Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/411,932

LIVESTOCK MOTIVATION DEVICE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Examiner
HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 1067 resolved
-23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1111
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1067 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
1DETAILED 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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 the phrase “connected to exit of the compressed gas module” would be clearer as “connected to the outlet of the compressed gas module”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “said elongate tubing” would be clearer as “said elongate tube” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mushenski (8051806). Mushenski discloses an animal motivation device kit (Figs. 1-3) that can include a plurality of noisemaking tips (46, 18), a removable compressed gas module (24) in the form of a canister that provides a source of compressed gas (column 2 lines 38-51), an outlet (25) through which the compressed gas exits the source and enters the device (Fig. 3), an actuator (22) with a valve (29) operably coupled to the outlet of the compressed gas module and configured (26) for being switched between a closed position that blocks the flow of gas and an open position that can allow the passage of gas therethrough (Fig. 3, column 2 lines 55-63) and an elongate tube (16) having an inlet end (35) extending from the valve and a distal end (37) having one of the tips (46) affixed thereto (Fig. 3). The tips are shaped and configured such that gas flow exiting the tips (12) generates a sound and provides a tactile sensation to an animal when the animal is contacted by the gas flow exiting the tips (column 2 lines 19-30, column 3 line 45 -column 4 line 26). At least one of the tips (Fig. 3) includes an inlet with a screw thread forming extension tubing for removably affixing to the elongate tube in a manner that is capable of extending an effective path length of the elongate tube, a hollow passage in an end of which mechanisms (34,38,42) for imparting sound are located (column 3 lines 45-56) and an outlet (48). In regard to the device being used with livestock, the examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. 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. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushenski as applied above and further in view of Scrivner (6488558). Mushenski discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of the gas compressor module including an air compressor with a reservoir that is in fluid communication with the elongate tube. Scrivner discloses a noisemaker that uses compressed gas (abstract) having a compressed gas module in the form of an air compressor connected with a reservoir (104) to form a canister of compressed gas (Fig. 2, column 5 lines 8-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Scrivner to form the compressed gas module of Mushenski as and air compressor with a reservoir for the predictable result of forming the gas module in a known manner for use in a noisemaker device to produce the desired sound effects. Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushenski and Scrivner as applied for claim 3 above and further in view of Vidovic (4967684). Mushenski and Scrivner disclose the basic inventive concept with the exception of one of the tips including a whistle. Vidovic discloses a compressed gas noisemaker wherein a tip (81) can be configured to include a horn or whistle for generating sound when gas flows through the tip (column 3 line 38-column 4 line 16). Although Vidovic does not disclose an animal motivation device it does teach incorporating a whistle into a tip of a compressed gas powered device where sound is desired to be created and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the tips of Mushenski and Scrivner to include a whistle for the predictable result of generating a sound in combination with a compressed gas flow. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushenski as applied for claim 10 above and further in view of Vidovic (4967684). Mushenski discloses the basic inventive concept with the exception of one of the tips including a whistle. Vidovic discloses a compressed gas noisemaker wherein a tip (81) can be configured to include a horn or whistle for generating sound when gas flows through the tip (column 3 line 38-column 4 line 16). Although Vidovic does not disclose an animal motivation device it does teach incorporating a whistle into a tip of a compressed gas powered device where sound is desired to be created and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the tips of Mushenski to include a whistle for the predictable result of generating a sound in combination with a compressed gas flow. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 10, 11 and 15 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 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 ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00. 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.M.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 19, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569779
BUBBLE-BLOWING TOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551813
Modular Block System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544683
DRAG RACING STABILITY MANAGEMENT FOR A MODEL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528023
COMBINATION ARTICLES OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPRISING COMPLEMENTARY ACTION FIGURE AND RECONFIGURABLE CASE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12496532
REMOVABLE STRUCTURE OF SIMULATED APPEARANCE OF MUZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+30.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1067 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month