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 § 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.
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, 4, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shotwell (US 4350122).
As per claim 1, Shotwell discloses a method of making an animal health product container, comprising:
in any order: applying an animal health product compound (14) to a body (10,30) having a first face and a second face, the body constructed of a weather resistant material; applying a bonding material (31) to at least a portion of the first face of the body; and forming the body into a predetermined shape configured for the first face of the body to be bondingly attached to a planar surface of a tag body (110) of a tag for an animal, the body having a pull tab (30)(see lines 33-67 of col. 5 and lines 1-10 of col. 6).
Shotwell fails to disclose the bonding material being weather-resistant.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Shotwell so as to include the use of the bonding material being weather-resistant, since the modification is merely the selection of a known material selected for intended use (i.e., to protect from harsh environment) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Shotwell.
As for claims 4 and 13, Shotwell as modified further teaches applying the animal health product compound to the body is defined further as applying the animal health product compound being a compound configured for transdermal delivery to the body (inherently occurred thereof).
As per claim 10, Shotwell discloses a method of making an animal health product container, comprising:
in any order: applying an animal health product compound (14) to a body (10,30) having a first face and a second face, the body constructed of a weather resistant material; applying a bonding material (31) to at least a portion of the first face of the body; and forming the body into a predetermined shape configured to be solely bondingly attached to a planar surface of a tag body (110) of a tag for an animal, the body having a pull tab (30)(see lines 33-67 of col. 5 and lines 1-10 of col. 6).
Shotwell fails to disclose the bonding material being weather-resistant.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Shotwell so as to include the use of the bonding material being weather-resistant, since the modification is merely the selection of a known material selected for intended use (i.e., to protect from harsh environment) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Shotwell.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Speckman (US 4562794).
As per claims 2 and 11, as described above, the reference as applied to claim 1 above disclose most of the claimed invention except to mention wherein the step of applying the animal health product compound to the body is defined further as applying the animal health product compound being an insecticide compound selected from a group consisting of one or more of a pyrethroid, permethrin, zeta-cypermethrin, ivermectin, avermectin, abamectin, milbemectin, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, macrocyclic lactone, and an organophosphate to the body.
Speckman discloses the use of various animal health product compound such as pyrethroid, permethrin, zeta-cypermethrin, ivermectin, avermectin, abamectin, milbemectin, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, macrocyclic lactone, and an organophosphate (see lines 60-68 of col. 3 and lines 1-10 of col. 4).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the reference as applied to claim 1 above so as to include the use of compound such as pyrethroid, permethrin, zeta-cypermethrin, ivermectin, avermectin, abamectin, milbemectin, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, macrocyclic lactone, and an organophosphate, in view of Speckman, since the modification is merely the selection of a known material selected for intended use (i.e., to provide more prolong protection for the pet).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 2023/0240268).
As per claims 3 and 12, the reference as applied to claim 1 above disclose most of the claimed invention but fail to disclose wherein the step of applying the animal health product compound to the body is defined further as applying the animal health product compound being a calming compound to the body.
Gordon discloses some of the substances which can be delivered by the delivery device include, without limitation, anti-flea compound, anti-rick compounds, anti-parasite compounds, anti-fungal compounds, anti-bacterial compounds, anti-viral compounds, calming drugs, analgesic drugs and other pain drugs, pest or parasitic deterrents/repellents or control substances, and others, in the form of liquids, gels, ointments and any other flowable substances, referred to herein as fluids (see [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the health product compound of the reference as applied to claim 1 above with the calming compound of Gordon so the step of applying the animal health product compound to the body is defined further as applying the animal health product compound being a calming compound to the body. This allows for different compounds to be administered to the body.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKay (US 2013/0018321).
As per claims 5 and 14, the reference as applied to claim 1 above disclose most of the claimed invention but fail to disclose wherein the step of applying the bonding material to at least a portion of the first face of the body is defined further as applying the boding material being a biodegradable, polymer-based pressure sensitive adhesive to at least a portion of the first face of the body.
McKay discloses an "adhesive" includes material that chemically binds the adhesive sheet to the target tissue site. Adhesives can be liquid, semi-solid or in a solid state. The adhesive can be a solvent based adhesive, a polymer dispersion adhesive, a contact adhesive, a pressure sensitive adhesive, a reactive adhesive, such as for example a multi-part adhesive, one part adhesive, heat curing adhesive, moisture curing adhesive, or a combination thereof or the like (see [0029]). The terms "biodegradable" includes that all or parts of the medical device (e.g., adhesive agent, etc.) will degrade over time by the action of enzymes, by hydrolytic action and/or by other similar mechanisms in the human body (see [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bonding material of the reference as applied to claim 1 above with the biodegradable pressure sensitive adhesive of McKay so the step of applying the bonding material to at least a portion of the first face of the body is defined further as applying the bonding material being a biodegradable, polymer-based pressure sensitive adhesive to at least a portion of the first face of the body. This allows for an alternate way for the device to bond to the tag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 10-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights