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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/7/25 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s claims are directed to an antimicrobial and odor-reducing animal litter. Applicants have not defined animal, and as such the examiner is interpreting it to include all animals including humans. Applicants also have not defined litter. Thus, the examiner is using a general definition of litter from Merriam-Webster, specifically wherein litter means: material used to absorb the urine and feces of animals. Thus, any material used to absorb the urine and feces of an animal reads on the claimed animal litter.
Applicant’s claim the compound N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide which according to IUPAC naming would have the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Applicants are allowed to be their own lexicographer. At [0055] in the specification applicants disclose their structure for N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide which is formula (III):
PNG
media_image2.png
366
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Thus, the structure applicant’s define as N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide is different from the IUPAC definition of this compound. The examiner is interpreting N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide to be applicant’s structure based on the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US20060075975) “Schneider”, and further in view of Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, and Venezio (US20080149037).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Schneider teaches and claims animal litter treated with chloramine-T which is a compound of applicant’s instant formula (I), and Schneider teaches wherein 0.01 to 5 wt% of the chloramine T/compound of instant formula I is applied to the litter based on the weight of the cat litter substrate (Claims 1-19; [0029-0033]; [0025]; [0020-0021]).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Schneider teaches that their cat litter has been found to be very effective in that the resulting used litter boxes are essentially odor-free and the used litter boxes have been found to be “cat friendly” in that cats have been observed returning to the litter box after defecating or urinating, which anticipates the claimed method for treating animal waste in that Schneider teaches the step of providing a container containing an animal litter, and the step of permitting an animal to excrete waste into the animal litter; and Schneider expressly teaches that naturally occurring clays have been found to be useful as litter substrates because of their ability to absorb large volumes of liquids and they specifically claim treating natural clay litter material which chloramine T and/or other compounds applicant’s formula I, which anticipate wherein the animal litter comprises an absorbent base material and a halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed in claim 8, and they claim wherein the effective amount of the halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed is from about 0.01 to about 5 wt% which anticipates the claimed range of about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% claimed in claim 10 ([0035]; [0022-0023]; claims 1-19).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, Schneider broadly teaches wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound can be in the instantly claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide (Claims 1-4, wherein R3 is COOM, X is halogen and M is alkali or alkaline earth metal, and R1-R2, R4-R5 are all H; [0030-0033]).
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12, and 14-15, Schneider does not specifically teach examples or expressly prefer the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide as the halo active aromatic sulfonamide compound of formula (I) and Schneider does not teach wherein their litter comprises the new scope of additives and Schneider does not teach the claimed amounts of the additives. However, these deficiencies in Schneider are addressed by Schneider II and Venezio.
Schneider II teaches bodily fluid absorbers which are odor-controlling and wherein the absorbers can be granules and as such read on animal litter, and wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound can be the claimed N-chloro-p-carboxysulfonamide/N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide and wherein the compound is safe for contact with animals, including humans (see entire document; claims; [0067]; [0081]; [0011-0016]; [0022-0027]).
Schneider II teaches that the absorbent materials may be treated/pre-treated with surfactants, wetting agents, antimicrobial agents, pigments, and/or the active halosulfonamide compounds can be mixed with other additives such as buffering agent(s), binder (which would broadly include the claimed thickener).
Venezio teaches that it was known to use thickeners as additives with the cat litter granules so that the litter clumps when the cat uses the litter and that it is known to use these thickeners in amounts of 2% to 10% by volume of the litter, and/or 2-5% of the litter ([0014]; [0020-0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Schneider also does not specifically teach the claimed step of drying the animal litter or bedding after treatment with the active composition. This deficiency in Schneider is addressed by Schneider II. Schneider II teaches that it is known to spray compositions comprising the claimed active halo sulfonamide compounds onto absorbent substrates to control odors which are later absorbed into the absorbent substrates and wherein the composition is allowed to evaporate, i.e. dry after application of the active composition to the absorbent substrates, which reads on the claimed step of drying, as evaporating the solvents, dries the absorbent substrate to which the active halo sulfonamide compounds were applied and leaves behind the active halo sulfonamide compound ([0076]).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to form the claimed animal litter when looking to Schneider and Schneider II because Schneider teaches forming animal litters wherein the claimed compounds are useful as active agents for controlling odors. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the claimed N-chloro-p-carboxysulfonamide/N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide as the active compound for used in the animal litters of Schneider because firstly Schneider also broadly teaches and broadly claims the claimed N-chloro-p-carboxysulfonamide/N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide as part of their structures of formula (I) for treating animal litter/forming animal litter. However, it would have been obvious to select the claimed N-chloro-p-carboxysulfonamide/N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide because Schneider II clearly teaches it is a very effective anti-odor compound which is useful for treating absorbent articles which are useful for absorbing bodily fluids/odorous bodily fluids. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the claimed N-chloro-p-carboxysulfonamide/N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide to use for treating animal litters based on the teachings of Schneider II as discussed above.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a thickener as the claimed additional additive for use in the animal litter of Schneider in order to develop the instantly claimed litter (which is an absorbent material) because Schneider II teaches that it was known to treat absorbent materials with binders which would read on the claimed thickeners and Venezio teaches using thickeners on animal litters/with animal litters in the claimed/overlapping amounts/ranges. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have added the claimed additives to the litter of Schneider in order to afford the claimed litter because it was known to add thickeners to absorbent materials, specifically cat litters.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the litter of Schneider to dry after application of the active halo sulfonamide containing compositions as it was known in the art to apply compositions comprising these same active compounds via spraying onto absorbent substrates and allow the solvent to evaporate thereby drying the animal litter or bedding after treatment with the active composition as claimed and leaving behind the active halosulfonamide. One would want to let the substrates dry prior to packaging, etc. so as to provide dry absorbent substrates which can more readily absorb animal waste/odors, etc. e.g. dry animal litter will absorb more waste products, etc. than a wet litter product and the animals, e.g. cats would likely not use a “wet”/damp litter.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US20060075975) “Schneider” in view of Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II” and Venezio (US20080149037) as applied to claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Jollez (WO2015031998), and Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The combined references together teach the animal litter and methods of claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 14-15 as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Schneider does teach wherein their active halo sulfonamide compound is in dry powder form ([0023]; Claims; [0029-0033]; [0025]; [0020-0021]).
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claim 4, Schneider does not teach wherein the absorbent base material of the animal litter has an average particle size of 100 microns to about 2000 microns.
Regarding claim 5, Schneider does not teach wherein the average particle size of their powdered halo active sulfonamide compound is 50 microns or less.
Regarding claim 11, Schneider does not teach wherein the absorbent base material of the animal litter has an average particle size of 100 microns to about 2000 microns and the halo active sulfonamide compound is in the form of a powder having an average particle size of 50 microns or less.
These deficiencies in the combined references are addressed by Jollez and Bracilovic.
Jollez teaches that it was known to form powders of the claimed halo sulfonamide active agents, e.g. chloramine-T as powders having particle size of 12 to 300 mesh which reads on the claimed 50 microns or less, because 300 mesh is 50 microns, specifically Jollez teaches using powdered anti-odor compounds to coat animal litter granules (Abstract; pg. 10, ln. 8-11).
Bracilovic teaches that animal litter absorbent particles, e.g. clay particles, are typically/suitably from about 25 microns to about 3350 microns in diameter for use as animal litter which read on the claimed average particle size of 100 micrometers to about 2000 micrometers (See [0012]).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have used the active halosulfonamide powder of Schneider having the claimed average particle size in the animal litter of Schneider and the combined references because Jollez teaches this is the powder particle size for anti-odor compounds is known to be useful for effectively coating/treating litter granules.
It also would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have used animal litter particles/granules having the claimed size because as is taught by Bracilovic absorbent litter particles for animals, e.g. clay particles are typically/suitably from about 25 microns to about 3350 microns in diameter which read on the claimed average particle size of 100 micrometers to about 2000 micrometers. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the average particle size of the active halo sulfonamide powder of Schneider and the combined references to fall within the claimed range because it was already known to use anti-odor powders having the overlapping/claimed particle size to coat litter granules and because it is known, as per MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It also would have been obvious to optimize the average particle size of the absorbent base material of the animal litter of Schneider and the combined references in order to develop the claimed animal litter particles because the claimed particle sizes were already known in the art to be effective for animal litters as is taught by Bracilovic and Jollez and as such it would have been obvious to optimize the size of the litter granules/particles of Schneider and the combined references to fall within the claimed range, because as per MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III” and JP4101974.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 16-17, Schneider III teaches textile materials, specifically a dog bed which is pet bedding, treated with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide (compound 6/[0038]; Example 17).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Schneider III also teaches applying amounts of about 8.5 g of the formulation to a 30” dog bed and while the dog bed weight is not given it would have been obvious that the animal bedding material which is treated comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material.
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 16-18, and 20, Schneider III does not teach wherein their pet bedding/dog bed comprises the newly claimed additives. However, this deficiency in Schneider III is addressed by JP4101974.
Regarding claim 18, Schneider III does not teach wherein the animal bedding comprises from about 1 wt% to about 99.9 wt% of the haloactive sulfonamide compound. However, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of halo active sulfonamide compound added to the animal bedding textile in order to afford the claimed weight percent because Schneider III does teach applying ~8.5 g of a composition which is ~1% weight of active halosulfonamide compounds to pet bedding.
JP4101974 teaches textiles for pets which has a long lasting anti-odor/deodorizing agent and which further comprises a thickener for treating the textile fabric with the anti-odor/deodorizing composition (See [0001/background paragraph; [0053]; [0039]).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have optimized the amount/concentration of the halo active sulfonamide compound added to the animal bedding textile in order to afford the claimed weight percentage of halo sulfonamide compounds on the pet bedding because it is known, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. ‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed thickener as an additive in forming the textile pet bed of Schneider III in order to develop the instantly claimed pet bed/pet bedding. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this because JP4101974 teaches textiles for pets which have a long lasting anti-odor agent and which further comprises a thickener for use when treating the textile fabric with the anti-odor agent and it would allow the anti-odor active agents of Schneider to better remain on the textile since the thickener will allow for a higher viscosity of the formulation being applied to the bedding thereby leading to long lasting anti-odor effects of the treated pet bed/pet bedding which would be beneficial since these anti-odor effects will allow for the bedding not to have to be washed as frequently.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
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 1-6, 8-12,14-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending 17971233 (‘233), in view of Schneider (US20060075975), and Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456).
‘233 claims and antimicrobial animal bedding and/or litter product comprising a textile base material and the claimed haloactive aromatic sulfonamide compounds of the instantly claimed formula (I), specifically the claimed n-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide, and ‘233 claims using their haloactive aromatic sulfonamide compounds, which are the same as instantly claimed, in overlapping amounts to those instantly claimed, and wherein the haloactive aromatic sulfonamide compound is in the form of a powder having the claimed particle size, and wherein the composition comprises the claimed additional additives (thickener, latex, etc.) in the claimed amounts, and teaches methods of treating the animal bedding comprising treating the bedding/litter with the haloactive aromatic sulfonamide compounds instantly claimed via spraying, coating, tumbling, etc. which are the same as instantly claimed.
‘233 does not teach that their bedding and/or animal litter, as ‘233’s claim 14 mentions animal litter, has the claimed particle size. ‘233 also does not claim the method of treating animal waste by letting an animal excrete waste onto the animal litter treated with the claimed halosulfonamide active compounds. However, these deficiencies in ‘233 are addressed by Schneider and Bracilovic.
Schneider teaches and claims animal litter treated with chloramine-T which is a compound of applicant’s instant formula (I), and Schneider teaches wherein 0.01 to 5 wt% of the chloramine T/compound of instant formula I is applied to the litter based on the weight of the cat litter substrate (Claims 1-19; [0029-0033]; [0025]; [0020-0021]). Schneider teaches that their cat litter has been found to be very effective in that the resulting used litter boxes are essentially odor-free and the used litter boxes have been found to be “cat friendly” in that cats have been observed returning to the litter box after defecating or urinating, which reads on the claimed method for treating animal waste in that Schneider teaches the step of providing a container containing an animal litter, and the step of permitting an animal to excrete waste into the animal litter; and Schneider expressly teaches that naturally occurring clays have been found to be useful as litter substrates because of their ability to absorb large volumes of liquids and they specifically claim treating natural clay litter material which chloramine T and/or other compounds applicant’s formula I, which reads on wherein the animal litter comprises an absorbent base material and a halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed in claim 8, and they claim wherein the effective amount of the halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed is from about 0.01 to about 5 wt% which anticipates the claimed range of about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% claimed in claim 10 ([0035]; [0022-0023]; claims 1-19).
Schneider teaches methods of preparing animal litter the method comprising treating the animal litter or bedding with an active composition comprising the claimed halo active sulfonamide compound(s) of formula (I), specifically chloramine-T by tumbling as claimed in claim 13, Schneider does not specifically teach that the bedding has extended antimicrobial killing performance. However, Schneider teaches treating the same absorbent animal litter with the same composition comprising the same halo active sulfonamide compound(s) of formula I instantly claimed in the same/overlapping amounts that are instantly claimed as discussed above. It is known, "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Bracilovic teaches that animal litter absorbent particles, e.g. clay particles, are typically/suitably from about 25 microns to about 3350 microns in diameter for use as animal litter which read on the claimed average particle size of 100 micrometers to about 2000 micrometers (See [0012]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to have formed the claimed animal litter treated with the claimed active agents in the claimed amounts and with the claimed additional active agents because ‘233 teaches that animal bedding and litter (per ‘233’s claim 14) can be treated with the same active agents in the same powdered form having the same particle size as claimed and in the same amounts as claimed. Thus, it would be obvious to treat litter having the claimed particle sizes with the claimed active agents in the claimed amounts because these active agents are known in the art to be safe for use with animals in their bedding and/or litter and are known to control odors and exhibit antimicrobial activity as this is a property of the claimed active agents in the claimed amounts and as such the claimed methods and composition are obvious when taken in view of copending 17971233 (‘233), in view of Schneider (US20060075975), and Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456).
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, and 16 of US9987389 (‘389) in view of in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, Venezio (US20080149037), and JP4101974.
‘389 teaches absorbent articles/substrates which are treated with halosulfonamides of applicant’s formula I, specifically the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide, and methods of applying the halosulfonamides to the absorbent substrates in amounts/concentrations which overlap those instantly claimed and wherein the halosulfonamide composition applied to the substrate includes additives in amounts which overlap those instantly claimed. ‘389 teaches wherein the absorptive substrates can be a pet pad which reads on the claimed pet litter. However, ‘389 does not teach wherein the absorptive substrate is in the form of granule/particles of the claimed particle size or wherein the halosulfonamide is in the form of a powder of the claimed particle size or wherein the treating of the absorptive substrate/litter is done by spraying or tumbling, etc. and drying the animal litter after treatment with the active composition or wherein the additives are the newly specifically claimed additives. However, these deficiencies in ‘389 are addressed by Schneider, Schneider II, Jollez, Bracilovic, and Schneider III.
Schneider teaches and claims animal litter treated with chloramine-T which is a compound of applicant’s instant formula (I), and Schneider teaches wherein 0.01 to 5 wt% of the chloramine T/compound of instant formula I is applied to the litter based on the weight of the cat litter substrate (Claims 1-19; [0029-0033]; [0025]; [0020-0021]). Schneider broadly teaches wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound can be in the instantly claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide (Claims 1-4, wherein R3 is COOM, X is halogen and M is alkali or alkaline earth metal, and R1-R2, R4-R5 are all H; [0030-0033]).
Schneider teaches that their cat litter has been found to be very effective in that the resulting used litter boxes are essentially odor-free and the used litter boxes have been found to be “cat friendly” in that cats have been observed returning to the litter box after defecating or urinating, which reads on the claimed method for treating animal waste in that Schneider teaches the step of providing a container containing an animal litter, and the step of permitting an animal to excrete waste into the animal litter; and Schneider expressly teaches that naturally occurring clays have been found to be useful as litter substrates because of their ability to absorb large volumes of liquids and they specifically claim treating natural clay litter material which chloramine T and/or other compounds applicant’s formula I, which read on wherein the animal litter comprises an absorbent base material and a halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed in claim 8, and they claim wherein the effective amount of the halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed is from about 0.01 to about 5 wt% which anticipates the claimed range of about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% claimed in claim 10 ([0035]; [0022-0023]; claims 1-19).
Schneider teaches methods of preparing animal litter the method comprising treating the animal litter or bedding with an active composition comprising the claimed halo active sulfonamide compound(s) of formula (I), specifically chloramine-T by tumbling as claimed in claim 13, Schneider does not specifically teach that the bedding has extended antimicrobial killing performance. However, Schneider teaches treating the same absorbent animal litter with the same composition comprising the same halo active sulfonamide compound(s) of formula I instantly claimed in the same/overlapping amounts that are instantly claimed as discussed above. It is known, "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Schneider II teaches bodily fluid absorbers which are odor-controlling and wherein the absorbers can be granules and as such read on animal litter, and wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound can be the claimed N-chloro-p-carboxysulfonamide/N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide and wherein the compound is safe for contact with animals, including humans (see entire document; claims; [0067]; [0081]; [0011-0016]; [0022-0027]).
Schneider II teaches that the absorbent materials may be treated/pre-treated with surfactants, wetting agents, antimicrobial agents, pigments, and/or the active halosulfonamide compounds can be mixed with other additives such as buffering agent(s), binder, trace amounts of compatible perfume, and/or an alcohol. Specifically, Schneider II teaches wherein their composition comprise alcohols in amounts of about 0.1 to about 2.0 wt% which reads on the about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% of an additional additive (see [0072-0073]). Schneider II teaches wherein the low molecular weight alcohol, e.g. t-butanol can be added to enhance the activity of the active halo sulfonamide compound, specifically the alcohol enhances the odor removal activity of the active halo sulfonamide compound ([0072-0073]).
Schneider also does not specifically teach the claimed step of drying the animal litter or bedding after treatment with the active composition. This deficiency in Schneider is addressed by Schneider II. Schneider II teaches that it is known to spray compositions comprising the claimed active halo sulfonamide compounds onto absorbent substrates to control odors which are later absorbed into the absorbent substrates and wherein the composition is allowed to evaporate, i.e. dry after application of the active composition to the absorbent substrates, which reads on the claimed step of drying, as evaporating the solvents, dries the absorbent substrate to which the active halo sulfonamide compounds were applied and leaves behind the active halo sulfonamide compound ([0076]).
Schneider II teaches that it is known to spray compositions comprising the claimed active halo sulfonamide compounds onto absorbent substrates to control odors which are later absorbed into the absorbent substrates and wherein the composition is allowed to evaporate, i.e. dry after application of the active composition to the absorbent substrates, which reads on the claimed step of drying, as evaporating the solvents, dries the absorbent substrate to which the active halo sulfonamide compounds were applied and leaves behind the active halo sulfonamide compound ([0076]).
Venezio teaches that it was known to use thickeners as additives with the cat litter granules so that the litter clumps when the cat uses the litter and that it is known to use these thickeners in amounts of 2% to 10% by volume of the litter, and/or 2-5% of the litter ([0014]; [0020-0021]).
Jollez teaches that it was known to form powders of the claimed halo sulfonamide active agents, e.g. chloramine-T as powders having particle size of 12 to 300 mesh which reads on the claimed 50 microns or less, because 300 mesh is 50 microns, specifically Jollez teaches using powdered anti-odor compounds to coat animal litter granules (Abstract; pg. 10, ln. 8-11).
Bracilovic teaches that animal litter absorbent particles, e.g. clay particles, are typically/suitably from about 25 microns to about 3350 microns in diameter for use as animal litter which read on the claimed average particle size of 100 micrometers to about 2000 micrometers (See [0012]).
Schneider III teaches textile materials, specifically a dog bed which is pet bedding, treated with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide (compound 6/[0038]; Example 17) and wherein the treated textile further comprises one or more additional additives, e.g. an alcohol, e.g. t-butanol or a fragrance which are used on the bedding when applying the composition with the N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide as is instantly claimed (Example 17).
Schneider III also teaches applying amounts of about 8.5 g of the formulation to a 30” dog bed and while the dog bed weight is not given it would have been obvious that the animal bedding material which is treated comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material.
JP4101974 teaches textiles for pets which has a long lasting anti-odor/deodorizing agent and which further comprises a thickener for treating the textile fabric with the anti-odor/deodorizing composition (See [0001/background paragraph; [0053]; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed composition, litter, bedding, and methods instantly claimed because ‘389 in view of Schneider, Schneider II, Jollez, Bracilovic, Schneider III, Venezio, and JP4101974 teach that it was known to apply the claimed active halosulfonamide compounds to various substrates including animal litters, and pet bedding and the claimed particle sizes were known to be effective sizes for animal litters and the claimed particle sizes of the active halosulfonamide compounds were known to be effective particle sizes for treating animal litter particles/granules and it was known to use the claimed compounds via the claimed application methods to treat animal litters and/other substrates in the claimed amounts. It also would have been obvious to add the claimed additional adjuvants because for instance thickeners are known to be used when applying the claimed compounds to both animal litters in the claimed amounts and pet bedding as discussed above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the claimed composition and methods are obvious when taken in view of ‘389 in view of Schneider, Schneider II, Jollez, Bracilovic, Schneider III, Venezio, and JP4101974 for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US10653811 (‘811) in view of in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, Venezio (US20080149037), and JP4101974 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to US9987389 (‘389) in view of in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, Venezio (US20080149037), and JP4101974.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US8425890 (‘890) in view of in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456), and Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, Venezio (US20080149037), and JP4101974.
‘890 teaches absorbent articles/substrates which are treated with halosulfonamides of applicant’s formula I, specifically the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide, and methods of applying the halosulfonamides to the absorbent substrates in amounts/concentrations which overlap those instantly claimed and wherein the halosulfonamide composition applied to the substrate can include additives/additional components. ‘890 does not teach wherein the absorptive substrate is in the form of granule/particles of the claimed particle size or wherein the halosulfonamide is in the form of a powder of the claimed particle size or wherein the treating of the absorptive substrate/litter is done by spraying or tumbling, etc. and drying the animal litter after treatment with the active composition. However, these deficiencies in ‘890 are addressed by Schneider, Schneider II, Venezio, Jollez, and Bracilovic.
Schneider teaches and claims animal litter treated with chloramine-T which is a compound of applicant’s instant formula (I), and Schneider teaches wherein 0.01 to 5 wt% of the chloramine T/compound of instant formula I is applied to the litter based on the weight of the cat litter substrate (Claims 1-19; [0029-0033]; [0025]; [0020-0021]). Schneider broadly teaches wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound can be in the instantly claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide (Claims 1-4, wherein R3 is COOM, X is halogen and M is alkali or alkaline earth metal, and R1-R2, R4-R5 are all H; [0030-0033]).
Schneider teaches that their cat litter has been found to be very effective in that the resulting used litter boxes are essentially odor-free and the used litter boxes have been found to be “cat friendly” in that cats have been observed returning to the litter box after defecating or urinating, which anticipates the claimed method for treating animal waste in that Schneider teaches the step of providing a container containing an animal litter, and the step of permitting an animal to excrete waste into the animal litter; and Schneider expressly teaches that naturally occurring clays have been found to be useful as litter substrates because of their ability to absorb large volumes of liquids and they specifically claim treating natural clay litter material which chloramine T and/or other compounds applicant’s formula I, which anticipate wherein the animal litter comprises an absorbent base material and a halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed in claim 8, and they claim wherein the effective amount of the halo active sulfonamide compound of instant formula (I) as claimed is from about 0.01 to about 5 wt% which anticipates the claimed range of about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% claimed in claim 10 ([0035]; [0022-0023]; claims 1-19).
Schneider teaches methods of preparing animal litter the method comprising treating the animal litter or bedding with an active composition comprising the claimed halo active sulfonamide compound(s) of formula (I), specifically chloramine-T by tumbling as claimed in claim 13, Schneider does not specifically teach that the bedding has extended antimicrobial killing performance. However, Schneider teaches treating the same absorbent animal litter with the same composition comprising the same halo active sulfonamide compound(s) of formula I instantly claimed in the same/overlapping amounts that are instantly claimed as discussed above. It is known, "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Schneider II teaches bodily fluid absorbers which are odor-controlling and wherein the absorbers can be granules and as such read on animal litter, and wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound can be the claimed N-chloro-p-carboxysulfonamide/N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide and wherein the compound is safe for contact with animals, including humans (see entire document; claims; [0067]; [0081]; [0011-0016]; [0022-0027]).
Schneider II teaches that the absorbent materials may be treated/pre-treated with surfactants, wetting agents, antimicrobial agents, pigments, and/or the active halosulfonamide compounds can be mixed with other additives such as buffering agent(s), binder, trace amounts of compatible perfume, and/or an alcohol. Specifically, Schneider II teaches wherein their composition comprise alcohols in amounts of about 0.1 to about 2.0 wt% which reads on the about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% of an additional additive (see [0072-0073]). Schneider II teaches wherein the low molecular weight alcohol, e.g. t-butanol can be added to enhance the activity of the active halo sulfonamide compound, specifically the alcohol enhances the odor removal activity of the active halo sulfonamide compound ([0072-0073]).
Venezio teaches that it was known to use thickeners as additives with the cat litter granules so that the litter clumps when the cat uses the litter and that it is known to use these thickeners in amounts of 2% to 10% by volume of the litter, and/or 2-5% of the litter ([0014]; [0020-0021]).
Schneider also does not specifically teach the claimed step of drying the animal litter or bedding after treatment with the active composition. This deficiency in Schneider is addressed by Schneider II. Schneider II teaches that it is known to spray compositions comprising the claimed active halo sulfonamide compounds onto absorbent substrates to control odors which are later absorbed into the absorbent substrates and wherein the composition is allowed to evaporate, i.e. dry after application of the active composition to the absorbent substrates, which reads on the claimed step of drying, as evaporating the solvents, dries the absorbent substrate to which the active halo sulfonamide compounds were applied and leaves behind the active halo sulfonamide compound ([0076]).
Schneider II teaches that it is known to spray compositions comprising the claimed active halo sulfonamide compounds onto absorbent substrates to control odors which are later absorbed into the absorbent substrates and wherein the composition is allowed to evaporate, i.e. dry after application of the active composition to the absorbent substrates, which reads on the claimed step of drying, as evaporating the solvents, dries the absorbent substrate to which the active halo sulfonamide compounds were applied and leaves behind the active halo sulfonamide compound ([0076]).
Jollez teaches that it was known to form powders of the claimed halo sulfonamide active agents, e.g. chloramine-T as powders having particle size of 12 to 300 mesh which reads on the claimed 50 microns or less, because 300 mesh is 50 microns, specifically Jollez teaches using powdered anti-odor compounds to coat animal litter granules (Abstract; pg. 10, ln. 8-11).
Bracilovic teaches that animal litter absorbent particles, e.g. clay particles, are typically/suitably from about 25 microns to about 3350 microns in diameter for use as animal litter which read on the claimed average particle size of 100 micrometers to about 2000 micrometers (See [0012]).
Schneider III teaches textile materials, specifically a dog bed which is pet bedding, treated with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide (compound 6/[0038]; Example 17) and wherein the treated textile further comprises one or more additional additives which are used on the bedding when applying the composition with the N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide as is instantly claimed (Example 17).
Schneider III also teaches applying amounts of about 8.5 g of the formulation to a 30” dog bed and while the dog bed weight is not given it would have been obvious that the animal bedding material which is treated comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material.
JP4101974 teaches textiles for pets which has a long lasting anti-odor/deodorizing agent and which further comprises a thickener for treating the textile fabric with the anti-odor/deodorizing composition (See [0001/background paragraph; [0053]; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed composition, litter, bedding, and methods instantly claimed because ‘890 in view of Schneider, Schneider II, Jollez, Bracilovic, Schneider III, Venezio, and JP4101974 teach that it was known to apply the claimed active halosulfonamide compounds to various substrates including animal litters, and pet bedding and the claimed particle sizes were known to be effective sizes for animal litters and the claimed particle sizes of the active halosulfonamide compounds were known to be effective particle sizes for treating animal litter particles/granules and it was known to use the claimed compounds via the claimed application methods to treat animal litters and/other substrates in the claimed amounts. It also would have been obvious to add the newly claimed adjuvants in the claimed amounts because thickeners are known to be used in the claimed amounts in animal litter in the claimed/overlapping amounts and on animal/dog bedding. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the claimed composition and methods are obvious when taken in view of ‘890 in view of Schneider, Schneider II, Jollez, Bracilovic, Schneider III, Venezio, and JP4101974.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US9408940 (‘940) in view of in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, Venezio (US20080149037), and JP4101974 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to US8425890 (‘890) in view of in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Bracilovic et al. (US20130199456), and Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, Venezio (US20080149037), and JP4101974.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein applicant’s amendments have also overcome the previous double patenting rejection over US6296841 which is withdrawn.
Updated consideration of applicant’s claim scope and applicant’s amended claims have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein including the additional double patenting rejections, and updated/new art rejections under 103 which are presented herein.
Applicants first state that they will submit a terminal disclaimer over copending 17971233 when it is the only remaining rejection. Applicant’s request for the double patenting rejections to be held in abeyance is acknowledged. However, a request to hold a rejection in abeyance until it is the only remaining rejection is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an objection or requirements as to form (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 714.02). Accordingly, the rejection will be maintained until a terminal disclaimer is filed or the claims are amended to obviate the rejection.
Applicants then argue the other double patenting rejections and they traverse them together. Applicants argue that the claims are amended to exclude a water-retentive additive, a cleaner, and a pigment from the specified list of additives and that they have canceled instant claim 7 which previously claimed an alcohol, etc. as additional additives. Applicants then state that they do not believe the newly claimed scope of additives are identified in any of the cited references. The examiner respectfully disagrees that applicants have actually excluded anything from their claim scope because the claims still use comprising language. However, the examiner does agree that the amendments to the specifically claimed additive scope has overcome these double patenting rejections and these amendments have prompted the new/updated grounds of rejection under double patenting which are presented herein.
Applicants then argue the 103 rejections and they argue that these rejections are overcome for the same reasons above. The examiner respectfully disagrees that applicants have actually excluded anything from their claim scope because the claims still use comprising language. However, the examiner does agree that the amendments to the specifically claimed additive scope have overcome the 103 rejection(s) of record but these amendments have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin E Hirt whose telephone number is (571)270-1077. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-7:30 ET M-F.
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ERIN E HIRT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616