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 Objections
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, lines 3-4: “the dry pet food comprises a second granule of a second ingredient mixture in which a content of the fish meat is lower than a content of the fish meat…” should read “the second granule of the second ingredient mixture has a content of fish meat which is lower than the content of the fish meat…”
Claim 20, lines 3-4: “the dry pet food comprises a second granule of a second ingredient mixture in which a content of the fish meat is lower than a content of the fish meat…” should read “the second granule of the second ingredient mixture has a content of the fish meat which is lower than the content of the fish meat…”
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 1-21 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 1, lines 6-7, recites “wherein a content of the raw meat ingredient is more than 36% with respect to a total amount of the ingredient mixture” without specifying if the 36% and the total amount refers to the weight or volume of the ingredient and/or ingredient mixture. For the purpose of examination, claim 1 will be interpreted as: wherein a content of the raw meat ingredient is more than 36% by weight with respect to a total weight of the ingredient mixture.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the raw meat ingredient is the main ingredient of the ingredient mixture.” It is unclear what conditions need to be met in order for an ingredient to be considered the main ingredient. The specification indicates at paragraph [0029] that the main ingredient is the ingredient what is blended in the largest amount with respect to the total amount of the ingredient mixture. For the purpose of examination, claim 2 will be interpreted as: wherein the content of the raw meat ingredient in the ingredient mixture is greater than any other single ingredient.
Claims: 3 (line 2), 4 (line 2) and 6 (line 2) all recite a percentage of an ingredient or ingredients with respect to “the total amount of the ingredient mixture” without specifying if the percentage and the total amount refer to the weight or volume of the ingredient and/or ingredient mixture. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted as the percentage content of the recited ingredient(s) is weight percent and the total amount of the ingredient mixture refers the to the total weight of the ingredient mixture.
Claim 7, lines 8-9 recites “wherein a content of the raw meat ingredient of the first ingredient mixture is more than 36% with respect to a total amount of the first ingredient mixture” without specifying if the 36% and the total amount refers to the weight or volume of the ingredient and/or ingredient mixture. For the purpose of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as: wherein a content of the raw meat ingredient is more than 36% by weight with respect to a total weight of the ingredient mixture.
Claim 8 recites “a content ratio of the first granule is less than 25% with respect to the total amount of the first granule and the second granule” without specifying if the content ratio is a weight ratio, volume ratio, or a weight/volume ratio. For the purpose of examination, claim 8 will be interpreted as a volume ratio.
The term “darker” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “darker” 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 what the difference in color of the two granules must be in order for one of the granules to be considered “darker.” For example, is green darker than red? Or is blue darker than brown? For the purpose of examination, claim 11 will be interpreted as: wherein the two granules are different colors.
Claims 13 (line 4), claim 15 (line 6), claim 18 (line 3) and claim 20 (line 8) recite the ingredient “corn jam.” It is not clear what defines corn jam the specification does not provide a definition and there appears to be no common definition in the art. For the purpose of examination, the limitations of claims 13, 15, 18 and 20 with respect to corn products will be met when the prior art recites any of corn grits, corn meal, reduction flour, corn flour or hominy feed.
Claims 5, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected here because they depend from claim 1.
Claims 9-10, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected here because they depend from claim 7.
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 1-4, 6, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2016/0235094 A1) in view of Swenson (US 2008/0233244 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Mao discloses a dry pet food comprising 50-99.5 wt% of a core and 0.5-50 wt % of an external coating [0022]. Mao discloses the pet food comprises protein from 10-50 wt% of the core and the protein may be of vegetable or animal origin [0024], [0062]. Mao discloses the proteinaceous material may be soybean protein, fresh animal tissue including fresh meat tissue and fresh fish tissue, which meets the claim limitation of a raw meat ingredient consisting of one or both of animal meat and fish meat [0122].
Mao discloses the pet food comprises fat [0025].
Mao discloses the dry pet food is a kibble, which meets the claim limitation of granules of an ingredient mixture [0061].
As to the claim limitation “a content of the raw meat ingredient is more than 36% with respect to the total amount of the ingredient mixture”, as discussed above Mao discloses the core comprises 10-50 wt% protein and the protein may be fresh animal or fish tissue and soybean protein. Mao does not disclose a preferred embodiment with the combination of fresh animal tissue, fresh fish tissue and soybean protein. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selected the fresh animal or fish tissue and soybean protein of Mao as the proteins of the pet food since they are all taught by Mao as appropriate protein sources for the pet food and It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose MPEP 2144.06 I.
Therefore, the quantity of fresh animal and/or fish tissue in the core pet food of Mao would be less than 50 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 36 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mao does not disclose the soybean protein is a powder.
Swenson, in the field of pet food, disclose a dry kibble comprising with protein sourced from animals or plants, including animal and fish meat and soy protein material including soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate and soy flour (all powders comprising soy protein) [0112], [0020-0022], [0033]. The protein content of the animal food may be from 10-50 wt% [0020]. The animal food may also comprise fat [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate or soy flour of Swenson as the soybean protein of Mao since Swenson discloses soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate or soy flour are appropriate as a source of soy protein in animal foods. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case Swenson discloses the soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate or soy flour are suitable for use in a pet food.
Regarding claim 2, Mao discloses the core dry pet food comprises carbohydrates from 5-50 wt%, protein from 10-50 wt% and fat from 0-40% [0023-0025]. Mao discloses the proteinaceous material may be soybean protein, fresh animal tissue including fresh meat tissue and fresh fish tissue [0122].
Mao’s disclosure of dry pet food comprising carbohydrates from 5-50 wt%, protein from 10-50 wt% and fat from 0-40% encompasses embodiments where the raw meat ingredient is the main ingredient. For example: carbohydrates at 25 wt%, fat at 25 wt% and protein at 50 wt% (10% soybean protein and 40% fresh animal and fish tissue).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above Mao discloses the core comprises 10-50 wt% protein and the protein may be fresh animal or fish tissue and soybean protein.
Therefore, the quantity of soybean protein in the core pet food of Mao would be less than 50 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5-30%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Mao discloses the required ingredients in the pet food core are carbohydrates, protein and fat [0022-0025]. The protein and fat ingredients of Mao contain no fiber. Mao discloses the carbohydrates may be starch, sugars or fibres (including cellulose) [0062] The fibers of Mao are optional, since the carbohydrate requirement of Mao can be met with the starch and/or sugar of Mao. Since none of the required ingredients of Mao must comprise fiber the pet food core of Mao is considered to have 0% fiber or cellulose, which falls into the claim 4 range of less than 10% dietary fiber and meets the claim 14 limitation of a cellulose content of 0%.
Regarding claim 6, Mao discloses the pet food core comprises 0-40 wt% fat [0025], which overlaps with the claimed range of equal or greater than 3.5% fat an oil. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2016/0235094 A1) in view of Swenson (US 2008/0233244 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blanville-Onno (2017/0311627 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Mao in view of Swenson discloses powdered soy protein as an ingredient in the pet food core. Mao discloses the pet food core can comprise corn [0123].
Mao does not disclose the corn is a powder.
Blanville-Onno, in the field of pet food, discloses a dry food for cats (Abstract). Blanville-Onno discloses the cat food may comprise corn, animal fat, fish material (pp 9-10, Table 10, Diet A). Blanville-Onno discloses the cat food may also include meat tissue and soy flour, where the soy flour is obtained by grinding soya beans and has a protein level of at least 40% [0082], [0085]. Blanville-Onno discloses the corn may be in the form of corn meal, corn grits or corn flour [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour of Blanville-Onno as the corn ingredient of Mao since Blanville Ono discloses the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour are appropriate corn ingredients for pet food. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case Blanville-Onno discloses the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour are suitable corn ingredients for a cat food.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Mao discloses the proteinaceous material may be fresh fish tissue [0122] and Mao in view of Swenson discloses the soy protein ingredient is a powder. Mao further discloses the pet food core can comprise corn [0123].
Mao does not disclose the corn is a powder.
Blanville-Onno, in the field of pet food, discloses a dry food for cats (Abstract). Blanville-Onno discloses the cat food may comprise corn, animal fat, fish material (pp 9-10, Table 10, Diet A). Blanville-Onno discloses the cat food may also include meat tissue and soy flour, where the soy flour is obtained by grinding soya beans and has a protein level of at least 40% [0082], [0085]. Blanville-Onno discloses the corn may be in the form of corn meal, corn grits or corn flour [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour of Blanville-Onno as the corn ingredient of Mao since Blanville Ono discloses the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour are appropriate corn ingredients for pet food. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case Blanville-Onno discloses the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour are suitable corn ingredients for a cat food.
Regarding claim 16, Mao discloses the required ingredients in the pet food core are carbohydrates, protein and fat [0022-0025]. The protein and fat ingredients of Mao contain no fiber. Mao discloses the carbohydrates may be starch, sugars or fibres (including cellulose) [0062] The fibers of Mao are optional, since the carbohydrate requirement of Mao can be met with the starch and/or sugar of Mao. Since none of the required ingredients of Mao must comprise fiber the pet food core of Mao is considered to have 0% fiber or cellulose, which meets the claim 16 limitation of a cellulose content of 0%.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2016/0235094 A1) in view of Younikat (DE 202021003595 U1) and Royal Canin (A guide to changing your dog’s food, 2020, https://www.royalcanin.com/us/dogs/health-and-wellbeing/a-guide-to-changing-your-dogs-food?srsltid=AU7gw4UxVwntQJKT9iXweOc4RowyyOsrDalqxgTGMYwZWXzIkfWOrZyY). All citations to Younikat refer to the English translation.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 17, Mao discloses a dry pet food comprising 50-99.5 wt% of a core and 0.5-50 wt % of an external coating [0022]. Mao discloses the pet food comprises protein from 10-50 wt% of the core and the protein may be of animal origin [0024], [0062]. Mao discloses the proteinaceous material may be fresh animal tissue including fresh meat tissue and fresh fish tissue, which meets the claim limitation of a raw meat ingredient consisting of one or both of animal meat and fish meat [0122].
Mao discloses the pet food comprises carbohydrates and the carbohydrates may be starch or sugars (powder ingredient) [0023] [0062].
Mao discloses the pet food comprises fat [0025].
Mao discloses the dry pet food is a kibble, which meets the claim limitation of a first granule of a first ingredient mixture [0061].
As to the claim limitation “a content of the raw meat ingredient is more than 36% with respect to the total amount of the ingredient mixture”, as discussed above Mao discloses the core comprises 10-50 wt% protein and the protein may be fresh animal or fish tissue [0024], [0062], which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 36 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mao does not disclose a second granule.
Younikat, in the field of pet food, discloses a vegan, low-allergen food for dogs (Abstract). Younikat discloses the feed can be administered as a complete feed to avoid the symptoms of food intolerance or digestive problems [0019]. Younikat discloses the pet food is a dry kibble (granule) [0016]. Younikat’s vegan pet food meets the claim 17 limitation of a second granule with no fish meat.
Royal Canin discloses that you may need to change you dog’s food because of gastrointestinal upset (pp1-2, When should I consider changing my dog’s diet?). Royal Canin discloses that when changing your dog’s you should begin by introducing the new diet as a low proportion of their old diet and then gradually alter the ratio of old food to new food over the period of about a week. For example start with a ratio of 25% new food and 75% old food, then 50/50 of each food, then 25% old food and 75% new food (p2, How to change your dog’s food – make the transition gradually), which is close to the claim 8 limitation of the first granule is less than 25% of the mixture of the first and second granule. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close MPEP 2144.05 I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the pet food of Mao with the vegan pet food of Younikat and the food mixing of Royal Canin since Royal Canin discloses switching your dog to a new food by mixing the foods if they are having gastrointestinal upset and Younikat discloses its vegan pet food helps to avoid digestive problems.
Regarding claim 9, Mao discloses the core of the pet food may have all different shapes such as sphere, disc, ring, cylinder [0060]. A cylinder is considered to meet the claim limitation of a granule with an arc-shaped corner part.
Younikat does not disclose the shape of the second granule. However, the selection of the shape of the granule is a matter of design choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant, including the selectin of a shape with a modified cross-section. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 19, Mao discloses the required ingredients in the pet food core are carbohydrates, protein and fat [0022-0025]. The protein and fat ingredients of Mao contain no fiber. Mao discloses the carbohydrates may be starch, sugars or fibres (including cellulose) [0062] The fibers of Mao are optional, since the carbohydrate requirement of Mao can be met with the starch and/or sugar of Mao. Since none of the required ingredients of Mao must comprise fiber the pet food core of Mao is considered to have 0% fiber or cellulose, which meets the claim 19 limitation of a cellulose content of 0%.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2016/0235094 A1) in view of Swenson (US 2008/0233244 A1) and Royal Canin (A guide to changing your dog’s food, 2020, https://www.royalcanin.com/us/dogs/health-and-wellbeing/a-guide-to-changing-your-dogs-food?srsltid=AU7gw4UxVwntQJKT9iXweOc4RowyyOsrDalqxgTGMYwZWXzIkfWOrZyY).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Mao discloses a dry pet food comprising 50-99.5 wt% of a core and 0.5-50 wt % of an external coating [0022]. Mao discloses the pet food comprises protein from 10-50 wt% of the core and the protein may be of animal origin [0024], [0062]. Mao discloses the proteinaceous material may be fresh animal tissue including fresh meat tissue and fresh fish tissue, which meets the claim limitation of a raw meat ingredient consisting of one or both of animal meat and fish meat (claim 7) and the first ingredient mixture includes the raw meat ingredients consisting of the fish meat (claim 10) [0122].
Mao discloses the pet food comprises carbohydrates and the carbohydrates may be starch or sugars (powder ingredient) [0023] [0062].
Mao discloses the pet food comprises fat [0025].
Mao discloses the dry pet food is a kibble, which meets the claim limitation of a first granule of a first ingredient mixture [0061].
As to the claim limitation “a content of the raw meat ingredient is more than 36% with respect to the total amount of the ingredient mixture”, as discussed above Mao discloses the core comprises 10-50 wt% protein and the protein may be fresh animal or fish tissue [0024], [0062], which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 36 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mao does not disclose a second granule.
Swenson, in the field of pet food, disclose a dry kibble comprising with protein sourced from animals or plants, including animal and fish meat [0019], [0022], [0112]. The protein content of the animal food may be from 1-5 wt% [0020]. Swenson discloses the fish meat may be from catfish, tuna, sturgeon, salmon, bass, muskie, pike, bowfin, gar, paddlefish, bream, carp, trout, walleye, snakehead and crappie [0022]. The pet food of Swenson is considered to meet the claim 7 limitation of a second granule of a second ingredient mixture that either has a lower content of a raw meat ingredient than the first ingredient mixture or contains no raw meat ingredient. Here the pet food of Swenson has a meat content of 1-5 wt% while the pet food of Mao has 10-50% protein.
Royal Canin discloses that you may need to change your dog’s food because of gastrointestinal upset (pp1-2, When should I consider changing my dog’s diet?). Royal Canin discloses that when changing your dog’s food you should begin by introducing the new diet as a low proportion of their old diet and then gradually alter the ratio of old food to new food over the period of about a week (p2, How to change your dog’s food – make the transition gradually).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the pet food of Mao with the pet food of Swenson and the food mixing of Royal Canin since Royal Canin discloses switching your dog to a new food by mixing the foods if they are having gastrointestinal upset.
As to the claim 10 limitation: wherein the second ingredient mixture includes fish meat different from the fish meat in the first ingredient mixture, as discussed above, Mao discloses fresh fish tissue as the protein source of the first granule [0122] and Swenson discloses the fish meat may be from catfish, tuna, sturgeon, salmon, bass, muskie, pike, bowfin, gar, paddlefish, bream, carp, trout, walleye, snakehead and crappie [0022].
Mao does not disclose the type of fresh fish tissue used in the first granule. However, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected two different fish from the list of fish disclosed by Swenson for use in the pet foods of Mao and Swenson since Swenson discloses all of the fish on the list are suitable for use in pet foods.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2016/0235094 A1) in view of Younikat (DE 202021003595 U1) and Royal Canin (A guide to changing your dog’s food, 2020, https://www.royalcanin.com/us/dogs/health-and-wellbeing/a-guide-to-changing-your-dogs-food?srsltid=AU7gw4UxVwntQJKT9iXweOc4RowyyOsrDalqxgTGMYwZWXzIkfWOrZyY) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 2017 /0150739 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mao in view of Younikat and Royal Canin discloses the combination of a first and second granule as discussed in the claim 7 rejection above.
Mao does not disclose a dry pet food with granules which are two different colors (as interpreted in the 112(b) rejection above).
Inoue, in the field of pet food, discloses a pet food which is dry type granules [0020]. Inoue discloses the pet food may be made with powdered ingredients, and include ingredients such as corn, meat and fish, oils and fats [0037-0038], [0048].
Inoue discloses discloses a coloring process that makes food granules of at least two colors [0076], [0078]. Inoue discloses that pet food with different colored pieces gives the purchaser satisfaction [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the pet foods of Mao in view of Younikat and Royal Canin with the multiple colors of Inoue since Inoue discloses that when the food pieces have different colors it is satisfying to the purchaser.
Claims 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2016/0235094 A1) in view of Younikat (DE 202021003595 U1) and Royal Canin (A guide to changing your dog’s food, 2020, https://www.royalcanin.com/us/dogs/health-and-wellbeing/a-guide-to-changing-your-dogs-food?srsltid=AU7gw4UxVwntQJKT9iXweOc4RowyyOsrDalqxgTGMYwZWXzIkfWOrZyY) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Blanville-Onno (2017/0311627 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, as discussed above in the claim 7 rejection, Mao in view of Younikat and Royal Canin discloses the dry pet food where the raw meat ingredient of the first granule is fish and a second vegan granule (no fish meat is contained). Mao discloses the pet food core (first granule) can comprise corn [0123].
Mao does not disclose the corn is a powder.
Blanville-Onno, in the field of pet food, discloses a dry food for cats (Abstract). Blanville-Onno discloses the cat food may comprise corn, animal fat, fish material (pp 9-10, Table 10, Diet A). Blanville-Onno discloses the cat food may also include meat tissue and soy flour, where the soy flour is obtained by grinding soya beans and has a protein level of at least 40% [0082], [0085]. Blanville-Onno discloses the corn may be in the form of corn meal, corn grits or corn flour [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour of Blanville-Onno as the corn ingredient of Mao since Blanville Ono discloses the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour are appropriate corn ingredients for pet food. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case Blanville-Onno discloses the corn meal, corn grits or corn flour are suitable corn ingredients for a cat food.
Regarding claim 21, Mao discloses the required ingredients in the pet food core are carbohydrates, protein and fat [0022-0025]. The protein and fat ingredients of Mao contain no fiber. Mao discloses the carbohydrates may be starch, sugars or fibres (including cellulose) [0062] The fibers of Mao are optional, since the carbohydrate requirement of Mao can be met with the starch and/or sugar of Mao. Since none of the required ingredients of Mao must comprise fiber the pet food core of Mao is considered to have 0% cellulose, which meets the claim 21 limitation of a cellulose content of 0%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE GLIMM whose telephone number is (571)272-2839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:30-6:30 ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/CARRIE GLIMM/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
