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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently under examination and the subject matter of the present Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of misspellings. For example, in Figs. 1B and 2, the word “surplus” is misspelled as “surpluss”; Fig. 3 misspells “pelletizer” as “pelltizer”; Fig. 8 misspells “spoiled” as “spold”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-3 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 2 depends from Claim 1, and recites that the flavorants may be dry powder or liquid. In cases where the flavorant is dry, it is unclear how the last step in Claim 1 would be performed, i.e. drying the dry powder flavorant. Therefore, Claim 2 is rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it recites “applying the one or more flavorants onto the dry kibble” and also “mixing the one or more flavorants into the dry kibble”. It is unclear how these steps differ from each other because mixing the flavorant would necessarily apply it to the dry kibble. Clarification is requested.
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blanville-Onno et al. (US 2017/0311627 A1), hereinafter Blanville-Onno.
Regarding Claim 1, Blanville-Onno teaches a palatable dry cat food by mixing at least the following ingredients: rice, corn gluten, poultry meal by-products, com, whole dried eggs, fiber source, fish material, yeast, vitamins and/or microminerals and/or taurine; extruding the mixture; drying; and coating (Claims 1, 4-5; [0089]-[0093]). An example formulation is listed in Tables 1 and 4. Blanville-Onno further teaches that there are different common methods, including a widely used cooker-extruder method, wherein the ingredients are first blended together to form an admixture, transferred into a conditioner where it is sufficiently moistened to become extrudable, it then enters a cooker extruder where it is cooked at an elevated temperature and pressure and then forced out of the apparatus through a die molding the product into a specific shape [0094]. Individual pieces of food are created by periodically slicing off the end of the extruded stream of product, which are then dried in a hot air dryer, and transferred by bulk conveyor to a coating drum and sprayed with fat [0094]. Other liquids such as liquid palatability enhancers, and powders such as dry palatability enhancers may also be applied to the pieces as a coating material ([0094]; Claim 3). Blanville-Onno recites relates that the fat, one or more palatability enhancers may be applied as either liquid(s) or dry powder(s), while mixing the product [0087]. Palatability enhancers encompasses flavorants [0024].
Regarding the step of cutting via a rotary blade, Blanville-Onno teaches a slicing step, which reads on the cutting, but does not specify a specific tool. How or which tool is used for cutting does not appear to materially affect the method steps. It is the Applicant’s burden to show that the device for cutting is also an integral part of the claim. See MPEP 2144.04. As recited, the rotary blade is not a patentable feature.
Regarding the step of extruding to create a plurality of ribbons in Claim 1, Blanville-Onno teaches the extrusion step, the slicing step, and the kibble end product. As such, it appears that Blanville-Onno also creates the intermediate ribbons. Additionally, mere changes in shape does not establish patentability to a claim. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Blanville-Onno teaches wherein said dry cat food is coated with a palatability enhancing composition (Claim 3). After extrusion and slicing, Blanville-Onno teaches coating the pieces by spraying with fat, while liquid or dry powder palatability enhancers may also be applied as a coating material [0094].
Regarding Claim 5, Blanville-Onno teaches coating the kibble product with a palatability enhancer, which is interpreted to encompass topical application of a flavorant to the kibble (Claim 3). Blanville-Onno does not specify using a volumetric pump for coating the kibble. As above, how or which tool is used for coating does not appear to materially affect the method steps. It is the Applicant’s burden to show that the device for coating is also an integral part of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As recited, the volumetric pump is not a patentable feature.
Regarding Claim 6, Blanville-Onno teaches its product is dried until it contains less than 14% moisture, and preferably about 3 to 10% moisture [0094]. Blanville-Onno expressly teaches all the diets had about 3 to about 8.5% moisture (Example 1).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Blanville-Onno teaches that low moisture-containing products having less than about 14% moisture are generally highly nutritious, may be inexpensively packaged, highly convenient to store and use, and are relatively shelf-stable and resistant to microbial or fungal deterioration or contamination [0008]. Blanville-Onno also recognizes adding stabilizing agents for products with higher moisture content. As such, one skilled in the art would keep the moisture low for longer stability by drying the pet food product, and optimize the moisture content or include stabilizing agents for longer storage. Furthermore, because Blanville-Onno expressly teaches the moisture content about 3 to about 8.5% moisture as the instant application, one would expect the pet food product of Blanville-Onno to also be stable for 6-9 months (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Blanville-Onno does not expressly teach a step of packaging the product in a food-safe container. However, Blanville-Onno comprehends that the product are packaged in bags or boxes in a manner that would keep them shelf-stable and resistant to microbial or fungal deterioration or contamination, which renders the claimed step obvious to perform.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blanville-Onno, as applied to Claims 1-8 above, and in view of Wall, T. (PetfoodIndustry. EU program tests dried human food waste in pet food. Jul. 25, 2021. Obtained from URL: <https://www.petfoodindustry.com/news-newsletters/pet-food-news/article/15468052/eu-program-tests-dried-human-food-waste-in-pet-food> on 03/27/2026.)
Regarding Claim 10-14, Blanville-Onno does not teach the steps claimed.
Wall relates testing dried food waste from hotels as dog food ingredient as a European Union project, wherein food residues are solar-dried, ground, and used as a component for dog food (p. 1, 1st paragraph to p. 2, 1st paragraph). Wall describes hand-sorting the waste, which reads on the claimed separation step, and then shredding prior to drying in a green house, which reads on the processing step (p. 2, 2nd paragraph). Wall teaches that misfit fruits and vegetables are useful for upcycling as pet food, which also has environmental benefits (p. 2, last paragraph to p. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Wall with that of Blanville-Onno, and sort unused and misfit fruits and vegetables that are about to be discarded, process and dry them for incorporation into pet food as raw materials. One would have been motivated to do so to reduce food waste while helping the environment.
Regarding the number of fruit and/or vegetable incorporated, one skilled in the art would know to adjust the number and type of fruit or vegetable depending on the needs of the pet, taking guidance from Blanville-Onno, which teaches different amounts of ingredients for its pet food dietary formulation to provide the needed nutrition, including necessary amounts of fiber, minerals etc. [0043]-[0079].
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Buelva, A. (PetfoodIndustry. Hong Kong startup upcycles “ugly foods” as pet food. Apr. 12, 2022. Obtained from URL: <https://www.petfoodindustry.com/pet-food-market/article/15468763/hong-kong-startup-upcycles-ugly-foods-as-pet-food> on 03/27/2026.)
Merrick, T. (US 2006/0062892 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792