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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 and 8-23 are pending. Claims 8-18 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-5 and 19-23 are under current examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of reducing ammonia level of an animal litter and a method of providing a fertilizer additive or an improved fertilizer from used animal litter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/6/2025.
Withdrawn Claim Objections and Rejections
The objection to claim 3 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
This is a new matter rejection. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 19 recites the limitation “water or an aqueous solution in at least 1 to 100 times an amount of the at least one sulfo-oxo compound”. Claim 23 recites the limitation “a remainder of water or an aqueous solution in an amount of at least 1 to 100 times an amount of both the at least one sulfo-oxo compound and the at least one carboxylic acid”. However, the instant specification only contains support for the concentrate composition to be diluted about 1 to about 100 times (v/v) with water or other aqueous solution ([0066] of instant specification), not a dilution factor of water based on individual components of the concentrate composition. Therefore, the limitations recited in claims 19 and 23 constitute new matter.
Regarding claims 20-22, claims depending from rejected claims have also been rejected because they incorporate all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend, but fail to resolve the written description concerns outlined above.
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 19-23 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.
Claims 19 and 23 recite the limitation “an amount of at least 1 to 100 times an amount”. This renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear to which amount the claims are referring (i.e. volume or weight).
Regarding claims 20-22, claims depending from rejected claims have also been rejected because they incorporate all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend, but fail to resolve the indefiniteness concerns outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025 have necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bralkowski (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0037307, publication year: 2015).
Regarding claim 19, Bralkowski discloses a composition comprising <1% wt. dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid and 998kg demineralized water [0108]. The composition is applied to poultry litter in a method of controlling or inhibiting the activity of urease enzymes in poultry litter or manure [0033 and 0112]. The composition is effective at limiting ammonia production [0118], therefore the Examiner considers the composition of Bralkowski to read on the “present in an amount effective at conserving an amount of urea and ammonia nitrogen as ammonium salts content” limitation of the instant claim. Bralkowski does not disclose the pH of the animal litter treated with the composition as recited in claim 19. However, the invention as claimed is not structurally distinguishable from the disclosure of Bralkowski and therefore, the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that the properties claimed in the present invention are inherent in the composition taught by the prior art. Since the Patent and Trademark Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing the claimed composition with that of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicants to show an unobvious distinction between the structural and functional characteristics of the claimed composition and the composition of the prior art; i.e., to prove that the properties are not inherent. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430 (CCPA 197) and Ex parte Gray, USPQ 2d 1922 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int.). As recited in MPEP §2112.01 (II): “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.
Regarding claim 20, Bralkowski discloses a composition comprising dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid and citric acid [0109].
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Bralkowski discloses that the ammonia concentration in the poultry facility is controlled to a level below 25 ppm and may be maintained for between 2 and 50 days [0034]. In an exemplary treatment, poultry litter treated with a composition comprising dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid maintains an ammonia level of 20ppm at day sixteen and 21 and a level of 15ppm at day 39 [0118 Table 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 12/15/2025 have necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya (WO2021/141855A1, publication date; 7/15/2021, cited in the IDS filed 8/24/2023, of record), in view of PubChem (Nitrapyrin Compound Summary, available 12/7/2021, of record), as evidenced by PubChem ((4-(methylamino) phenyl) methane sulfonic acid Compound Summary, created 7/10/2017, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Pandya teaches a composition of a nitrapyrin-monoacid complex, mixture, or composition applied to pet litter or a manure collection zone (pg. 39 line 7). The nitrapyrin-monoacid complex can be formed with one, two, or more monoacids and the monoacids may be different (pg. 16 lines 12-23). The monoacid is selected from a monocarboxylic acid, a monosulfonic acid, and/or a monophosphoric acid (pg. 12 line 20). The monosulfonic acid may be substituted with alkyl, alkenyl, or aromatic ring system (pg. 13 line 10). The monocarboxylic acid may be substituted with an alkyl, alkenyl, or aromatic ring system (pg. 12 line 27). Pandya also teaches that inclusion of an organic solvent such as propylene glycol in the composition (pg. 17, Table 1). The Examiner interprets the term “a polar dispersant” in the instant claims to encompass the organic solvents embraced by Pandya.
Regarding claim 2, Pandya teaches that the exemplary alkyl monosulfonic acids for the composition include methane sulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, and 1-propanesulfonic acid (pg. 13 lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 3, Pandya teaches that the monosulfonic acids may include unsubstituted or substituted benzenesulfonic acid (pg. 13 line 19). PubChem teaches that p-methylamino phenyl methanesulfonate, or (4-(methylamino)phenyl)methanesulfonic acid, is a substituted benzene sulfonic acid (pg. 1, Structure).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 1, Pandya does not specifically teach the inclusion of an antimicrobial agent in nitrapyrin-monoacid composition. However, this deficiency is cured by PubChem.
PubChem teaches that nitrapyrin can act as a bactericide (pg. 1, Compound Summary).
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the nitrapyrin in the nitrapyrin-monoacid composition embraced by Pandya could act as an antimicrobial agent. One would have understood in view of PubChem that nitrapyrin is a suitable bactericidal agent. The artisan of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation of success because PubChem teaches that nitrapyrin has anti-microbial activity. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya (WO2021/141855A1, publication date; 7/15/2021, cited in the IDS filed 8/24/2023, of record) in view of PubChem (Nitrapyrin Compound Summary, available 12/7/2021, of record), as applied to claims 1-3, 19, and 21-22 above, in view of Aylen (U.S. Patent No. 11,089,760, issue date: 8/17/2021, of record), as evidenced by FDA Guidance for Industry (available 1/2005, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Pandya renders obvious the relevant limitations of claim 1 as described above. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Pandya teaches that the monocarboxylic acid of the nitrapyrin-monoacid complex may be substituted with an alkyl, alkenyl, or aromatic ring system (pg. 12 line 27).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Pandya does not specifically teach the inclusion of an alpha-hydroxy acid or a carboxylic acid embraced by the instant claims. However, this deficiency is cured by Aylen.
Aylen teaches the inclusion of citric acid in a composition for reducing ammonia levels in an animal bedding or litter (Abstract). FDA Guidance for Industry teaches that citric acid is an alpha-hydroxy acid (pg. 2, first paragraph).
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the idea for combining compounds each of which is known to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition which is to be used for the same purpose, flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. See In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). As shown by the recited teachings, the instant claims define nothing more than the concomitant use of conventional ammonia reducing agents used in animal litter amendments. It would follow that the recited claims define prima facie obvious subject matter. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bralkowski (U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0037307, publication year: 2015).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Bralkowski teaches the relevant limitations as described in the anticipation rejection of claims 19 and 20 above. Bralkowski also teaches that the composition may include an antimicrobial peptide [0052] and fragrances [0063].
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Bralkowski doesn’t teach a single embodiment or example meeting all limitations of the invention of claim 23.
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Within the broader scope of Bralkowski all of the limitations of the invention of claim 23 are met. It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to choose the limitations in the instant claims from those disclosed by Bralkowski and arrive at this conclusion because such was contemplated by Bralkowski.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 15, Applicant argues that Pandya does not explicitly disclose a composition without nitrapyrin and that the non-final office action has not established that Pandya’s nitrapyrin-monoacid complex would not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of Applicant’s claimed invention. This is not found persuasive. In response, MPEP 2111.03 (III) states: “the transitional phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ limits the scope of a claim to the scope of a claim to the specified materials or step”. The instant claims embrace the presence of an antimicrobial agent without limitation. As described in the rejection statement above, Pandya teaches a composition of a nitrapyrin-monoacid complex, mixture, or composition applied to pet litter or a manure collection zone (pg. 39 line 7) and PubChem teaches that nitrapyrin can act as a bactericide (pg. 1, Compound Summary). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the nitrapyrin reads on the “antimicrobial agent” limitation of the instant claim. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
On page 15, Applicant argues that the interpretation of “antimicrobial agent” is overly broad and that the present specification teaches specific antimicrobial agents suitable for use in animal litter treatment compositions. This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific antimicrobial agents suitable for use in animal litter treatment compositions and their ability to work synergistically with the sulfo-oxo compounds and carboxylic acids) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 16, Applicant argues that Pandya teaches away from the claimed invention because Pandya’s teaching that nitrapyrin be combined with monoacids teaches away from excluding nitrapyrin, thus, any hypothetical non-nitrapyrin-sulfo-oxo compounds and carboxylic acids are non-obvious over Pandya since nitrapyrin would compete with, dilute, or interfere with the presently claimed sulfo-oxo compound-based composition. This is not fond persuasive. In response, the Examiner respectfully refers to MPEP 2123 (II), which states: “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments”. While the Examiner agrees that the teachings of Pandya do require the presence of nitrapyrin, the Examiner interprets the “a nitrapyrin-monoacid complex, mixture, or composition” limitation of Pandya (pg. 39 line 7) to read on a composition in which nitrapyrin and monoacids are not complexed. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 19, 21, and 22 over Pandya in view of PubChem and claim 20 over Pandya in view of Aylen under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm ET.
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.
ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERSExaminer, Art Unit 1617
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614