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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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 1-19, 21, 22 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.
Claims 21-22 provides for the use of an antimicrobial additive comprising a silver component for production of an animal ear tag for marking livestock, in particular for cattle, pigs, goats and sheep. However, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q)
Claims 1, 21 and 22, recites the broad recitation “Animal ear tag for marking livestock”, and the claim also recites “in particular for cattle, pigs, goats and sheep” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 3, line 6, it is unclear if “the tag body” refers to the tab body associated with the first tag part or the tag body associated with the second tag part.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 218789786 to Li et al. (Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an RFID radio frequency electronic ear tag comprising the following features: the animal ear tag (main body unit 100, comprising a first circular plate 101 with a connecting rod 201 and a second circular plate 105) comprises a plastic (TPU, thermoplastic polyurethane); an antimicrobial additive is incorporated into the plastic (antibacterial TPU material).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
294
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the animal ear tag (main body unit 100) comprises a first tag part (first circular plate 101) and a second tag part (second circular plate 105) which are configured to be attached to each other and to an ear of the livestock; the first tag part (101) comprises the plastic into which the antimicrobial additive is incorporated and/or the second tag part comprises the plastic into which the antimicrobial additive is incorporated (see claim 6). Li recites “the first circular plate, the second circular plate, a connecting rod, a circular block, a conical block, the annular plate and the annular clamping plate are made of medical TPU antibacterial material”.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the first tag part (main body unit 100) comprises a tag body (first circular plate 101) and a pin (connecting rod 201), wherein the pin (201) is arranged with its first end on the tag body (101) and wherein the pin (201) comprises a tip (tapered bloc 203) and/or cutting edge at its second end; the second tag part comprises a tag body (second circular plate 105) and a receiving element (annular plate 205 and annular clamping plate 206) which is arranged on the tag body (second circular plate 105); the pin (201) of the first tag part (100) is configured to be pressed through an ear of the livestock and into the receiving element (annular plate 205 and annular clamping plate 206) of the second tag part.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the tag body (101) and/or the pin (201) of the first tag part (100) comprise the plastic into which the antimicrobial additive is incorporated (medical TPU antibacterial material); and/or the tag body (second circular plate 105) and/or the receiving element (annular plate 205 and annular clamping plate 206) of the second tag part comprise the plastic into which the antimicrobial additive is incorporated (medical TPU antibacterial material).
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches the plastic is a thermoplastic polyurethane (claim 6).
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106957522 to Jiang.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a visual ear tag for livestock comprising the following features: the animal ear tag (abstract) comprises a plastic (TPU, thermoplastic polyurethane); an antimicrobial additive (antibacterial agent) is incorporated into the plastic (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang teaches the antimicrobial additive (antibacterial agent) is evenly distributed in the plastic. Jiang teaches the “TPU, UV resistant agent, antibacterial agent according to the proportion in a high-speed mixer for high speed mixing, mixing for 30 minutes to obtain the mixed material” (¶0035).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang teaches the concentration of the antimicrobial additive is 2% or less of total weight of the plastic. Jiang teaches 0.8 parts antibacterial agent (¶0022).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 208581682 to Fu.
Regarding claim 21, Fu teaches the use of an antimicrobial additive comprising a silver (antibacterial silver ion) component for production of an animal ear tag (earring for animals, abstract) for marking livestock. Fu recites “the bottom of the earring post is provided with a conical ear nail head, the ear nail head is coated with a layer of antibacterial silver ion layer” (¶0025).
PNG
media_image3.png
246
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Fu teaches the use of an animal ear tag comprising an antimicrobial additive (antibacterial silver ion), wherein the antimicrobial additive contains a silver component (antibacterial silver ion), for marking livestock. Fu recites “the bottom of the earring post is provided with a conical ear nail head; the ear nail head is coated with a layer of antibacterial silver ion layer” (¶0025).
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 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 218789786 to Li et al. (Li) in view of CN 106957522 to Jiang.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an RFID radio frequency electronic ear tag comprising the following features: the animal ear tag (main body unit 100, comprising a first circular plate 101 with a connecting rod 201 and a second circular plate 105) comprises a plastic (TPU, thermoplastic polyurethane); an antimicrobial additive is incorporated into the plastic (antibacterial TPU material). Li does not teach the first part (first circular plate 101 with a connecting rod 201) and/or second part (second circular plate 105) of the ear tag is composed of more than 95% of the plastic into which the antimicrobial additive is incorporated.
Jiang teaches a visual ear tag for livestock comprising the following features: the animal ear tag (abstract) comprises a plastic (TPU, thermoplastic polyurethane); an antimicrobial additive (antibacterial agent) is incorporated into the plastic (abstract). Jiang teaches the thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer is made of TPU, UV resistant agent and antibacterial agent with 90-95 parts of modified thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer and 0.8 parts of antibacterial agent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the first and second tag parts of the ear tag taught by Li composed of more than 95% of the plastic into which the antimicrobial additive is incorporated as taught by Jiang with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an oil resistance, toughness, wearing resistance, and aging resistance ear tag and to prevent animal ear inflammation caused by animal disease (Jiang, ¶0009).
Regarding claim 8, Jiang teaches the ear tag is 0.8 parts of antibacterial agent. Jiang does not teach the concentration of the antimicrobial additive is in a range of 0.2% to 0.6% of the total weight of the plastic. However, Since the applicant does not disclose that constructing the modified thermoplastic polyurethane having the antimicrobial additive is in a range of 0.2% to 0.6% of the total weight of the plastic solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, it appears that constructing the modified thermoplastic polyurethane having the antimicrobial additive of any suitable amount as taught by Jiang would perform equally well to prevent animal ear inflammation caused by animal disease.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 218789786 to Li et al. (Li) in view of CN 208581682 to Fu.
Fu teaches the use of an antimicrobial additive comprising a silver (antibacterial silver ion) component for production of an animal ear tag (earring for animals, abstract) for marking livestock. Fu recites “the bottom of the earring post is provided with a conical ear nail head, the ear nail head is coated with a layer of antibacterial silver ion layer” (¶0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the antimicrobial additive taught by Li with antibacterial silver ion as taught by Fu with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means to reduce animal ear infections and avoid animal ear skin inching and allergies (Fu, ¶0025).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach an animal ear tag comprising a plastic; an antimicrobial additive is incorporated into the plastic, wherein the antimicrobial additive comprises a silver component in a glass-ceramic carrier.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach an animal ear tag comprising a plastic; an antimicrobial additive is incorporated into the plastic, wherein the antimicrobial additive is formed on a basis of wet-milled inorganic carrier particles containing a silver component, wherein the inorganic carrier particles have a smooth surface and are produced by wet milling.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach an animal ear tag comprising a plastic; an antimicrobial additive is incorporated into the plastic, wherein wherein the antimicrobial additive is a crystalline powder.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach an animal ear tag comprising a plastic; an antimicrobial additive is incorporated into the plastic, wherein, wherein: 98% of particles of the antimicrobial additive are smaller than 5μm and 50% of the particles of the antimicrobial additive are smaller than 2μm.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record does not teach an animal ear tag comprising a plastic; an antimicrobial additive is incorporated into the plastic, wherein wherein: a refractive index of the antimicrobial additive is 1.507 with a deviation of ±10%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7192602 to Fechner et al. is cited to show a antimicrobial silicate glass comprising silver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6642. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 571-272-8227. 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.
/CASSANDRA DAVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631