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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits of these claims.
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 1-6, 10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2015/0053143 by Gratza in view of US Patent Application Number 2008/0004371 by Axelrod and US Patent Number 4,935,019 to Papp.
Regarding claim 1, Gratza discloses a chewable pet toy, comprising a body defining an exterior layer (surface 102) and an interior volume (opening 116).
Gratza does not disclose a radiopaque component retained by the body, wherein the radiopaque component id disposed in a portion less than all of at least one of the exterior layer or the interior volume and wherein the radiopaque component is detectable by radiographic imaging when located within a digestive tract of an animal. However, this limitation is taught by Axelrod and Papp. Axelrod discloses animal chew toys comprising a radiopaque polymer, and paragraph 16 discloses “The radiopaque polymer may comprise a polymer that is inherently radiopaque or a polymer that has been made radiopaque by the addition of an additive that provides radiopaque characteristics”. Paragraph 11 suggests that “there has existed a longstanding need to develop and provide an economical process to produce an animal chew toy so that the chew toy can be detected by standard X-ray analysis by trained medical professionals”. Furthermore, Papp discloses a fabric with a radiopaque marker such as lines 12 and 13, and column 3, lines 16-18 disclose “The radiopaque marker may be applied to the fabric in a distinctive pattern which is readily identified in an X-ray image”. As shown in Figure 1, only the threads at lines 12 and 13 would comprise the radiopaque material, therefore at least one and less than all of the threads of the thread count comprise the radiopaque material. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gratza using the teachings from Axelrod and Papp in order to give the fabrics of Gratza a distinctive pattern that can be readily identified in an X-ray image if all or part of the toy were swallowed.
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Papp further teaches the radiopaque component comprises a radiopaque filament incorporated into a textile of the exterior layer. The filaments of Papp with the radiopaque marker applied comprises radiopaque filaments incorporated into a textile of the exterior layer.
Regarding claims 3 (dependent on claim 2), 4 (dependent on claim 3)¸ Gratza, Axelrod, and Papp do not disclose the textile comprising a woven fabric having a thread count, and wherein a fraction of radiopaque threads in the thread count is from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2000 or from 1 in 10 to 1 in 300. However, Papp teaches only some portion of the fabric 11 having radiopaque markers 12 and 13, therefore only some of the threads of the fabric comprising radiopaque material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the amount of radiopaque material to make the pattern readily identifiable in an X-ray, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1)¸ Papp further teaches the radiopaque component comprises a radiopaque coating bonded to fibers of the exterior layer. Column 4, lines 12-16 disclose “The radiopaque marker lines are continuous over the length of the folded sponge and applied to the fabric during manufacture by, for example, printing a radiopaque plastisol directly onto the surface of the fabric”.
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), Papp further teaches the radiopaque coating comprising a polymer matrix loaded with a radiopaque filler at a loading of from 10 wt% to 70 wt%. Column 7, lines 5-9 disclose “We have also found that the X-ray detectability of a cured latex or plastisol containing from 60 to 70 percent barium sulfate compares favorably with that of a conventional monofilament marker which usually contains about 60 percent barium sulfate”.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 1)¸ Papp further teaches the radiopaque component is distributed across a plurality of locations of the body including at least two spatially separated exterior zones. Figure 1 shows radiopaque marker lines 12 and 13 being two spatially separated exterior zones.
Regarding claim 19, Gratza discloses a method of manufacturing a trackable pet toy, comprising incorporating a textile component of the pet toy (paragraph 44 discloses a variety of fabrics for the body).
Gratza does not disclose incorporating a radiopaque filler into a polymeric coating applied to a textile component of the pet toy, assembling the pet toy so that the radiopaque filler is retained by the toy and disposed in a portion less than all of at least one of the exterior layer or the interior volume, and confirming radiographic detectability of the pet toy via radiographic imaging. However, this limitation is taught by Axelrod and Papp. Axelrod discloses animal chew toys comprising a radiopaque polymer, and paragraph 16 discloses “The radiopaque polymer may comprise a polymer that is inherently radiopaque or a polymer that has been made radiopaque by the addition of an additive that provides radiopaque characteristics”. Paragraph 11 suggests that “there has existed a longstanding need to develop and provide an economical process to produce an animal chew toy so that the chew toy can be detected by standard X-ray analysis by trained medical professionals”. Furthermore, Papp discloses a fabric with a radiopaque marker such as lines 12 and 13, and column 3, lines 16-18 disclose “The radiopaque marker may be applied to the fabric in a distinctive pattern which is readily identified in an X-ray image”. As shown in Figure 1, only the threads at lines 12 and 13 would comprise the radiopaque material, therefore at least one and less than all of the threads of the thread count comprise the radiopaque material. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gratza using the teachings from Axelrod and Papp in order to give the fabrics of Gratza a distinctive pattern that can be readily identified in an X-ray image if all or part of the toy were swallowed.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), Papp further teaches incorporating the radiopaque filler comprising dispersing barium sulfate in a polymer matrix and forming the polymer matrix into a coating. Column 7, lines 5-9 disclose “We have also found that the X-ray detectability of a cured latex or plastisol containing from 60 to 70 percent barium sulfate compares favorably with that of a conventional monofilament marker which usually contains about 60 percent barium sulfate” and column 4, lines 57-60 disclose “The radiopaque material uniformly coats each yarn of the gauze within the area of the coating and the pattern of the gauze is readily identified in an X-ray image of the fabric”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are allowed.
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights