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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 and 16-22 are pending and under examination in this application. Claims 13-15 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 16-22 in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 are acknowledged. Claim 13-14 were cancelled in applicant’s response filed on 03/17/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 4 reference characters W7, C30 and C40 are not mentioned in the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19 and 20 recite, “wherein the pet chew comprises destructurized starch and/or destructured starch.” and “wherein the pet chew comprises destructurized potato starch and/or destructured potato starch.” respectively. However, “destructurized” and “destructured” are viewed as the same and have the same meaning. The limitation should be simplified so it does not repeat the same limitation in a slightly different way. The limitation would then read as follows, “wherein the pet chew comprises destructurized starch.” and “wherein the pet chew comprises destructurized potato starch.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 4, 12 and 16 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.
The term “comprised substantially of” in claims 3, 4 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comprised substantially” 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. The material or composition has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term, “comprised substantially of” since a person of ordinary skill would not know how much material or composition was needed in the pet chew to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "flower-like cross-section" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albuja (US D726991) cited in IDS dated 03/29/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Albuja teaches a pet chew (animal treat), comprising at least a first pet chew body and a second pet chew body, wherein the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body are elongated bodies (Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Claim 1).
Albuja discloses wherein the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body extend substantially parallel to each other and are connected to each other at their lateral sides (Fig. 1, Fig. 5).
Regarding the recitation, “wherein the pet chew is configured such that the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body can be torn apart from each other,” as long as the structure can be or is capable of being torn apart it is considered to meet the claim. The structure of Albuja is capable of being torn apart along the bridging part, (see character B in annotated Fig. 5 below), that connects the first pet chew body with the second pet chew body (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5). Thus, Albuja is considered to meet the claim limitation of “wherein the pet chew is configured such that the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body can be torn apart from each other.”
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the recitations within the claims of “the pet chew… formed by moulding” or “the pet chew… formed by means of extrusion moulding,” do not limit the claim, but are merely directed towards process steps to make the final product instead of the final product itself. See MPEP 2113.I. Therefore, if the product in the product-by-process recitation in claims 2 and 3 are the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Thus, since the product of claims 2 and 3 meets the claim limitations outlined in claim 1, claims 2 and 3 limitations are also considered met.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Albuja teaches the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. Albuja discloses wherein the first and second pet chew bodies comprise a first and second longitudinal direction, respectively. Albuja teaches wherein the first and second pet chew bodies both have a substantially constant cross-sectional shape and a substantially constant cross-sectional size along the first and second longitudinal directions (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Albuja discloses the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. Albuja teaches wherein the pet chew includes a bridging part, (see character B in annotated Fig. 5 below), the bridging part connecting the first pet chew body with the second pet chew body (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5). See annotated Fig. 5 below.
Regarding claim 8, Albuja discloses the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. Albuja teaches wherein the pet chew body comprises a width direction (W) which extends in the direction in which a center line of the first pet chew body (C1) is offset from a center line of the second pet chew body (C2; see characters in annotated Fig. 5 below) (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
Albuja teaches wherein the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body have a first height (H1) and second height (H2), respectively, which heights are to be measured in a direction substantially transverse to the width direction of the pet chew and substantially transverse the longitudinal direction in which the center lines (C1 and C2) of their respective pet chew body (first or second pet chew body) extends (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5). See annotated Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
407
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Albuja
Albuja teaches wherein along the width of the pet chew, at a location between the center of the first pet chew body and the center of the second pet chew body, the pet chew comprises an intermediate height (dotted line between H1 and H2 and pointed to by the character B arrow; annotated Fig. 5 above). Albuja teaches wherein the intermediate height is smaller than the first height and smaller than the second height (annotated Fig. 5 above, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Albuja discloses the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. It is noted the recitation within the claim of “wherein the pet chew, at a temperature of 20 °C, the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body are configured to be torn apart from each other in a manner which allows for plastic deformation before the connection between the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body fails,” this recitation is directed toward the intended use of the composition and does not further limit the claim. There is no patentable distinction by the pet chews intended use of the first and second pet chew bodies being torn apart from each other in a specific manner or result of the tearing unless some difference is imposed by the use or result on the pet chew recited in the claim. The intended use does not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claim. Thus, by meeting the claim limitations for claim 1, Albuja is considered to meet the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Albuja discloses the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. Albuja teaches wherein at least the first pet chew body has a substantially star-shaped cross-section or a substantially flower-like cross-section (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albuja (US D726991) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schennink et al. (US 20210235725) cited on IDS dated 03/29/2024.
Regarding claim 4 and 16-20, Albuja discloses the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. Albuja is silent as to the material or composition of the pet chew and the melting point of that material.
Schennink teaches a pet chew with an elongated body (Abstract, Figure 3 A). Schennink discloses the pet chew is comprised substantially of a bioplastic material (thermoplastic starch material comprising 30-95 wt.% of the composition; [0108]), as required by claim 16, where the pet chew comprises an edible bioplastic material (thermoplastic starch material, that is an edible pet chew; [0108-0109]), as required by claim 17.
Schennink teaches wherein the pet chew comprises thermoplastic starch, as required by claim 18 (thermoplastic starch mixture; Abstract, [0021]). Schennink discloses the pet chew comprises destructurized starch, as required by claim 19, where the destructurized starch is potato starch, as required by claim 20 [0037], [0131], [0138]. Schennink teaches that using this material during their molding process is advantageous because the texture, shape, dimension and appearance are able to be precisely controlled, the pet chew exhibits no uncontrolled blistering and has a stable texture, shape, dimension and appearance [0021-0022].
Schennink does not state the melting point of the material used to make the pet chew at a pressure of 1 atmosphere. However, given that Schennink teaches the pet chew is made from thermoplastic starch material [0021], specifically destructurized potato starch material [0037], [0131], [0138] as claimed, the thermoplastic starch material in the prior art is considered to have the melting point as claimed in claim 4, of above 30°C at a pressure of 1 atmosphere. Thus, the material of Schennink is considered to meet the claim limitation of claim 4. Additionally, the instant specification recognizes a composition based on destructurized potato starch is a material that has a melting point of above 30 °C at a pressure of 1 atmosphere (pg. 5 L23-30).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Albuja to incorporate the teachings of Schennink by forming the pet chew from an edible bioplastic material of thermoplastic starch, specifically destructurized potato starch as claimed with the melting point as claim because using this material allows for a stable texture, shape, dimension and appearance which are precisely controlled with no uncontrolled blistering, as recognized by Schennink [0021-0022].
Claims 9, 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albuja (US D726991) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ovrahim et al. (WO 2021177905) cited on IDS dated 03/29/2024.
Regarding claim 9, Albuja teaches the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. Albuja teaches wherein a cross-section of the pet chew has a smallest height (Hmin) (see character B arrow pointing to the dotted line in Annotated Figure 5 above showing the smallest height; Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), the smallest height (Hmin) being the lowest height of all locations between the center of the first pet chew body (H1) and the center of the second pet chew body (H2). See annotated Figure 5 above and Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 of Albuja.
Albuja teaches wherein the pet chew comprises a width direction (W) which extends in the direction in which a center line of the first elongated pet chew body (C1) is offset from a center line of the second pet chew body (C2). See annotated Figure 5 above and Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 of Albuja.
Albuja does not teach that over 65% of the width of the pet chew cross-section, extending between the center line of the first pet chew body and the center line of the second pet chew body, has a larger height than the smallest height (Hmin).
Ovrahim teaches an animal chew having a shape including multiple connected portions wherein each portion permits breaking away (pg. 4 L5-7, pg. 5 L12-14, Fig. 12). Ovrahim discloses the pet chew has a smallest height (Hmin) (lesser thickness than that of the two adjacent portions; pg. 14 L4-7) which are designated grooves 150 between the first pet chew body (portion 110) and the second pet chew body (portion 110). See annotated Fig. 12 below and Fig. 12 of Ovrahim.
Ovrahim teaches along the width direction of the pet chew (W2), over at least 65% of the width extending between the center line of the first pet chew body (C3) and the center line of the second pet chew body (C4), the cross-section of the pet chew has a height larger than the smallest height (Hmin). See annotated Fig. 12 below and Fig. 12 of Ovrahim. Ovrahim teaches the shape of the pet chew as claimed permits dividing each portion 110 of the pet chew away from the entire pet chew 109 without much effort (pg. 14 L1-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 12 of Ovrahim
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Albuja to incorporate the teachings of Ovrahim by having the shape as claimed with over 65% of the pet chew cross section having a larger height than the smallest height because this pet chew shape permits dividing each pet chew portion away from the other pet chew portion without much effort, as recognized by Ovrahim (pg. 14 L1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Albuja teaches the pet chew according to claim 1, as discussed above. Albuja does not teach the pet chew comprises more than two elongated pet chew bodies.
Ovrahim teaches the pet chew comprises more than two elongated pet chew bodies (multiple 110 portions; Fig. 12). Ovrahim teaches wherein the pet chew bodies extend substantially parallel to each other (110 portions; Fig. 12). Ovrahim discloses that having multiple portions in this configuration facilitates or permits breaking away and giving a portion to an animal, and still more portions remain (pg. 4 L5-7, pg. 14 L1-7, Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Albuja to incorporate the teachings of Ovrahim by having more than two elongated bodies as claimed that extend substantially parallel to each other because having multiple portions in this configuration facilitates or permits breaking away and giving a portion to an animal, and still more portions remain, as recognized by Ovrahim (pg. 4 L5-7, pg. 14 L1-7, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 22, modified Albuja teaches the pet chew according to claim 9, as discussed above. Albuja discloses wherein along the width (W) extending between the center line of the first pet chew body (H1) and the center line of the second pet chew body (H2), only a single portion of a cross-section of the pet chew has a height corresponding with the smallest height (Hmin) (see character B arrow pointing to the dotted line in Annotated Figure 5 above showing the smallest height; Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albuja (US D726991) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Xu (US 20190166880).
Regarding claim 21, Albuja teaches the pet chew according to claim 7, as discussed above. Albuja teaches the pet chew includes bridging from at least one of the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body (see character B in Annotated Figure 5 above; Fig. 1 and Fig. 5), but does not teach the bridging part tapers towards a constriction or a constriction between the first and second pet chew body.
Xu teaches an edible pet chew comprising a first pet chew body and a second pet chew body, wherein the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body are elongated bodies that extend substantially parallel to each other and are connected to each other at their lateral sides (Abstract, Fig. 1). Xu teaches wherein the pet chew includes a constriction (groove 0103) between the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body (Fig. 1, [0075]). Xu teaches wherein, a cross-section substantially transverse to a longitudinal direction in which the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body extend, a bridging part tapers (see character BT of Annotated Fig. 1 of Xu below, which highlights the tapering of the bridging part from the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body) from at least one of the first pet chew body and the second pet chew body, towards the constriction (groove 0103; see Annotated Fig. 1 of Xu below, Fig. 1 and [0075]). Xu teaches the constriction that has tapered bridging (groove 0103) is a key structural feature to the shape of the pet chew to imitate a bully stick appearance and the most typical feature of a bully stick even when they have various shapes and cross section shapes [0062], [0075].
PNG
media_image3.png
772
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Xu
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Albuja to incorporate the teachings of Xu by having the claimed constriction shape and bridge tapering to the constriction because this shape is a key structural feature to the shape of a pet chew to imitate a bully stick appearance and the most typical feature of a bully stick even when they have various shapes and cross section shapes, as recognized by Xu [0062], [0075].
Additionally, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. Shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Wed. and Fri. 7-12 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights