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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II claims 16-20 and new claims 21-34 in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16, 21-24, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone US 5,296,209 in view of Rizvi US 2015/0282507 in view of Axelrod US 2010/0260905 in view of Hague US 2018/0235179.
Regarding claim 16, Simone discloses a method of forming a pet chew comprising extruding a first extrudate from a first extruder, wherein the extrudate is porous and formed of a first extrudate composition containing starch. The first extrudate has pores (expanded/puffed cellular product) (col. 7, lines 1-16). The first extrudate exits the first extruder with a moisture content of 10-35% encompassing the claimed range (col. 7, lines 13-16). Rizvi discloses that typical puffed products generated by conventional steam expansion have large air cells (0.5-1.0 mm) ([0078]), therefore it is obvious that the first extrudate of Simone has pores having a pore diameter in a range of 0.5-1.0mm.
Simone obviously is not limited to forming only one product of the invention of Simone; thus, Simone obviously teaches extruding a second extrudate from an extruder (it is noted that providing a second extruder is mere duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B)), wherein the second extrudate is formed of a second extrudate composition containing meat as Simone discloses that the extrudate can be flavored with meat (col. 5, lines 16-20). Simone discloses that the second extrudate exits the second extruder with a moisture content of 10-35% encompassing the claimed range (col. 7, lines 13-16).
Additionally, regarding the use of a second extruder, Axelrod discloses providing separate extruders to tailor processing conditions for respective extrudates (abstract, [0006]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Simone utilize a second extruder for the second extrudate to tailor processing conditions for respective extrudates.
Claim 16 differs from Simone in the recitation that the method comprises physically engaging the first extrudate and second extrudate to each other.
Hague discloses physically engaging first and second extrudates to form a pet chew (Figs. 10, 11, [0068], [0041], [0057]). Hauge discloses providing extrudates of different flavors ([0019], [0020], [0055]) and combining them into a single chew (Figs. 10-11). It is additionally noted that Hauge teaches utilizing animal meat as flavoring to increase palatability of the chew ([0044], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Simone such that the method comprises physically engaging the first extrudate and the second extrudate to each other as suggested by Hauge, in order to provide a single pet chew of multiple flavors, and since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I).
Regarding claim 21, Simone teaches the ingredients of the first formulation enter the extruder with a moisture content of between 20%-50% encompassing the claimed range (col. 5, lines 50-62). Simone teaches the final product can have a moisture content of 10-30% (col. 5, lines 50-62, col. 7, lines 1-25). Hague teaches drying to set the extrusion products ([0069]), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the water content of the first extrudate of Simone to be reduced to the claimed range after physically engaging the second extrudate.
Regarding claim 22, Simone teaches the ingredients of the second formulation enter the extruder with a moisture content of between 20%-50% encompassing the claimed range (col. 5, lines 50-62). Simone teaches the final product can have a moisture content of 10-30% (col. 5, lines 50-62, col. 7, lines 1-25). Hague teaches drying to set the extrusion products ([0069]), thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the second extrudate of Simone to dry to the claimed range after physically engaging the first extrudate.
Regarding claim 23, as discussed above Simone obviously is not limited to forming only one product of the invention of Simone; thus, Simone obviously teaches extruding a second extrudate from an extruder (it is noted that providing a second extruder is mere duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B)), wherein the second extrudate is formed of a second extrudate composition containing meat as Simone discloses that the extrudate can be flavored with meat (col. 5, lines 16-20). The second extrudate of Simone is porous (expanded/puffed cellular product) (col. 7, lines 1-15), and since Rizvi discloses that typical puffed products generated by conventional steam expansion have large air cells (0.5-1.0 mm) ([0078]), therefore it is obvious that the second extrudate of Simone has pores having a pore diameter in a range of 0.5-1.0mm.
Regarding claim 24, Hauge discloses the first and second extrudate can be knotted (‘179, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 29, Simone teaches the starch of the first extrudate composition is corn starch (col. 3, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 30, Simone teaches that the first extrudate composition contains meat (col. 5, lines 16-20). Simone does not disclose the particular meat however since meat obviously encompasses the claimed meat types it would have been obvious to select the particular meat as a matter of taste preference. Additionally, Hague discloses that animal meat such as chicken, beef, lamb or pork can be used as flavoring for pet chews ([0055]), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize red meat, white meat, or chicken as the meat of the first extrudate of Modified Simone.
Claims 17-20, 25-27 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone US 5,296,209 in view of Rizvi US 2015/0282507 in view of Axelrod US 2010/0260905 in view of Hague US 2018/0235179 in view of Mathews US 2,120,138.
Regarding claim 17, Simone discloses that the extrudate is expanded in the extruder and additionally upon leaving the extruder (col. 5, lines 50-63, col. 6, lines 44-68, col. 7, lines 1-25).
However, Simone does not specifically teach vaporizing water in the first extruder during extrusion and under extrusion pressure to form a water vapor which is pressurized in the first extruder and reducing the pressure on the water vapor in the first extrudate as the first extrudate exits the first extruder to expand the water vapor in the first extrudate which forms the pores.
Mathews discloses producing a puffed product using starchy materials and an extruder and discloses that it was known to produce a puffed product by vaporizing water in the extruder during extrusion and under extrusion pressure to form a water vapor which is pressurized in the first extruder and reducing the pressure on the water vapor in the extrudate as the extrudate exits the first extruder to expand the water vapor in the first extrudate which forms the pores (Claims 1-4, Pg 2, left col. Lines 69-75, right col, lines 1-31, Pg. 3, right col., lines 30-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Simone to include vaporizing water in the first extruder during extrusion and under extrusion pressure to form a water vapor which is pressurized in the first extruder and reducing the pressure on the water vapor in the first extrudate as the first extrudate exits the first extruder to expand the water vapor in the first extrudate which forms the pores as taught by Mathews in order to suitably form the expanded product. It has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Simone teaches introducing ingredients of a first formulation into the first extruder wherein the ingredients include the starch of the first extrudate composition; and wherein the water vaporized in the first extruder is provided from within the ingredients of the first formulation (‘138 claims 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Simone teaches vaporizing water in the second extruder during extrusion and under extrusion pressure to form a water vapor which is pressurized in the second extruder and reducing the pressure on the water vapor in the second extrudate as the second extrudate exits the second extruder to expand the water vapor in the second extrudate which forms pores in the second extrudate whereby the second extrudate is porous (‘138, claims 1-4) (‘209, col. 7, lines 1-16). Modified Simone teaches introducing ingredients of a second formulation into the second extruder, wherein the ingredients include the meat of the second extrudate and wherein the water vaporized in the second extruder is provided from within the ingredients of the second formulation (‘138, claims 1-4) (‘209, col. 7, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that Hague teaches combining three extrudates (Figs, 7, 8, 10, 11), therefore it would been obvious to include an additional third extrudate as claimed and modify the method of Modified Simone to include physically engaging the first extrudate and the second extrudate and the third extrudate to each other, where the third extrudate is formed as claimed as taught by Modified Simone similarly to the second extrudate of Modified Simone as discussed above and includes meat as taught by Modified Simone.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 16 and 20- 21. Simone teaches that ingredients of a third formulation (a third extrudate product of the invention of Simone) enter the third extruder with a water content of 28-34% by weight of the ingredients of the third formulation (col. 5, lines 50-62).
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 16 (it is noted that the third extrudate is a third extrudate product of the invention of Modified Simone).
Regarding claim 27, Hauge teaches braiding the extrudates (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 32, claims 32 is rejected for the same reasons given above for claims 16-19.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claim 16 and 21.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons given above as for claims 16 and 22.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone US 5,296,209 in view of Rizvi US 2015/0282507 in view of Axelrod US 2010/0260905 in view of Hague US 2018/0235179 in view of Mathews US 2,120,138 in view of Axelrod US 2020/0146313.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 differs from the prior art in the recitation that the extrudates are helically wound along a length of the chew, however this is seen to be a mere change in shape (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). Additionally, Axelrod discloses it was known technique in the art to form a pet chew by helically winding extrudates ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Simone such that the extrudates are helically wound along a length of the chew as suggested by Axelrod, since it has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simone US 5,296,209 in view of Rizvi US 2015/0282507 in view of Axelrod US 2010/0260905 in view of Hague US 2018/0235179 in view of Gosling US 2021/0267233.
Regarding claim 31, Simone teaches that the second extrudate composition contains meat (col. 5, lines 16-20). Simone does not disclose the particular meat however since meat obviously encompasses the claimed meat types it would have been obvious to select the particular meat as a matter of taste preference. Additionally, Hague discloses that animal meat such as chicken, beef, lamb or pork can be used as flavoring for pet chews ([0055]), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize red meat, white meat, or chicken as the meat of the second extrudate of Modified Simone.
Claim 31 differs from Modified Simone in the recitation that Simone teaches the second extrudate as required by claim 31. Gosling discloses forming an extrudate without starch (starch is optional) and comprising meat ([0082]). It would have been obvious to substitute the second extrudate of Simone with the extrudate as taught by Gosling, since it has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (MPEP 2143) supports a conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights