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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/08/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
It is also noted that a copy of the Non-Patent Literature document “Int’l Search Report issued in PCT/US2025/11777, dated May 8, 2025.” cited on the 05/08/2025 IDS has not been provided by the Applicant or otherwise made of record.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, in the limitation reciting “wherein each of said plurality of colorful absorbent strips is provided in any Pantone Matching System color, including brown, white, black, natural, ivory, … or a combination thereof”, the phrase “including” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In other words, it is not clear whether the claim requires that the plurality of strips is provided in any Pantone Matching System color, or if the plurality of strips must be one of the listed colors. The colors listed after the term “including” appear to be merely exemplary. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, for the purpose of applying prior art, the claim will be interpreted as requiring that each of the plurality of colorful absorbent strips is provided in any Pantone Matching System color.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 44, 45, 47, and 50-55 of Reynolds (US 9,398,757). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites an animal product comprising a plurality of paper strips, and a puck formed from the compression of said plurality of paper strips in a mold. The paper strips include adjuvants operative to enhance performance or entertainment value of the puck for a laboratory animal, and the adjuvants include fragrances, dyes, odor suppressants, superabsorbent polymer granules, and flavorants. The paper strips including dyes as adjuvants correspond to the plurality of colorful absorbent strips as recited in instant claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and claim 45 further recites that the plurality of paper strips comprise at least one ply of fibrous material. The paper strips are further understood to include cellulose, cellulose pulp, cellulose derivatives, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and claim 47 further recites that the plurality of paper strips have a height to length ratio from about 1:1 to 1:200.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and claim 51 further recites that the plurality of paper strips have a thickness between 0.07 mm (0.0028 in) and 0.18 mm (0.0071 in).
Regarding claims 6 and 13 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and claim 55 further recites that the puck is subjected to radiation sterilization.
Regarding claim 9 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 7 above, and claim 50 further recites that the adjuvants have an irregular distribution in the puck.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and claim 52 further recites that the plurality of strips comprise at least two types of strips from planar, crinkled, twisted, or rolled.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and claim 53 further recites that the puck has a mean height from about 25.4 mm (0.1 in) to about 254 mm (1.0 in), and a diameter of about 127 mm (0.5 in) to about 508 mm (2.0 in).
Regarding claim 12 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and claim 54 further recites that the puck has a diameter to height ratio from about 2:1 to about 30:1.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above. The claims in Reynolds differ from the instant claims in that they do not expressly recite that the color of the dyed paper strips is a Pantone Matching System color.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any color as the color of the paper strips, such as a color encompassed by the Pantone Matching System set of standardized colors, depending on the desired aesthetic appearance of the product. With respect to aesthetic considerations such as the color of the absorbent strips, it is noted that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Regarding claims 16 and 19 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above, and further recites that the puck induces extended play time in a laboratory animal by providing the animal with the opportunity to relocate and disassemble the puck into a plurality of paper strips.
With respect to the limitation requiring that a color of the plurality of colorful absorbent strips is “configured to convey information to a caretaker of the caged animal”, it is noted that this limitation is also considered functional language related to an intended use of the claimed puck, in particular to an intended use of the color of the absorbent strips. Given that claim 44 on Reynolds recites that the puck is made of paper strips including adjuvants such as dyes, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the dyed paper strips would necessarily change color (e.g., darken) when wetted, such that the color of the strips is capable of conveying information to a caretaker of an animal. For example, a change in the color of the strips from a light color to a darker color would indicate that the animal is alive and/or active and has recently urinated, salivated, spilled water, or otherwise interacted with the paper strips in such a way that has moistened the paper.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 44 of Reynolds (US 9,398,757) as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Franklin et al. (US 5,267,532).
Regarding claims 17 and 18 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly recite that at least one of the plurality of colorful absorbent strips contains erythrosine, or includes an additive indicator that changes color based on pH level.
Franklin et al. teaches a pH-indicating material capable of undergoing a clearly visually detectable color transition upon being wetted, e.g., with animal urine, in order to visibly detect acidic and/or alkaline animal urine problems (Abstract). In particular, Franklin et al. teaches that the pH-indicating material may be applied as a film coating onto an inert carrier that is admixed with litter material (col 2, Ln 38-51; col 3, Ln 10-23). Franklin et al. teaches representative pH indicator dyes, including erythrosine, that can be used in the coating compositions for the pH-indicating material (col 10, Ln 38-43, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the animal product claimed in Reynolds by applying a pH indicator dye, such as erythrosine, onto the paper strips, as suggested by Franklin et al., in order to enable the visual detection of animal urine problems associated with changes in pH.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 44 of Reynolds (US 9,398,757) as applied to instant claim 1 above, and further in view of Payne (US 5,423,290).
Regarding claim 20 of the instant invention, claim 44 of Reynolds recites all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly recite that the animal product further comprises a binder retaining the plurality of colorful absorbent strips in the form of a puck.
Payne teaches a nesting facility comprising a hard cylindrical shell and a soft inside that can be pecked out by a bird to satisfy its pecking instincts and to form a nest from the torn off bits of soft pith (Abstract; Figs. 1-5). The pithy interior has a texture that the bird enjoys pulling out and reworking into a padded nest over a period of weeks or months (Abstract). The interior may be filled with cellulose or any fibrous material which is formed into a matrix of some type, rather than being loose, as the purpose is to provide pecking and shredding entertainment to the bird for up to several months, and not the instant gratification of an immediate new hollow (col 2, Ln 52-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the animal product claimed in Reynolds by forming the paper strips into a matrix rather than keeping the strips in loose form, such as by using a binder, as suggested by Payne, in order to improve the entertainment value of the puck by making it slightly more challenging for the animal to unravel the strands.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reynolds (US 9,398,757).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, and 14, Reynolds teaches an animal product comprising a plurality of paper strips, and a puck formed from the compression of said plurality of paper strips in a mold (Abstract, claim 44). The paper strips include adjuvants operative to enhance performance or entertainment value of the puck for a laboratory animal, and the adjuvants include fragrances, dyes, odor suppressants, superabsorbent polymer granules, and flavorants, such that the paper strips may have colorimetric zones (22) along the length thereof (Abstract; col 4, Ln 33-39; Figs. 1-3; claim 44). The paper strips including dyes as adjuvants and having colorimetric zones thereon correspond to the claimed plurality of colorful absorbent strips.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above and further recites that the plurality of paper strips comprise at least one ply of fibrous material (claim 45). The fibrous material includes cellulose, alkoxylated cellulose, alginate, starch, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl, polystyrene, Spandex, Lycra (elastane), rubber, fleece, cellulose pulp, cellulose derivatives, or any combinations thereof (col 2, Ln 64-col 3, Ln 4; claim 46).
Regarding claim 4, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above and further teaches that the plurality of paper strips have a height to length ratio from about 1:1 to 1:200 (claim 47).
Regarding claim 5, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above and further teaches that the plurality of paper strips have a thickness between 0.07 mm (0.0028 in) and 0.18 mm (0.0071 in) (claim 51).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the puck is subjected to radiation sterilization (claim 55).
Regarding claim 9, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 7 above and further teaches that the adjuvants have an irregular distribution in the puck (claim 50).
Regarding claim 10, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above and further teaches that the plurality of strips comprise at least two types of strips from planar, crinkled, twisted, or rolled (claim 52).
Regarding claim 11, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above and further teaches that the puck has a mean height from about 25.4 mm (0.1 in) to about 254 mm (1.0 in), and a diameter of about 127 mm (0.5 in) to about 508 mm (2.0 in) (claim 53).
Regarding claim 12, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the puck has a diameter to height ratio from about 2:1 to about 30:1 (claim 54).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above and further teaches that the puck induces extended play time in a laboratory animal by providing the animal with the opportunity to relocate and disassemble the puck into a plurality of paper strips (claim 44).
With respect to the limitation requiring that a color of the plurality of colorful absorbent strips is “configured to convey information to a caretaker of the caged animal”, it is noted that this limitation is also considered functional language related to an intended use of the claimed puck, in particular to an intended use of the color of the absorbent strips. Given that the puck taught by Reynolds is made of paper strips including adjuvants such as dyes, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the dyed paper strips would necessarily change color (e.g., darken) when wetted, such that the color of the strips is capable of conveying information to a caretaker of an animal. For example, a change in the color of the strips from a light color to a darker color would indicate that the animal is alive and/or active and has recently urinated, salivated, spilled water, or otherwise interacted with the paper strips in such a way that has moistened the paper.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 12-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huybrechts (BE 1028020, machine translation via IP.com provided).
Regarding claim 1, Huybrechts teaches a nesting material (1; animal product, puck) comprising a plurality of compressed and entangled paper strips (2; absorbent strips) (p. 6, Figs. 1, 4). As shown in Figs. 1 and 4, the compressed paper strips (2) are formed into a disc shape (puck) (p. 5-6). Huybrechts further teaches that the nesting material is designed to imitate an appearance of thin herb and/or grass stems, thereby imparting the nesting material with the appearance of a natural nest (p. 5). The paper strips are therefore understood to be colorful so as to imitate the appearance of herb and/or grass stems.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the paper strips may be made of kraft paper or cardboard (p. 5), such that the paper strips comprise at least one ply of fibrous material including cellulose, cellulose pulp, cellulose derivatives, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the paper strips have a length-to-width ratio of from 60:1 to 175:1 (p. 5), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 1:1 to 1:200 for the height to length ratio.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the nesting material has been irradiated (subjected to sterilization; radiation sterilized) in order to obtain a sterile nesting material (p. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Fig. 1, the disc of nesting material (1) includes paper strips (2) that are planar, crinkled, twisted, and rolled.
Regarding claim 12, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the nesting material has an average height from 1 cm to 3 cm and an average diameter of 5 cm to 11 cm (p. 5). The diameter to height ratio taught by Huybrechts is therefore about 1.7:1 to 11:1, which anticipates the claimed range of about 2:1 to about 30:1.
Regarding claim 14, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the nesting material (1; puck) is obtained by exerting a pressing force on the plurality of paper strips (2) by means of a press die (29) within a tube (25; mold) (p. 6-7, Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the limitation requiring that the puck “induces extended play time in a caged animal by providing the animal the opportunity to relocate and disassemble said puck into said plurality of colorful absorbent strips”, it is noted that this limitation is considered functional language related to an intended use of the claimed puck. Huybrechts teaches that the nesting material in the form of compressed packages or paper shreds can be offered to laboratory animals in a cage, where the packages can be taken apart by the animals to build a nest, so that the animals have an activity that is good for their well-being and health (p. 2). The nesting material taught by Huybrechts is therefore capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
With respect to the limitation requiring that a color of the plurality of colorful absorbent strips is “configured to convey information to a caretaker of the caged animal”, it is noted that this limitation is also considered functional language related to an intended use of the claimed puck, in particular to an intended use of the color of the absorbent strips. Given that Huybrechts teaches that the nesting material is made of paper strips and is designed to imitate an appearance of herb and/or grass stems (p. 5), indicating that the paper strips are green colored, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the colored paper strips would necessarily change color (e.g., darken) when wetted, such that the color of the strips is capable of conveying information to a caretaker of an animal. For example, a change in the color of the strips from green to darker green would indicate that the animal is alive and/or active and has recently urinated, salivated, spilled water, or otherwise interacted with the paper strips in such a way that has moistened the paper.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds (US 9,398,757) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1 above but differs from the instant claims in that the reference does not expressly teach that the color of the dyed paper strips is a Pantone Matching System color.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any color as the color of the paper strips, such as a color encompassed by the Pantone Matching System set of standardized colors, depending on the desired aesthetic appearance of the product. With respect to aesthetic considerations such as the color of the absorbent strips, it is noted that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds (US 9,398,757) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franklin et al. (US 5,267,532).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that at least one of the plurality of colorful absorbent strips contains erythrosine, or includes an additive indicator that changes color based on pH level.
Franklin et al. teaches a pH-indicating material capable of undergoing a clearly visually detectable color transition upon being wetted, e.g., with animal urine, in order to visibly detect acidic and/or alkaline animal urine problems (Abstract). In particular, Franklin et al. teaches that the pH-indicating material may be applied as a film coating onto an inert carrier that is admixed with litter material (col 2, Ln 38-51; col 3, Ln 10-23). Franklin et al. teaches representative pH indicator dyes, including erythrosine, that can be used in the coating compositions for the pH-indicating material (col 10, Ln 38-43, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the animal product taught by Reynolds by applying a pH indicator dye, such as erythrosine, onto the paper strips, as suggested by Franklin et al., in order to enable the visual detection of animal urine problems associated with changes in pH.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds (US 9,398,757) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Payne (US 5,423,290).
Regarding claim 20, Reynolds teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Reynolds further teaches that the unfolding of the compressed paper strips in the puck provides an animal with a degree of mental stimulation and activity generation, thereby reducing reduce boredom, anxiety, and stress (col 2, Ln 39-47; col 4, Ln 3-23). Reynolds teaches that when the animal is occupied, food consumption and health are generally improved by alleviating behaviors associated with cage confinement (col 2, Ln 15-20, 50-54). Reynolds differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the nesting material comprises a binder for retaining the plurality of paper strips in the form of a puck.
Payne teaches a nesting facility comprising a hard cylindrical shell and a soft inside that can be pecked out by a bird to satisfy its pecking instincts and to form a nest from the torn off bits of soft pith (Abstract; Figs. 1-5). The pithy interior has a texture that the bird enjoys pulling out and reworking into a padded nest over a period of weeks or months (Abstract). The interior may be filled with cellulose or any fibrous material which is formed into a matrix of some type, rather than being loose, as the purpose is to provide pecking and shredding entertainment to the bird for up to several months, and not the instant gratification of an immediate new hollow (col 2, Ln 52-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the animal product taught by Reynolds by forming the paper strips into a matrix rather than keeping the strips in loose form, such as by using a binder, as suggested by Payne, in order to improve the entertainment value of the puck by making it slightly more challenging for the animal to unravel the strands.
Claims 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huybrechts (BE 1028020, machine translation via IP.com provided) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach a thickness of the paper strips. However, Huybrechts does further teach that the paper strips are made of a paper having a grammage of 60 to 100 gsm, such as kraft paper or cardboard, where a paper of this grammage is sufficiently strong to be manipulated by domestic animals without being too easily torn (p. 5).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a paper having an appropriate grammage, such as a grammage corresponding to a thickness within the claimed range, in order to ensure that the paper strips are sufficiently strong to be suitable for use as a nesting material without being too easily torn. One of ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that kraft paper or cardboard formed at the grammage taught by Huybrechts would have a thickness falling approximately within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the nesting material has an average height from 1 cm to 3 cm and an average diameter of 5 cm to 11 cm (p. 5). Huybrechts therefore teaches that the puck has a mean height from 10 mm to 30 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of about 25.4 mm to about 254 mm, and an average diameter of 50 mm to 110 mm, which overlaps the scope of the lower endpoint of “about 127 mm” of the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap, lie inside, or are close to the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Huybrechts teaches that the nesting material is designed to imitate an appearance of thin herb and/or grass stems, thereby imparting the nesting material with the appearance of a natural nest (p. 5), such that the plurality of colorful absorbent strips are understood to be provided in a green color. Huybrechts differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the green color is a Pantone Matching System color.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any color, such as a green color encompassed by the Pantone Matching System set of standardized colors, as the color of the paper strips taught by Huybrechts, in order to form a nesting material that imitates the appearance of a natural animal nest. With respect to aesthetic considerations such as the color of the absorbent strips, it is noted that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huybrechts (BE 1028020, machine translation via IP.com provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reynolds (US 9,398,757).
Regarding claims 7-9, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that the plurality of colorful absorbent strips include adjuvants operative to enhance performance or entertainment value of the puck for a laboratory animal.
Reynolds teaches a puck formed from compressed paper strips that has utility as an animal entertainment device and nest building material (Abstract). The paper strips may be treated with adjuvants such as fragrances, dyes, odor suppressants, superabsorbent polymer granules, flavorants, and nutrients (col 3, Ln 33-40). Reynolds teaches that the unfolding and deconstruction of the puck into paper strips by an animal provides the animal with a degree of mental stimulation, thereby improving the well-being of the animal, and that the irregular distribution of adjuvants improves the stimulation value (Abstract; col 1, Ln 21-41; col 3, Ln 40-51; col 4, Ln 3-12).
Given that both Huybrechts and Reynolds teach nesting materials for improving the welfare of caged animals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nesting material taught by Huybrechts by including adjuvants such as fragrances, dyes, odor suppressants, superabsorbent polymer granules, or favorants, having an irregular distribution in the compressed puck of paper strips, as taught by Reynolds, in order to enhance the entertainment value of the nesting material, thus improving the well-being of a caged animal.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huybrechts (BE 1028020, machine translation via IP.com provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franklin et al. (US 5,267,532).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that at least one of the plurality of colorful absorbent strips contains erythrosine, or includes an additive indicator that changes color based on pH level.
Franklin et al. teaches a pH-indicating material capable of undergoing a clearly visually detectable color transition upon being wetted, e.g., with animal urine, in order to visibly detect acidic and/or alkaline animal urine problems (Abstract). In particular, Franklin et al. teaches that the pH-indicating material may be applied as a film coating onto an inert carrier that is admixed with litter material (col 2, Ln 38-51; col 3, Ln 10-23). Franklin et al. teaches representative pH indicator dyes, including erythrosine, that can be used in the coating compositions for the pH-indicating material (col 10, Ln 38-43, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nesting material taught by Huybrechts by applying a pH indicator dye, such as erythrosine, onto the paper strips, as suggested by Franklin et al., in order to enable the visual detection of animal urine problems associated with changes in pH.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huybrechts (BE 1028020, machine translation via IP.com provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Payne (US 5,423,290).
Regarding claim 20, Huybrechts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Huybrechts further teaches that the nesting material is a solid structure that remains intact during transport and installation in a cage, but that individual strips are loose enough to be unraveled and pulled off by animals to fulfill a basic need of nest building, which is beneficial to the health and welfare of the animals (p. 2, 5). Huybrechts differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the nesting material comprises a binder for retaining the plurality of paper strips in the form of a puck.
Payne teaches a nesting facility comprising a hard cylindrical shell and a soft inside that can be pecked out by a bird to satisfy its pecking instincts and to form a nest from the torn off bits of soft pith (Abstract; Figs. 1-5). The pithy interior has a texture that the bird enjoys pulling out and reworking into a padded nest over a period of weeks or months (Abstract). The interior may be filled with cellulose or any fibrous material which is formed into a matrix of some type, rather than being loose, as the purpose is to provide pecking and shredding entertainment to the bird for up to several months, and not the instant gratification of an immediate new hollow (col 2, Ln 52-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nesting material taught by Huybrechts by forming the paper strips into a matrix rather than keeping the strips in loose form, such as by using a binder, as suggested by Payne, in order to improve the entertainment value of the puck by making it slightly more challenging for the animal to unravel the strands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garner et al. (US 2014/0238306) teaches a nesting material for use in laboratory environments for rodents, where a fibrous material (e.g., shredded paper) is formed into bales for use as nesting material (Abstract, [0018], Figs. 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 6).
Gauthier (US 2010/0192867) teaches bedding material for livestock produced by extruding straw through a cubing system (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Peiffer (US D700,756) illustrates an animal litter puck, which is shown in Figs. 1-3 as a flat square comprising a plurality of strands.
Xu (CN 117530434, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a cooked bird’s nest product having a self-maintaining flat cylindrical (coin-shaped) shape formed by a plurality of strands ([0011]-[0012], [0036], Figs. 3-4).
Santioemmo et al. (US 5,685,259) teaches a cat litter product used to detect feline urinary diseases, where the litter comprises a plurality of paper strips treated with a chemical indicator selected to exhibit a noticeable color change when the paper strips are wetted with cat urine having a characteristic of the feline disease (Abstract; col 3, Ln 14-65).
Gardner (GB 2063043) teaches animal bedding or litter for small animals such as poultry, consisting of short strips or pieces of absorbent non-toxic paper, e.g., in the form of shredded newspaper sheets (Abstract). The paper strips may have a width on the order of 10-40 mm and a length of 5-120 mm, so that the material is less prone to becoming matted or congealed after prolonged use, and so that the material can be spread more evenly and economically as animal bedding or litter (p. 1, Ln 48-53; p. 3, Ln 7-19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785