Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/627,850

CAT CHEW TOY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 05, 2024
Examiner
HUTCHENS, CHRISTOPHER D.
Art Unit
3647
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
378 granted / 570 resolved
+14.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
605
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 570 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/03/2025 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. Claims 1 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUPA Catnip Silvervine Sticks for Cats (https://www.amazon.com/Catnip-Silvervine-Teething-Healthy-Digestion/dp/B094GYJCXT?th=1) reviewed by Precise Disarray on Feb. 16, 2022 (https://www.amazon.com/HUPA-Garlic-Press-Stick/product-reviews/B094GYJCXT/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_next_9?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviere&pageNumber=9) (hereinafter HUPA) in view of Gormley (US 5,813,931). In re. claim 1, HUPA teaches a cat chew toy comprising: an elongated stick extending longitudinally from a first end to an opposing second end (wood stick in figure 1 below); a first plurality of fibers extending outwardly from the first end of the stick (grass end fibers); a second plurality of fibers extending outwardly from the second end of the stick (opposing grass end fibers); a dried fruit extending outwardly from one or both of the first and second ends of the stick (silvervine ball), and a first rope winding around the elongated stick (see figure 1 below); wherein a second portion of the length of the first plurality of fibers are arranged to extend outwardly from the first end of the stick (see figure 1 below), , and a second portion of the length of the second plurality of fibers are arranged to extend outwardly from the second end of the stick (see figure 1 below). HUPA fails to disclose a first channel is defined within the stick extending from the first end of the stick to a first point in the stick, the first point being positioned between the first and second ends of the stick, and wherein a first portion of a length of the first plurality of fibers are arranged to snuggly fit within the first channel of the stick, and a second channel is defined within the stick extending from the second end of the stick to a second point in the stick, the second point being positioned between the first and second ends of the stick, and wherein a first portion of a length of the second plurality of fibers are arranged to snuggly fit within the second channel of the stick; wherein the first and second channels are in open communication with one another, and wherein each one of the plurality of fibers which form the first and second plurality of fibers extends through both of the first and second channels to extend outwardly from each one of the first and second ends of the stick. Tsengas teaches a first channel is defined within the stick extending from the first end of the stick to a first point in the stick (left side channel that contains plug (40)) (fig. 2), the first point being positioned between the first and second ends of the stick (fig. 2), and wherein a first portion of a length of the first plurality of fibers are arranged to snuggly fit within the first channel of the stick (figs. 6-7), and a second channel is defined within the stick extending from the second end of the stick to a second point in the stick (right side channel that contains plug (40)) (fig. 2), the second point being positioned between the first and second ends of the stick (fig. 2), and wherein a first portion of a length of the second plurality of fibers are arranged to snuggly fit within the second channel of the stick (figs. 6-7); wherein the first and second channels are in open communication with one another (via channel (16)) (fig. 2), and wherein each one of the plurality of fibers which form the first and second plurality of fibers extends through both of the first and second channels to extend outwardly from each one of the first and second ends of the stick (figs. 6-7). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified HUPA to incorporate the teachings of Tsengas to have a the recited fiber configuration, for the purpose of providing an attachment to the wood base that allows for easy of installation, and provides an ease of construction that further allows for variability of design aesthetic. (Tsengas, para [0024]) PNG media_image1.png 545 724 media_image1.png Greyscale FIGURE 1 In re. claim 7, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 1, further comprising a second rope extending outwardly from one or both of the first and ends of the stick arranged to secure the dried fruit to the stick (as shown in figure 1 above). In re. claim 8, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 2, further comprising a second rope extending outwardly from the first channel (as shown in figure 1 above). In re. claim 9, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 8, wherein the second rope comprises a first end of the second rope disposed in the first channel, the first end of the second rope arranged to extend to a second opposing end of the second rope, and wherein the second end of the second rope is disposed in the first channel (as shown in figure 1 above). In re. claim 10, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 9, wherein a loop portion is formed between the first and second ends of the second rope (as shown in figure 1 above). In re. claim 11, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 10, wherein the dried fruit is moveable along the loop portion of the second rope (as is understood from depicted configuration). In re. claim 12, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 1, wherein the stick and/or dried fruit is derived from a plant (from silver vine as stated in figure 2 below). PNG media_image2.png 85 442 media_image2.png Greyscale FIGURE 2 In re. claim 13, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 12, wherein the stick and/or dried fruit is derived from the plant species Actinidia polygama (also known as silver vine). In re. claim 14, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 12, wherein the stick is derived from a stem of the plant (silver vine stick as stated in Figure 2 above). In re. claim 15, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 12, wherein the dried fruit comprises gall fruit (as stated in Figure 3 below). PNG media_image3.png 580 1243 media_image3.png Greyscale FIGURE 3 In re. claim 16, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 1, wherein the first and/or second plurality of fibers comprise natural fibers (raffia grass as stated in figure 3 above). In re. claim 17, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 16, wherein the natural fibers comprise raffia fibers (raffia grass as stated in figure 3 above). In re. claim 18, HUPA as modified by Tsengas (see HUPA) teach the cat chew toy according to claim 1, wherein the first rope comprises natural fibers (hemp rope as stated below). PNG media_image4.png 86 455 media_image4.png Greyscale FIGURE 4 Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUPA as modified by Tsengas as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Salmon Hyder et al. (US 2013/0047932). In re. claims 19 and 20, HUPA as modified by Tsengas fail to disclose the first rope comprises sisal fibers. Salmon Hyder teaches a rope comprises sisal fibers (para [0007]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified HUPA as modified by Tsengas to incorporate the teachings of Salmon Hyder to have the rope made of sisal fibers, since sisal is a known alternative to hemp for the use of natural fibers with animals, as opposed to man-made fibers, because of the possibility of the animal ingesting some of the fibers (Salmon Hyder; para [0007]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7-20 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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. /C.D.H./ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3647 /Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 05, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 08, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 18, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584322
Folding Utility Scaffold
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575475
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING PERFORMANCE FOR POSITION-SPECIFIC CONTROL OF AN AGRICULTURAL MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568891
PLANT GROWING SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557785
PUPPY APARTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12543635
One Hand Controller for Zero Turn Mowers
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
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
66%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+10.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 570 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