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 .
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 21-25 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 21 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “an inner member composed of a hardened non-consumable composite material.” The specification does not have support for an inner member that is a hardened non-consumable composite material, only an inner member that is edible, a middle member made of a non-consumable, and an outermost layer that is edible. Additionally, a later portion of the claim states “an outermost layer surrounding the middle member and composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material,” which presents a lack of antecedent basis given the current claim language. Therefore, due to this, the specification and scope of the other claims it is assumed that this is a typographical error and the non-consumable composite member is the middle member. Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardy (US-8192776-B2) in view of Li (US-20220192231-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vardy discloses a pet chew comprising:
an innermost core (14) composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material (compressed food, treat-like substances and suitable, edible materials for a dog, see col 3, lines 46-50)
a middle member (shell 12) surrounding the innermost core and composed of a hardened non-consumable composite material (hardened non-consumable, see col 3, lines 12-31).
Vardy fails to disclose an outermost layer surrounding the middle member and composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material.
Li teaches an outermost layer surrounding the middle member and composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material (outer member 0301, plant vegetable based, wraps around middle member 0302 and core 0303, see para 0081 and fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the pet chew of Vardy with the outer layer made of meat or plants as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success as this will further entice the pet to use the chew, providing increased entertainment, stimulation and dental health benefits.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 1, and Vardy further discloses wherein the middle member (12) has a longitudinally hollow center and the innermost core (14) is disposed there-within (see figs 1 and 4a-b).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 1, and Vardy further discloses wherein the middle member is formed by injection molding (see col 3, lines 51-62 and figs 4a-e).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the outermost layer is of a substantially consistent thickness that conforms around and to the middle member.
Li teaches wherein the outermost layer is of a substantially consistent thickness that conforms around and to the middle member (outer member 0301, plant vegetable based, wraps around middle member 0302 and core 0303, see para 0081 and fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the pet chew with the outer layer having substantially consistent thickness as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a simpler manufacturing process and a uniform chewing experience to the dog by ensuring the strength and durability of the chew remains consistent.
Regarding claim 11, Vardy discloses a dog-bone shaped pet chew comprising:
an innermost core (14) composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material (compressed food, treat-like substances and suitable, edible materials for a dog, see col 3, lines 46-50)
a middle member (shell 12) having a first dog-bone shape (see fig 1) surrounding the innermost core and composed of a hardened non-consumable composite material (hardened non-consumable, see col 3, lines 12-31).
The modified reference fails to teach an outermost layer surrounding the middle member and composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material.
Li teaches an outermost layer surrounding the middle member and composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material (outer member 0301, plant vegetable based, wraps around middle member 0302 and core 0303, see para 0081 and fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the pet chew of Vardy with the outer layer made of meat or plants as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success as this will further entice the pet to use the chew, providing increased entertainment, stimulation and dental health benefits.
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 11, and Vardy further discloses wherein the middle member (12) has a longitudinally hollow center and the innermost core (14) is disposed there-within (see figs 1 and 4a-b).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 11, and Vardy further discloses wherein the middle member is formed by injection molding (see col 3, lines 51-62 and figs 4a-e).
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 11.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the outermost layer is of a substantially consistent thickness that conforms around and to the middle member such that the outermost layer has a second dog- bone shape larger than the first dog-bone shape.
Li teaches wherein the outermost layer is of a substantially consistent thickness that conforms around and to the middle member (outer member 0301, plant vegetable based, wraps around middle member 0302 and core 0303, see para 0081 and fig 3) such that the outermost layer has a second dog- bone shape larger than the first dog-bone shape (the modification of the bone of Vardy with the wrap of Li would result in a larger dog bone shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the pet chew with the outer layer having substantially consistent thickness as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a simpler manufacturing process and a uniform chewing experience to the dog by ensuring the strength and durability of the chew remains consistent.
Claim(s) 5-10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardy (US-8192776-B2) in view of Li (US-20220192231-A1) as applied to claims 1, 11 and 21 above, and further in view of Axelrod (US 7851001 B2, as cited by Applicant in IDS 07/29/2024).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the innermost core is formed by one of secondary molding or extrusion into the hollow center.
Axelrod teaches wherein the innermost core is formed by one of secondary molding or extrusion into the hollow center (inner core portion formed by extrusion, melted, formed into configuration and then cooled to harden to support itself, see col 9, lines 28-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the pet chew with the core formed by extrusion as taught by Axelrod with a reasonable expectation of success as this allows for easier shaping and molding into a shape that is comfortable and easy for the pet to use.
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 5, and Axelrod further teaches wherein the innermost core is soft and fluid when being formed into the hollow center and then becomes harder and less fluid (inner core portion formed by extrusion, melted, formed into configuration and then cooled to harden to support itself, see col 9, lines 28-51).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that “wherein the innermost core is soft and fluid when being formed into the hollow center and then becomes harder and less fluid” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 6.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member.
Axelrod teaches wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member (outer portion molded over inner portion, over-molding for body portion, see col 8, lines 29-39, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the chew with the molding around the middle member as taught by Axelrod with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the chew is substantially uniform and evenly shaped to provide a shape that is comfortable and easy for the pet to use.
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 7, and Axelrod further teaches wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid (material for the body melted and formed and then cooled and hardened during extrusion, see col 8, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that “wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 4.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member.
Axelrod teaches wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member (outer portion molded over inner portion, over-molding for body portion, see col 8, lines 29-39, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the chew with the molding around the middle member as taught by Axelrod with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the chew is substantially uniform and evenly shaped to provide a shape that is comfortable and easy for the pet to use.
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 9, and Axelrod further teaches wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid (material for the body melted and formed and then cooled and hardened during extrusion, see col 8, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that “wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the dog-bone shaped pet chew of claim 11.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the innermost core is formed by one of secondary molding or extrusion into the hollow center.
Axelrod teaches wherein the innermost core is formed by one of secondary molding or extrusion into the hollow center (inner core portion formed by extrusion, melted, formed into configuration and then cooled to harden to support itself, see col 9, lines 28-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the pet chew with the core formed by extrusion as taught by Axelrod with a reasonable expectation of success as this allows for easier shaping and molding into a shape that is comfortable and easy for the pet to use.
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the dog-bone shaped pet chew of claim 15, and Axelrod further teaches wherein the innermost core is soft and fluid when being formed into the hollow center and then becomes harder and less fluid (inner core portion formed by extrusion, melted, formed into configuration and then cooled to harden to support itself, see col 9, lines 28-51).
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that “wherein the innermost core is soft and fluid when being formed into the hollow center and then becomes harder and less fluid” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 17, the modified reference teaches the dog-bone shaped pet chew of claim 16.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member.
Axelrod teaches wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member (outer portion molded over inner portion, over-molding for body portion, see col 8, lines 29-39, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the chew with the molding around the middle member as taught by Axelrod with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the chew is substantially uniform and evenly shaped to provide a shape that is comfortable and easy for the pet to use.
Regarding claim 18, the modified reference teaches the dog-bone shaped pet chew of claim 17, and Axelrod further teaches wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid (material for the body melted and formed and then cooled and hardened during extrusion, see col 8, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that “wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the dog-bone shaped pet chew of claim 14.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member.
Axelrod teaches wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member (outer portion molded over inner portion, over-molding for body portion, see col 8, lines 29-39, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the chew with the molding around the middle member as taught by Axelrod with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the chew is substantially uniform and evenly shaped to provide a shape that is comfortable and easy for the pet to use.
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the dog-bone shaped pet chew of claim 19, and Axelrod further teaches wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid (material for the body melted and formed and then cooled and hardened during extrusion, see col 8, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that “wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardy (US-8192776-B2)
Regarding claim 21, Vardy discloses a pet chew comprising:
a inner member (14);
an outermost layer surrounding the middle member (shell 12, see also 112(b) rejection above).
Vardy discloses the claimed invention except wherein the inner member is composed of a hardened non-consumable composite material; and the outermost layer is composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material. However, Vardy discloses an inner member composed of one or both of edible meat and plant-based material (compressed food, treat-like substances and suitable, edible materials for a dog, see col 3, lines 46-50) and an outer layer composed of a hardened non-consumable composite material (hardened non-consumable, see col 3, lines 12-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pet chew such that the inner layer is made of non-consumable material and the outermost layer is made of an edible material with a reasonable expectation of success as the smell and flavor of the outside of the chew as this will further entice the pet to use the chew, providing increased entertainment, stimulation and dental health benefits, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 22, Vardy discloses the pet chew of claim 21, wherein the inner member is formed by injection molding (see col 3, lines 51-62 and figs 4a-e).
Regarding claim 23, Vardy discloses the pet chew of claim 21, wherein the outermost layer is of a substantially consistent thickness that conforms around and to the inner member (see figs 1-4e).
Claim(s) 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardy (US-8192776-B2) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Axelrod (US 7851001 B2, as cited by Applicant in IDS 07/29/2024).
Regarding claim 24, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 23.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member.
Axelrod teaches wherein the outermost layer is formed by secondary molding around the middle member (outer portion molded over inner portion, over-molding for body portion, see col 8, lines 29-39, lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the chew with the molding around the middle member as taught by Axelrod with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the chew is substantially uniform and evenly shaped to provide a shape that is comfortable and easy for the pet to use.
Regarding claim 25, the modified reference teaches the pet chew of claim 24, and Axelrod further teaches wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid (material for the body melted and formed and then cooled and hardened during extrusion, see col 8, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 25, it is noted that “wherein the outermost layer is soft and fluid when being formed around the middle member and then becomes harder and less fluid” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above, exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Suchowski which teaches a chewy outer layer and a frame made of non-toxic nylon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights