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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 18th 2026 has been entered.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reggers et al. (US 4,531,520) in view of Steinfort (WO 2009/117764).
Regarding claim 1, Reggers et al. disclose an animal tag applicator (Figure 1; Abstract), comprising: a first body portion (Figure 5) comprising: a first jaw portion (12) configured to engage a first portion of an animal tag; a first handle portion (10); and a first central portion (11) between the first jaw portion and the first handle portion; a second body portion (Figure 6) comprising: a second jaw portion (16) configured to engage a second portion of an animal tag; a second handle portion (14); and a second central portion (15) between the second jaw portion and the second handle portion; and a clamp bush (24; Figures 8-9) configured to retain the first central portion and the second central portion together (col. 2, lines 37-39); wherein an interior surface of the clamp bush covers an exterior surface of the first central portion and the second central portion (in the exact manner as Applicant’s bush, the interior of the bush covers the exterior surface formed by openings 19 and 20).
Reggers et al. fail to disclose for the above embodiment that an outer face of the first central portion comprises a raised first border and an outer face of the second central poirtion comprises a raised second border. Reggers et al. disclose providing a raised border (45) for another embodiment in order to seat a clamp bush therein (col. 3, lines 60-68; Figure 11).
Steinfort discloses a raised borders as shown below around outer faces of very similar first and second central portions which help securely seat flanges (4/5) as evident from Figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (raised border)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Reggers et al. and Steinfort, to have provided the raised border of Steinfort around the outer face of the first and second central portions of Reggers et al. in order better seat the flanges (25/26) of the clamp bush.
Regarding claim 4, the clamp bush is configured to limit side-to-side movement of the first central portion and the second portion within the clamp bush (at least to some degree; col. 2, lines 37-64).
Regarding claim 6, the clamp bush is configured to minimize friction when the first central portion and/or second central portion move relative to the clamp bush (it holds bearing surfaces 11a and 15a in an appropriate amount of sliding contact - minimizing excessive friction).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, as modified above, the raised first and second borders would be around an outer edge of the outer face of the first central portion and second central portion, respectively, of Reggers et al. as it is shown above for Steinfort.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Reggers et al. (US 4,531,520) in view of Steinfort (WO 2009/117764), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herbert (US 5,560,107).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16, Howe et al. fail to disclose the specific height of the raised borders. The borders would form a perimeter, creating a countersink area to hold the flanges (25/26) of the clamp bush of Reggers et al.
Herbert discloses a plier-type tool (such tools being reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of using a plier-type tool for tagging animals) having a countersink portion (60; Figure 3) with a depth of between about 0.1mm and about 0.5mm or about 0.3mm (col. 3, lines 24-26) which provides a perimeter to hold flanges (64/68) of a bushing (bolt 65 acts as a bushing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and in view of Herbert to have made the height of the borders (i.e. depth of the countersink) between about 0.1mm and 0.5mm or about 0.3mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reggers et al. (US 4,531,520) in view of Steinfort (WO 2009/117764), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weisshaupt et al. (US 2012/0016402).
Regarding claim 5, Reggers et al. fail to disclose any specific clearance between the inner surfaces of the bush and the outer surfaces of the central portions.
Weisshaupt et al., in Applicant’s field of tissue puncturing (¶[0005] of Weisshaupt et al.), disclose that abutting, sliding surfaces can have a clearance of 0.2mm-1mm in order to allow enough space for cleaning fluid to be flushed through while not causing fluid to become stuck via capillary action (¶[0005], [0021], [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and in view of Weisshaupt et al. to have made a clearance of 0.2 mm between the inner surfaces of the bush and the outer surfaces of the central portion in order to allow this area of the instrument to be cleaned while not allowing fluid to become stuck therein. Applicant’s clearance of 0.1 mm is not considered to be patentable over the above 0.2 mm clearance since Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for a clearance of 0.1 mm verses a clearance of less than 1 mm (¶[0137] of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the teachings of Weisshaupt et al. above, a clearance of about 0.3 mm would have been additionally obvious since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reggers et al. (US 4,531,520) in view of Steinfort (WO 2009/117764), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lefevre et al. (US 2018/0126517).
Regarding claim 8, Reggers et al. fail to disclose what force is needed to move the animal tag applicator into a closed position.
Lefevre et al., in Applicant’s field of plier-type gripping tools, teaches that a typical closing force from a user’s hand of 100 N should be sufficient to cut a wire (¶[0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the applicator of Reggers et al. so that a closing force of 100 N or less is required to operate the device as this is a typical closing force sufficient to cut through stronger objects than tissue using pliers as taught by Lefevre et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm.
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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.
/THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights