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 I and Figure 1 in the reply filed on 3/30/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant indicated that claims 2-6, 9, 11-12, 19-21, 32-35, 41 encompass Figure 1. However, claim 19 is directed to a pneumatic agitator, while the embodiment of Figure 1 used a mechanical agitator. Therefore, claim 19 has also been withdrawn.
Claims 19, 23, 25-26, 29, 57 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the (irradiated) particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear why the parentheses are being used here.
The term “relatively low” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how deep the irradiation should penetrate, particularly in comparison to gamma radiation.
Claim 12 recites “around, or in excess of, 5 kGy”. It is not clear what amount of radiation would satisfy this limitation.
The term “high-level” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-12, 20-21, 32-35, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi [JP 2000304900A].
Hayashi teaches an electron beam device and particle sterilizing method (title) comprising an agitator (Figure 1, #6), an irradiator (Figure 1, #1), disinfecting grains and seeds such as wheat, rice, beans, buckwheat, and pepper (paragraph 0001), sterilizing irradiation with low penetration over the entire surface of the rotating particles (page 5, 6th paragraph), the mechanical agitator providing vibratory movement along a path (Figure 1, #6; page 5, 1st paragraph), an input (Figure 1, #11), an output (Figure 1, #12), and radiation shielding (Figure 1, #3).
Claims 4-5 are directed to the intended methods for using the irradiated product, rather than the claimed method of making the irradiated product as set forth in parent claim 2. 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. In this case, the irradiated grains of Hayashi were certainly capable of being spread on the ground as animal bait. Also, claims 4-5 use the language “being for” which does not positively require method steps for using the product, but rather are simply describing a capability for further use.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Staples teaches a method for radiation sterilization of poisoned seed bait for pests (abstract) and Reiback teaches a method for gamma sterilization of bulk grain (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights