Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 4-24-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0394993 to Burton.
Referring to claim 1, Burton discloses a device for livestock processing comprising, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) – see for example paragraphs [0020]-[0027], wherein the PVA dissolves in water or aqueous media at a temperature of 20 to 130°C in 45 minutes or less – see for example figure 5 and paragraphs [0024]-[0027], and wherein the device has a tensile strength suitable for use as a weasand clip – see figures 4A-4C where the device is used as a livestock clip and therefore has a tensile strength suitable for this use and suitable to be used as any similar type of clip for livestock use such as a weasand clip. It is noted that applicant has not positively recited the weasand clip in the claim.
Referring to claim 2, Burton further discloses a device for livestock processing, consisting of – see figure 2, or consisting essentially of – see figure 2, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) – see paragraphs [0020]-[0027] detailing the device can be made of PVA and see paragraphs [0155]-[0156] detailing the device – at 2,3 can be made entirely of the same material such as those disclosed in paragraph [0020], wherein the PVA dissolves in water or aqueous media at a temperature of 20 to 130°C in 45 minutes or less – see figure 5 and paragraphs [0024]-[0027], and wherein the device has a tensile strength suitable for use as a weasand clip – see figures 2 where the device is used as a livestock clip and therefore has a tensile strength suitable for this use and suitable to be used as any similar type of clip for livestock use such as a weasand clip. It is noted that applicant has not positively recited the weasand clip in the claim.
Referring to claim 5, Burton further discloses the PVA dissolves in water or aqueous media at a temperature of 127o C – see figure 5 and paragraphs [0024]-[0027].
Referring to claim 8, Burton further discloses the PVA further comprises one or more additives selected from the group consisting of: talc, silica, clays, starch, cellulose, keratin, chitin, chitosan, polylactic acid, polyhydroxyalkanoates, and calcium carbonate – see starch in paragraph [0020].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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) 3-4, 6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton as applied to claim 1 above.
Referring to claim 3, Burton does not disclose the PVA has a degree of hydrolysis of 50-100 mol%. However, applicant has not placed any criticality to using this claimed range for the degree of hydrolysis as seen in paragraphs [0023]-[0025] of applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and use any suitable degree of hydrolysis for the PVA material including the claimed degrees of hydrolysis, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device of suitable strength and durability as desired.
Referring to claim 4, Burton further discloses the PVA device dissolves in water at above normal environmental temperatures as seen in paragraph [0024], but does not specifically disclose dissolving at a temperature of 25oC in 45 minutes or less. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and make the device dissolve at a temperature of 25oC in 45 minutes or less, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the device does not interfere with further processing of the livestock as desired.
Referring to claim 6, Burton does not disclose a dissolution of the PVA is measured according to the Polymer Pellet Dissolution Test using a pellet consisting of the PVA. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure the dissolution via any suitable analysis including the claimed polymer pellet dissolution test, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the material used for the device has the desired properties for its use.
Referring to claim 10, Burton does not disclose wherein the PVA has a glass transition temperature of 35°C or greater. However, applicant places no criticality on the glass transition temperature being 35oC or greater as seen in paragraph [0021] of applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and use any suitable glass transition temperature including the claimed 35oC or greater, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the material used for the device has the desired properties for its use so as to make the device of sufficient durability.
Referring to claim 11, Burton does not disclose the PVA dissolves at a rate of 5 g/min. However, applicant places no criticality on the dissolving rate of 5 g/min as seen in paragraph [0014] of applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and have the PVA dissolve at any suitable rate including the claimed 5 g/min, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the device does not interfere with further processing of the livestock as desired.
Referring to claim 12, Burton does not disclose the PVA has a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 100 kDa. However, applicant places no criticality on the average molecular weight being 100kDa as seen in paragraph [0026] of applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and have the PVA material with any suitable average molecular weight including the claimed average molecular weight of 100kDa, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the material used for the device has the desired properties for its use so as to make the device of sufficient durability.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0297458 to Khemani et al.
Referring to claim 7, Burton does not disclose the PVA comprises one or more plasticizers. Khemani et al. does disclose the PVA comprises one or more plasticizers – see paragraphs [0014], [0019] and [0023]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and add the plasticizer(s) of Khemani et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device of sufficient strength and durability as desired.
Referring to claim 9, Burton does not disclose the PVA has a tensile strength of at least 1 MPa. Khemani et al. does disclose the PVA has a tensile strength of at least 1 MPa – see paragraph [0019]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and add the tensile strength of at least 1 MPa of Khemani et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device of sufficient strength and durability as desired.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,190,249 to Karubian.
Referring to claim 13, Burton does not disclose the device is a weasand clip or weasand plug. Karubian does disclose the device is a weasand clip – see at 34 in figures 5-11. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Burton and have the device as any suitable clip device including the weasand clip of Karubian, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to use the clip for any suitable purpose on livestock as desired.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton in view of Karubian.
Referring to claim 14, Burton discloses a method of livestock processing comprising, providing a clip according to the device of claim 1 – see rejection of claim 1 detailed earlier, slaughtering the animal to produce a carcass – see paragraphs [0038], [0044], [0109], [0120], [0132]-[0133], [0136], [0141], [0153], [0209]-[0211], [0217]-[0218], [0228] and [0230]-[0231], detailing scalding techniques where the animal is slaughtered prior to this step, and dissolving the clip – see paragraphs [0020]-[0027], wherein a food product produced from the carcass is free of or substantially free of particulate matter derived from the weasand clip – see paragraphs [0020]-[0027] and [0155]-[0156] where the device can be entirely made of dissolvable material and therefore any food product would be free of particulate matter from the clip. Burton does not disclose the clip is a weasand clip that prevents or substantially prevents contamination of the carcass from the livestock animal’s gut contents. Karubian does disclose the clip – at 34, is a weasand clip – see figures 5-11, that prevents or substantially prevents contamination of the carcass from the livestock animal’s gut contents – see column 1 lines 10-20 and column 4 lines 14-48. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Burton and add the clip being a weasand clip preventing contamination from the animal’s gut contents, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the animal is in sufficient condition for further processing as desired. Burton as modified by Karubian further discloses the rendering step is performed at a temperature of 127°C for a time of at least 45 min – see for example paragraphs [0020]-[0027] of Burton.
Referring to claim 15, Burton as modified by Karubian further discloses the weasand clip is dissolved in a rendering step – see for example paragraphs [0020]-[0027, [0155]-[0156] and [0038], [0044], [0109], [0120], [0132]-[0133], [0136], [0141], [0153], [0209]-[0211], [0217]-[0218], [0228], [0230]-[0231] of Burton.
Referring to claim 17, Burton as modified by Karubian further discloses the livestock animal is cattle – see for example paragraph [0120] of Burton.
Referring to claim 18, Burton as modified by Karubian further discloses the PVA is a PVA copolymer of PVA and one or more second polymers – see for example paragraph [0020] of Burton.
Referring to claim 19, Burton as modified by Karubian further discloses the one or more second polymers in the PVA copolymer is formed from one or more of the following monomers: acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, crotonic acid, itaconic acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, vinyl sulfonic acid, allyl sulfonic acid, ethylene sulfonic acid, 2-acrylamido-1-methylpropanesulfonic acid, 2-acrylamido-2- methylpropanesulfonic acid, 2-methylacrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid, or 2-sulfoethyl acrylate – see methacrylic acid in paragraph [0020] of Burton.
Referring to claim 20, Burton as modified by Karubian further discloses the PVA copolymer is a copolymer of PVA and one or more of, a polyethyleneimine, a polyvinyl pyrrolidone, a pullulan, a guar gum, a xanthan gum, a carrageenan, a starch, a ethoxylated starch, a hydroxyethylated starch, a hydroxypropylated starch, a carboxymethylated starch, a polyalkylene oxid, a polyacrylamide, a cellulose, a cellulose ether, a cellulose ester, a cellulosic amide, a polyamino acid, a polyamide, a gelatin, a methylcellulose, a carboxymethylated cellulose, or a maltodextrin – see starch in paragraph [0020] of Burton.
Referring to claim 21, Burton as modified by Karubian does not disclose the molar percent ratio of the total amount of the second polymer(s) in the PVA copolymer is 1-20% of the second polymer(s) relative to PVA. However, applicant places no criticality on the molar percent ratio of the second polymer(s) being 1-20% as seen in paragraph [0031] of applicant’s originally filed specification and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Burton as modified by Karubian and use any suitable molar percent ratio of the second polymer(s) including the claimed 1-20% molar percent ratio, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the material used for the device has the desired properties for its use so as to make the device of sufficient durability.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 4-24-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 6 and 14 detailed in the last office action dated 1-26-26.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Burton reference US 2023/0394993 discloses the device has a tensile strength suitable for use as a weasand clip – see figures 4A-4C where the device is used as a livestock clip and therefore has a tensile strength suitable for this use and suitable to be used as any similar type of clip for livestock use such as a weasand clip. The device of Burton as seen in figures 4a-4c is of similar structure to a weasand clip in that the device of Burton has two clip components hinged together to attach the device to an animal. Further, applicant has not claimed a specific tensile strength and given that the device of Burton is used attached to and used on an animal it would experience forces based on its intended use that would require a tensile strength suitable for use as a weasand clip. Further, Burton discloses the claimed PVA material as detailed earlier and therefore since Burton discloses the material disclosed by applicant’s disclosure and claims, it would have a suitable tensile strength given the same material claimed by applicant is disclosed by Burton.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 5, Burton discloses the PVA dissolves in water or aqueous media at a temperature of 127o C – see figure 5 and paragraphs [0024]-[0027] and Burton discloses the device has suitable tensile strength to be used as a weasand clip as discussed earlier with respect to claim 1.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 8, as seen in paragraph [0020] of Burton, more than one of the disclosed materials can be used and therefore since each of PVA and starch are disclosed, the starch can be added to the PVA as an additive.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 14, Burton discloses the rendering step is performed at a temperature of 127°C for a time of at least 45 min – see for example paragraphs [0020]-[0027] of Burton in that in paragraph [0025] a temperature of 50o C or higher is disclosed which encompasses 127o C and as seen in paragraphs [0017] and [0051] the material can be heated for 1 hour or less which would encompass the claimed 45 minutes.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 15, applicant has not defined the rendering step in the claim and the dissolving of the clip material as disclosed in Burton for example in paragraphs [0020]-[0027, [0155]-[0156] and [0038], [0044], [0109], [0120], [0132]-[0133], [0136], [0141], [0153], [0209]-[0211], [0217]-[0218], [0228], [0230]-[0231], would provide for a change in the material that would be considered a rendering step in that heat is used to reduce the solid material of the clip.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 4, Burton discloses the PVA device dissolves in water at above normal environmental temperatures as seen in paragraph [0024] with 25oC being above normal ambient temperature and further discloses the dissolving via heating is done in an hour or less which would encompass the claimed 45 minutes as seen in paragraphs [0017] and [0051] of Burton. Each of paragraphs [0024]-[0026] of Burton which disclose the heating temperatures are written as different embodiments and therefore this disclosure as a whole does not teach away from the claimed 25oC temperature.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 9, the Khemani et al. reference US 2010/0297458 discloses the PVA has a tensile strength of at least 1 MPa – see paragraph [0019] in that the tensile modulus at 2500MPa and elongation of breakage of 200% would have a tensile strength of at least 1MPa in that the tensile modulus relates to the materials resistance to deformation and the elongation of breakage relates to how much deformation a material can have before breakage and the point of breakage would equate to the tensile strength and with these material properties disclosed by Khemani et al., the PVA material disclosed would have to have a tensile strength of at least 1MPa.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 13, the Karubian reference US 6190249 discloses the device is a weasand clip – see at 34 in figures 5-11. As detailed earlier the device of Burton as seen in figures 4a-4c is structured to function as a weasand clip in that the device of Burton has two clip components hinged together to attach the device to an animal. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine these references as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights