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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 5-21, and 23-37 as amended by the Examiner’s amendments of February 5, 2026 are treated on the merits in this action. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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, 2, 9, 10, 12-14, 17-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari (Ansari, M. & Stepanek, F., Formation of hollow core granules by fluid bed in situ melt granulation: Modelling and experiments, International Journal of Pharmaceutics 321 (2006) 108–116) in view of Kleinebudde (Kleinebudde, P & Knop, K., Direct Pelletization of Pharmaceutical Pellets in Fluid-Bed Processes, in Granulation, eds. A.D. Salman, M.J. Hounslow and J. P. K. Seville, 2007, Elsevier B.V.) and Zhai (Zhai, H., et al., The effect of the binder size and viscosity on agglomerate growth in fluidised hot melt granulation, Chemical Engineering Journal 164 (2010) 275–284).
Ansari teaches hollow granules formed by melt fluid-bed granulation of D-mannitol solid particles and poly-ethylene glycol (PEG-6000) binder (Fig.8 and accompanying text; see title; abstract; pp.109-110 section 2.1; Fig. 1 and accompanying text). D-mannitol is a flavor and a filler among others in claim 2. Figure 8 shows binder in the interstitial spaces. The proportions of binder-to-solid were between 0.05-0.25 g/g (p.112 rt. col.) or 5-24%, with binder material remaining in the interstitial spaces. Therefore the binder would comprise an amount in the range in claim 17. The core cavity diameter is about 20% of the granule diameter in Figure 8 (p.114 Fig.8), which leads to a cavity volume of about 8% of the entire granule. Other particle dimensions are within the range in claims 18-20 (Table 2).
Regarding claims 9 and 10 which recites “particles are configured for absorption, adsorption,…” of a substance with which the hollow granule comes in contact, the following is noted:
Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble,
(B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses,
(C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses,
(D) contingent limitations,
(E) printed matter, or
(F) terms with associated functional language.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive... For more information about these types of claim language and how to determine whether they have a limiting effect on claim scope, see MPEP §§ 2111.02 through 2111.05.
MPEP §2103(I)(C) (emphases added). Here the “configured for …does not require the particular structure, e.g., the identity of the particle and the substance, needed to obtain the properties recited in the clauses. Thus they do not limit the scope of the claim and are not afforded patentable weight.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Ansari does not expressly discuss the properties recited in these claims. However for product claims “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”. MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 24, Ansari teaches D-mannitol as a common excipient in tablets and thus used in tablets (p.109 rt. col.; p.116 left col.).
Ansari does not specifically discuss the individual particles of clay or the salts in claim 1 as a wall forming material.
Kleinebudde discusses two mechanisms of pellet formation in fluidized bed melt pelletization, including “immersion and layering” which results in hollow granules (title; p.805 Fig.9 and accompanying text), and distribution and coalescence (p.804). “Which of the two mechanisms is dominant depends mainly on the relative size of the binder droplets to the solid powder particles. … [W]hen the droplets are larger than the powder particles immersion will be the preferred mechanism.” (P.805; see p.808 “Size of the binder particles”.) Kleinebudde discusses melt palletization of sodium bicarbonate in an effervescent couple (p.803). Kaolin and bentonite are discussed as pelletization aids (p.794).
Zhai studied fluidized hot melt granulation (FHMG) (title; abstract). “Increasing the binder particle size” above 250 µm, e.g., 710-1000 µm or 1 mm, “shifted the granulation mechanism such that agglomerates were formed predominantly via immersion” (abstract; p.279 3.4; Fig.4(L) and accompanying text), i.e., immersion and layering that Kleinebudde also discusses.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ansari, Kleinebudde, and Zhai and include solids other than D-mannitol such as kaolin, bentonite, and/or sodium bicarbonate as recited in the instant claims, with larger binder particles, e.g., 1000 µm. The skilled person would have been motivated to do so because all references are drawn to hollow granules made from solid particles with larger binder particles (Ansari, p.116 4.Conclusion; Kleinebudde, Fig.9; Zhai), Kleinebudde teaches the other particle types that can be made into granules, and Zhai specifically suggest particles larger than 710 µm such as 1000 µm. Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose, where the equivalency has been recognized in the prior art, presents strong evidence of obviousness; an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. MPEP §2144.06 (II) (citations omitted).
Claims 1, 2, 5-14, 17-21, 23-27, and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari (Ansari, M. & Stepanek, F., Formation of hollow core granules by fluid bed in situ melt granulation: Modelling and experiments, International Journal of Pharmaceutics 321 (2006) 108–116) in view of Kleinebudde (Kleinebudde, P & Knop, K., Direct Pelletization of Pharmaceutical Pellets in Fluid-Bed Processes, in Granulation, eds. A.D. Salman, M.J. Hounslow and J. P. K. Seville, 2007, Elsevier B.V.), Zhai (Zhai, H., et al., The effect of the binder size and viscosity on agglomerate growth in fluidised hot melt granulation, Chemical Engineering Journal 164 (2010) 275–284), and Friedman (Friedman, S., 9 Baking Soda Uses for Pet Owners, available at https://www.petmd.com/dog/slideshows/9-baking-soda-uses-pet-owners (2016), accessed on July 15, 2025).
Ansari, Kleinebudde, and Zhai do not specifically teach hollow granules comprising a fabric or pet care composition or a pesticide as recited in claims 5-8, 11, 25-27, and 29-36.
Friedman teaches that baking soda “is a natural cleaner and deodorizer” which “poses no danger to children or pets unless it is ingested in large amounts” (p.1). It neutralizes acidic pet urine (p.1) when used in cat litter and absorbs odor from household fabric, car, and pet fur, among other things (pp.3-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ansari, Kleinebudde, Zhai ,and Friedman and devise Ansari’s hollow granules comprising sodium bicarbonate in compositions and products for fabric or pet care as recited in the instant claims. The skilled person would have been motivated to do so because Friedman teaches fabric and pet cleaning and deodorizing as applications in which sodium bicarbonate is effective.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12-14, 17-21, 23, 24, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari (Ansari, M. & Stepanek, F., Formation of hollow core granules by fluid bed in situ melt granulation: Modelling and experiments, International Journal of Pharmaceutics 321 (2006) 108–116) in view of Kleinebudde (Kleinebudde, P & Knop, K., Direct Pelletization of Pharmaceutical Pellets in Fluid-Bed Processes, in Granulation, eds. A.D. Salman, M.J. Hounslow and J. P. K. Seville, 2007, Elsevier B.V.), Zhai (Zhai, H., et al., The effect of the binder size and viscosity on agglomerate growth in fluidised hot melt granulation, Chemical Engineering Journal 164 (2010) 275–284), and Philadelphia Orchard Project (Kaolin Clay Sprays for Fruit Trees, available at https://www.phillyorchards.org/2015/05/04/kaolin-clay-sprays-for-fruit-trees/ (2015), accessed on July 15, 2025).
Ansar, Kleinebudde, and Zhai do not specifically teach using hollow granules in a fertilizer or pesticide product as recited in claim 37.
Philadelphia Orchard Project teaches that kaolin clay sprays can repel pests and clog the eyes, ears, and reproductive organs of common pest insects. The spray is commonly used for pears, apples, etc.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ansari, Kleinebudde, Zhai and Philadelphia Orchard Project and devise Ansari’s hollow granules comprising kaolin clay in pesticide products as recited in the instant claims. The skilled person would have been motivated to do so because Philadelphia Orchard Project teaches pesticide is an application in which kaolin is effective.
CONCLUSION
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to H. S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-5258. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/H. SARAH PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights