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the claimed product is the same or obvious from a product in the prior art (i.e., the product disclosed in the cited reference), the claim is unpatentable even though the reference product was made by a different process. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be identical with or slightly different than the claimed product-by-process, rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and/or 35 U.S.C 103 are proper. (MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDowell et al., (J. Dairy Sci., vol. 79, p. 1292-1303, 1996).
McDowell teaches a cross-bred Bos indicus-taurus ungulate animal (p.1292-1294, Table 1, 5, for example).
Thus, the reference anticipates the claimed subject matter.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the claimed product is the same or obvious from a product in the prior art (i.e., the product disclosed in the cited reference), the claim is unpatentable even though the reference product was made by a different process. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be identical with or slightly different than the claimed product-by-process, rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and/or 35 U.S.C 103 are proper. (MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY MAUREEN GOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-0697. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu 8-5.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/TIFFANY M GOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/MELENIE L GORDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights