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 .
Priority
The first mention of the specific additives claimed is in 63/270819, thus the priority for instant claims 1-16 is 10/22/21.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US20060075975) “Schneider” and Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III” and further in view of Gun dog forum (http://gundogforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12848, 2008), Oregon State (https://juniper.oregonstate.edu/comparison-absorptive-capacity-animal-bedding-materials-western-juniper-western-redcedar-and, September 1999), CA2238154A1, and Jollez (WO2015031998).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1-2, Schneider teaches impregnating/coating/treating an animal litter substrate which can be cellular polymeric materials and/or open cell polymeric materials, reconstituted paper, etc. with a composition comprising the claimed halo sulfonamide compounds of applicant’s formula I and broadly teaches wherein the active halosulfonamide compound can be the claimed N-chloro-4-benzenesulfonamide because Schneider teaches wherein R3 is COOM, X is halogen, and M is alkali or alkaline earth metal and R1-R2, R4-R5 are all H ([0028]; [0030-0033]; claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19).
Regarding claims 3-4, Schneider teaches wherein the active halosulfonamide is present in amounts of 0.01 to about 5 wt% based on the total weight of the animal litter, which means that the litter itself is present in amounts of 50 wt% to 99 wt% of the animal litter composition (See [0023-0025]).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider teaches wherein the animal litter can further comprise additives (See [0026-0028]).
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 1-7, Schneider does not teach wherein their animal litter can be a textile product/animal bedding or wherein the additives are present in the bedding in amounts of about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt%, and Schneider does not specifically teach wherein X is Cl as in applicant’s compound of formula (I), though they do teach chloramine-T in their examples disclosure (See entire document; claims) which has as applicant’s X a Cl group. However, these deficiencies in Schneider are addressed by Schneider III, Oregon State, Gun dog forum, CA2238154A1.
Regarding claims 1-7, Schneider llI teaches treating animal bedding specifically a dog bed or carpet (which are pet bedding and/or reads on the claimed textile base material/pet bedding products) with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide, wherein X is chlorine as claimed (compound 6/[0038]; Examples 17 (teaches disodium salt) and 19) and wherein the treated textile further comprises one or more additional additives, e.g. an alcohol or a fragrance which are used on the bedding when applying the composition with the N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide (Example 17), and wherein the animal bedding comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material because only 8.5g of a spray composition comprising >90% water is being applied to the dog bed for instance (see examples 17 and 19) and a dog bed for even a very small dog is known in the art to weigh more than 17 g (which weighs less than an AA battery, which is ~24 g). Schneider III also teaches wherein the composition being applied to the dog bedding and/or carpet comprises additives, i.e. buffering agent which reads on the claimed pH stabilizer in amounts of from 0.1% up to the limit of solubility in the composition, i.e. alcohols, specifically low molecular weight alcohols can be present in the composition in amounts of 0.1 to about 80 weight percent of the total weight of the composition ([0086-0088]), which reads on the claimed 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% claimed in claim 5. Schneider III further teaches that the presence of lower alcohols (see [0086-0088]), which are known to enhance odor removal activity of the halosulfonamide active and aid in disinfection.
Gun dog forum teaches that carpet is known pet bedding material (see entries by phillipsgsp, etc. in this discussion).
Oregon State teaches that animal bedding is used to provide padding/insulation for animals and to absorb moisture from urine, etc. e.g. bedding is used as animal litter and bedding, i.e. the same product (e.g. wood chips/shavings, etc. can function/are known to function as both bedding and animal litter) (see 1st paragraph literature section).
Regarding claims 1-7, CA2238154A1 teaches textile bedding compositions for domestic animals which are/can be made of acrylics as part of the textile base of the bedding article which reads on the claimed acrylic additive, and which are coated/treated with coating/laminate/sealer which contains latex and a microbicidal agent to coat/seal the fibers of the textile from microbes thereby inhibiting microbes from passing through the textile/fibers, and wherein the fibers have flame-resistant modacrylic polymer in the outer textile covering and/or the inner filling of the textile bed which read on claim 7 (See entire document; claims; pg. 2, ln. 10-19; pg. 3, ln. 1-6; 13-pg. 4, ln. 7; pg. 3, ln. 8-12, 22-pg. 5, ln. 19; pg. 7, ln. 23-31 (coating/sealer which prevent microbe penetration into the fibers); pg. 14, ln. 1-6 (acrylic fabric/textile); pg. 14, ln. 16-22; pg. 17, ln. 29-pg. 18, ln. 2; pg. 24, ln. 26-pg. 25, ln. 8; pg. 41, ln. 17-28).
Schneider also does not teach wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound is in the form of a powder having an average particle size of 50 microns or less. However, this deficiency is addressed by Jollez.
Jollez teaches that it was known to form powders of structurally similar 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, In. 8-11).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the claimed animal bedding by treating textile based materials with the claimed compounds in order to form anti-odor and antimicrobial pet bedding because it was already known in the art to treat pet bedding and textiles, such as dog beds and/or carpet (a textile base material as claimed and known pet bedding as per gun dog forum) with the claimed compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to form the claimed pet bedding in order to develop bedding which has reduced odors and is antimicrobial for pets thereby allowing for longer times between washings of the pet bed especially since the claimed compounds were already known to treat textiles and be safe for animals/pets because they are already used in the claimed amounts on pet litters and pet litter materials are also known in the art to function as bedding materials for animals as some animals use their bedding as a litter area in which they leave their excrement as is taught by Oregon State. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the known N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide which is effective at reducing/eliminating odors and is antimicrobial in claimed amounts on pet bedding because it was already known to use the active N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide in the claimed percentages on pet litter which can be used as bedding and is safe for animals, and the discovery of a new antimicrobial property does not render the claimed animal bedding product/method of making the bedding product or using the bedding product patentable because the antimicrobial effects are properties of the claimed compound when used in the claimed amounts on various surfaces which was already known in the art as taught by the combined references and as such it would be obvious to apply the compound to other surfaces which become odorous and/or have issues with antimicrobial contamination i.e. pet bedding since it was already known in the art to apply the same concentrations of the same active compounds to animal litters and as discussed above animal litters are often used as animal bedding materials. Thus, the application of these amounts to textiles used for animal bedding would also obviously be safe for animals and would lead to anti-odor and antimicrobial effects since these are properties of the claimed compound when used in the claimed amounts which is already known in the art prior to the instant filing as discussed above. “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "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). In the instant case the same haloactive sulfonamide has been applied to various substrates leading to anti-odor and antimicrobial effects when applied in the claimed amounts and as such it would clearly offer these same effects to any substrates to which it is applied in the absence of evidence to the contrary based on the case law, etc. as discussed above. Thus, it would be obvious to apply known anti-odor and antimicrobial compositions to pet bedding in the claimed amounts in order to afford these beneficial properties to the pet bedding textile materials especially since the amounts in which the compound is being used were already known in the art to be safe for animals/contact with animals as per Schneider.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to formulate the N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide/active halosulfonamide alkali salt compound of applicant’s formula as the claimed sized particles because it was already known in the art to use halosulfonamides specifically the structurally similar chloramine-T in the claimed particle sizes to treat animal litters as this particle size would have a high surface to drug area and would therefore lead to increased surface to active agent area as compared to larger particle sizes and as such more surface area of the active is exposed to the environmental odors and microbes, thus in the instant case it would be obvious to form N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide/active halosulfonamide alkali salt of the claimed particle size as taught by Jollez as more active agent is then exposed for interaction with microbes and odor present in the bedding thereby leading to effective odor control and antimicrobial activity with particles of this size when added to the animal bedding as claimed and taught by the combined references.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have used the claimed additives in the claimed amounts to develop the instantly claimed animal bedding because it was known in art to use the claimed additives for applying anti-odor/antimicrobial compounds in the claimed amounts to coat/treat animal litter and it was known to use acrylic polymers in pet bedding to provide flame/fire resistance and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amounts of the additives to read on the claimed amounts in order to provide an effective long lasting treatment of antiodor/antimicrobial compounds to the animal bedding/animal litter that effectively stays on the bedding/litter when being contacted by animals using the bedding/litter and provides fire-resistance, etc. as discussed above 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the claimed textile/fabric based material pet bedding product as claimed and taught by Schneider and the combined references, specifically Schneider III and CA2238154A1 with the claimed antimicrobial and antiodor compounds because it was already known to treat other textiles which are used for pet beds, e.g. carpet, and/or other dog beds with the claimed antiodor and antimicrobial compounds and it was already known in the art to treat animal litters with the claimed compounds in the claimed amounts for antiodor and/or antimicrobial activity and animal litters are also known in the art to be used as animal bedding materials. It would have been obvious to apply the claimed antimicrobial compounds to dog beds having an outer covering and an internal filling as claimed in instant claim 7 and taught by CA2238154A1 because it was already known in the art to apply other antimicrobial and antiodor compounds to the same types of textile based pet bedding materials using the claimed additives, e.g. latex sealers/coatings, acrylics to provide flame resistance to the pet bed as per CA2238154A1. Thus, it would have been obvious to switch out the antimicrobial actives of CA2238154A1 for another effective antimicrobial/antiodor treatment which is known to be safe for contact by pets in order to afford additional options of antimicrobial and anti-odor treated pet beds having an outer covering and an internal filling.
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 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III” in view of CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Jollez (WO2015031998) and Schneider et al. (US20060075975) “Schneider”.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 8-11, Schneider llI teaches treating animal bedding specifically a dog bed or carpet (which are pet bedding and/or reads on the claimed textile base material/pet bedding products) with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically wherein X is Cl, M is Na, etc. (compound 6/[0038]; Examples 17 and 19) and wherein the treated textile further comprises one or more additional additives, e.g. an alcohol, which are used on the bedding when applying the composition with the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide (Example 17), and wherein the animal bedding comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material because only 8.5g of a spray composition comprising >90% water is being applied to the dog bed for instance (see examples 17 and 19) and an actual dog bed for even a very small dog would weigh more than 17 g (which weighs less than an AA battery, which is ~24 g). Schneider III also teaches wherein the composition being applied to the dog bedding and/or carpet comprises the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide, in amounts of about 0.6 wt%, and additives in amounts of from 0.1% up to the limit of solubility in the composition (believed to be percentage by weight based on total weight of the composition as per other reported concentrations, i.e. alcohols, specifically low molecular weight alcohols can be present in the composition in amounts of 0.1 to about 80 weight percent of the total weight of the composition ([0086-0088]; Example 17). Schneider III further teaches that the presence of lower alcohols (see [0086-0088]), which are known to enhance odor removal activity of the halosulfonamide active and aid in disinfection.
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 8-12, Schneider III does not specifically teach the claimed method for using an animal bedding product comprising placing the animal bedding product where an animal can lie upon or within the animal bedding product and Schneider III does not specifically teach wherein the additives are the new scope of additives. However, as Schneider III teaches forming animal bedding and by definition in order to be an animal bedding product an animal has to lie upon/in the bedding. Thus, Schneider III would obviously clearly be placing the animal bedding product where an animal can lie upon or within the animal bedding product when the dog/animal bed/bedding is placed in an area with animals/dogs and as such Schneider III reads on the instantly claimed method/renders obvious the instantly claimed method, and the additives are further addressed by CA2238154A1 and JP2004073619.
CA2238154A1 teaches textile bedding compositions for domestic animals which are/can be made of acrylic polymers which include monomers of vinyl acetate (thereby including polyvinyl acetate) as part of the textile base of the bedding article which reads on the claimed acrylic additive, and which are coated/treated with coating/laminate/sealer which contains latex and a microbicidal agent to coat/seal the fibers of the textile from microbes thereby inhibiting microbes from passing through the textile/fibers, and wherein the fibers have flame-resistant modacrylic polymer in the outer textile covering and/or the inner filling of the textile bed which read on claim 7 (See entire document; claims; pg. 2, ln. 10-19; pg. 3, ln. 1-6; 13-pg. 4, ln. 7; pg. 3, ln. 8-12, 22-pg. 5, ln. 19; pg. 7, ln. 23-31 (coating/sealer which prevent microbe penetration into the fibers); pg. 14, ln. 1-6 (acrylic fabric/textile); pg. 14, ln. 16-22; pg. 17, ln. 29-pg. 18, ln. 2; pg. 24, ln. 26-pg. 25, ln. 8; pg. 41, ln. 17-28).
JP2004073619 teaches water absorbing material/water-retentive materials which are useful for incorporating into sheets (e.g. bedding), diapers, clothes/textiles, sweat/moisture absorbing materials (which would include pet bedding as pets will lick their beds, etc.) and other absorbent materials which are comfortable to wear and therefore obviously would provide comfort to skin in contact with the material and wherein these materials prevent water leakage, wet feeling, and exudation of water and are washable for repeated use (See abstract; [0001]; [0002]; [0069-0070]).
Schneider III also does not teach wherein the halo active sulfonamide compound is in the form of a powder having an average particle size of 50 microns or less. However, this deficiency is addressed by Jollez.
Jollez teaches that it was known to form powders of structurally similar 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, In. 8-11).
Schneider III also does not specifically teach wherein the bedding comprises the claimed amounts/concentrations of the active halosulfonamide compounds of formula I. However, this deficiency in Schneider III is addressed by Schneider.
Schneider teaches impregnating/coating/treating an animal litter substrate which can be cellular polymeric materials and/or open cell polymeric materials, reconstituted paper, etc. with a composition comprising the claimed halo sulfonamide compounds of applicant’s formula I and broadly teaches wherein the active halosulfonamide compound can have the claimed structure and wherein X is chlorine as in N-chlorobenzene because Schneider teaches wherein R3 is COOM, X is halogen and M is alkali or alkaline earth metal and R1-R2, R4-R5 are all H ([0028]; [0030-0033]; claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19). Schneider teaches wherein the active halosulfonamide is present in amounts of 0.01 to about 5 wt% based on the total weight of the animal litter, which means that the litter itself is present in amounts of 50 wt% to 99 wt% of the animal litter composition (See [0023-0025]).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to treat the textile animal bedding with the claimed active halosulfonamide compound in order to form the claimed method of using an animal bedding product because it was known in the art to treat animal litters with the same concentrations/amounts of the same/overlapping scope of the same active halosulfonamide compounds, e.g. N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide, and as such these concentrations are safe for contact with animals and it was known in the art to have the material being contacted, e.g. carpet, dog beds, etc. be up to about 99.99% of the treated material, e.g. you only need very small amounts of the active compound of formula (I) to function as an anti-odor and/or antimicrobial compound as is taught by the combined references. Further, it is known in the art that "[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). Thus, it would be obvious to optimize the amounts of the active agent of formula (I) being used on the animal bedding product to the ranges instantly claimed in order to develop the most antimicrobially and antiodor effective bedding product that is safe for contact with animals.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to formulate the active halosulfonamide compound of applicant’s formula as the claimed sized particles because it was already known in the art to use halosulfonamides specifically the structurally similar chloramine-T in the claimed particle sizes to treat animal litters as this particle size would have a high surface to drug area and would therefore lead to increased surface to active agent area as compared to larger particle sizes and as such more surface area of the active is exposed to the environmental odors and microbes. Thus, in the instant case it would be obvious to form N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide/active halosulfonamide of the claimed particle size as taught by Jollez as more active agent is then exposed for interaction with microbes and odor present in the bedding thereby leading to effective odor control and antimicrobial activity with particles of this size.
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have used the claimed blend of additives to develop the instantly claimed method for using an animal bedding product because it was known in art to use the claimed latex/sealers with various antimicrobials to provide antimicrobial coatings for pet beds and to use acrylics which include vinyl acetate monomers (which read on the claimed polyvinyl acetate) for forming the textiles and/or in the case of the acrylics provide fire resistance to the textile and it would have been obvious to include the water retentive polymers as additives in the bedding taught by Schneider III, CA2238154A and the combined references in order to provide a washable bedding which with the presence of the water-retentive polymers in/on the surface of the bedding to quickly absorb any moisture from the animal without leaking the liquid/moisture to the areas in the home around the animal bedding and it would be obvious to optimize the amount of the claimed additives to provide an effective long lasting treatment of antiodor/antimicrobial compounds to the animal bedding/animal litter that effectively stays on the bedding/litter when being contacted by animals using the animal bedding/litter product and provides protection and water-retentive ability for any animal messes/licking, drooling, etc. while being readily washable for a long-lasting pet bedding textile having the antimicrobial, water-retentive, etc. features as discussed above.
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 13-16 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 TheCatSite (Cloth as Cat Litter? | TheCatSite, see post by AllClothes…10/17/21), and CA2238154A1, and as is evidenced by Cattime (How To Choose The Best Cat Blanket For Your Cat - CatTime - CatTime).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Schneider teaches impregnating/coating/treating an animal litter substrate which can be cellular polymeric materials and/or open cell polymeric materials, reconstituted paper, etc. with a composition comprising the claimed halo sulfonamide compounds of applicant’s formula I ([0030-0033]; 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).
Regarding claims 13-14, and 16, Schneider teaches wherein the animal litter can further comprise additives (See [0026-0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Schneider teaches wherein treating the animal litter includes spraying the active halosulfonamide containing composition onto at least a portion of the animal litter and/or bedding, or combining the active halosulfonamide containing composition with the animal litter/bedding by tumbling etc.
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 13-14, and 16, Schneider does not specifically teach examples as the halo active aromatic sulfonamide compound of formula (I), wherein X is Cl or wherein the treating step also comprises the newly claimed scope of additives. However, these deficiencies in Schneider are addressed by Schneider II, Schneider III, CA2238154A1. Schneider also does not teach wherein their animal litter is also used as animal bedding and contains/comprises textiles. However, these deficiencies in Schneider are addressed by TheCatSite.
Schneider Il 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; [0087]; [0081]; [0011-00186]; [0022-0027]).
Schneider llI teaches treating animal bedding specifically a dog bed or carpet (which are pet bedding and/or reads on the claimed textile base material/pet bedding products) with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide, wherein X is chlorine as claimed (compound 6/[0038]; Examples 17 and 19) and wherein the treated textile further comprises one or more additional additives, e.g. an alcohol or a fragrance which are used on the bedding when applying the composition with the N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide (Example 17), and wherein the animal bedding comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material because only 8.5g of a spray composition comprising >90% water is being applied to the dog bed for instance (see examples 17 and 19) and a dog bed for even a very small dog is known in the art to weigh more than 17 g (which weighs less than an AA battery, which is ~24 g). Schneider III also teaches wherein the composition being applied to the dog bedding and/or carpet comprises additives, i.e. buffering agent which reads on the claimed pH stabilizer in amounts of from 0.1% up to the limit of solubility in the composition, i.e. alcohols, specifically low molecular weight alcohols can be present in the composition in amounts of 0.1 to about 80 weight percent of the total weight of the composition ([0086-0088]), which reads on the claimed 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% claimed in claim 5. Schneider III further teaches that the presence of lower alcohols (see [0086-0088]), which are known to enhance odor removal activity of the halosulfonamide active and aid in disinfection.
CA2238154A1 teaches textile bedding compositions for domestic animals which are/can be made of acrylics as part of the textile base of the bedding article which reads on the claimed acrylic additive, and which are coated/treated with coating/laminate/sealer which contains latex and a microbicidal agent to coat/seal the fibers of the textile from microbes thereby inhibiting microbes from passing through the textile/fibers, and wherein the fibers have flame-resistant modacrylic polymer in the outer textile covering and/or the inner filling of the textile bed which read on claim 7 (See entire document; claims; pg. 2, ln. 10-19; pg. 3, ln. 1-6; 13-pg. 4, ln. 7; pg. 3, ln. 8-12, 22-pg. 5, ln. 19; pg. 7, ln. 23-31 (coating/sealer which prevent microbe penetration into the fibers); pg. 14, ln. 1-6 (acrylic fabric/textile); pg. 14, ln. 16-22; pg. 17, ln. 29-pg. 18, ln. 2; pg. 24, ln. 26-pg. 25, ln. 8; pg. 41, ln. 17-28).
TheCatSite teaches that it is known to cloth/textiles as litter for cats and it is well known that cloth beds/furniture are used as bedding for cats as is evidenced by Cattime (How To Choose The Best Cat Blanket For Your Cat - CatTime - CatTime, see entire document) (See post by AllClothes..10/17/2021).
Regarding claim 15, Schneider does not teach drying the animal bedding after treatment with the active composition. However, this deficiency in Schneider is addressed by Schneider II.
Schneider II teaches that it is known to spray compositions comprising the claimed halo active 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 halosulfonamide compound(s) were applied and leaves behind the active halosulfonamide compound ([0076]).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to form the claimed animal bedding when looking to Schneider, Schneider Il, Schneider III, CA2238154A1 and TheCatSite as evidenced by Cattime because Schneider teaches forming animal litters wherein the claimed compounds are useful as active agents for controlling odors and it is known to that animal litters, e.g. textiles/cloth, etc. which are also used as animal bedding products. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the claimed active compounds of formula (I) having X as Cl, as the active compound for use in the animal bedding of Schneider because firstly Schneider also broadly teaches and broadly claims the claimed active compounds of formula (1) for treating animal litter/bedding forming animal litter/bedding. However, it would have been obvious to select the claimed active compounds of formula (I) having X as Cl 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 active compounds of formula (I) having X as Cl to use for treating animal litters/animal bedding textiles based on the teachings of Schneider and the combined references as discussed above.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the litter/textiles and/or bedding/textiles of Schneider, Schneider II, and the rest of the combined references to dry after application of the active halo sulfonamide containing compositions as it was known in the art as taught by Schneider II to apply compositions comprising these same active compounds via spraying onto absorbent substrates and allow the solvent to evaporate thereby drying the animal litter and/or bedding after treatment with the active composition as claimed and leaving behind the active halosulfonamide. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to let the substrates/animal bedding as claimed and taught by the combined references dry prior to packaging, etc. so as to provide dry absorbent bedding substrates for animals which can more readily absorb animal waste/odors and provide warmth, etc. for the animal as dry animal litter/bedding will absorb more odors and provide better warmth than a wet bedding product.
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have used the claimed additives, e.g. acrylics and/or latex sealers comprising antimicrobial agents in the claimed amounts to develop the instantly claimed method of preparing animal bedding because it was known in art to use the claimed acrylics as textile fibers for making pet bedding and for providing fire resistance to pet bedding and to use latex coatings/sealers comprising antimicrobial agents to applying long lasting coatings/sealers providing effective amounts of anti-odor/antimicrobial compounds the the animal bedding/litters and it would be obvious to optimize the amounts of the known additives/components of pet bedding textiles to provide bedding materials having effective long lasting treatment of antiodor/antimicrobial compounds coated on/incorporated into the animal bedding/animal litter that effectively stays on the bedding/litter when being contacted by animals using the bedding/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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) 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 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending application 17971209 (‘209) in view of Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III” in view of Jollez (W02015031998), JP2004073619, and Oregon state (as cited above).
‘209 claims an overlapping scope of the claimed compounds, specifically the claimed compound of formula (I), wherein X is Cl, treated textile base material for use as animal bedding, the same amounts of the claimed compound of formula (I)/halo active aromatic sulfonamide salts and the same amount of the textile base material and most of the same additional additives in the same amounts as are instantly claimed. ‘209 also claims animal litter treated with the same amounts of the claimed compound of formula (I) in the same amounts with the same particle sizes of the claimed compound of formula (I) wherein X is Cl, and further teaches forming the claimed animal bedding material via the same active steps as are instantly claimed.
‘209 does not teach the method of using the treated pet bed comprising placing the animal bedding product where an animal can lie upon or within the animal bedding product or wherein the additive blends include the claimed water-retentive additive. However, these deficiencies in ‘209 are addressed by Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III” and Jollez (WO2015031998),
Schneider llI teaches treating animal bedding specifically a dog bed or carpet (which are pet bedding and/or reads on the claimed textile base material/pet bedding products) with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide (compound 6/[0038]; Examples 17 and 19) 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), and wherein the animal bedding comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material because only 8.5g of a spray composition comprising >90% water is being applied to the dog bed for instance (see examples 17 and 19) and an actual dog bed for even a very small dog would weigh more than 17 g (which weighs less than an AA battery, which is ~24 g). Schneider III also teaches wherein the composition being applied to the dog bedding and/or carpet comprises the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide, in amounts of about 0.6 wt%, and additives, i.e. buffering agent which reads on the claimed pH stabilizer in amounts of from 0.1% up to the limit of solubility in the composition (believed to be percentage by weight based on total weight of the composition as per other reported concentrations, i.e. alcohols, specifically low molecular weight alcohols can be present in the composition in amounts of 0.1 to about 80 weight percent of the total weight of the composition ([0086-0088]). Schneider III further teaches that the presence of lower alcohols, e.g. t-butanol enhances the deodorizing effect of the halo active sulfonamide compounds, including the claimed N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide (see [0086-0088]).
JP2004073619 teaches water absorbing material/water-retentive materials which are useful for incorporating into sheets (e.g. bedding), diapers, clothes/textiles, sweat/moisture absorbing materials (which would include pet bedding as pets will lick their beds, etc.) and other absorbent materials which are comfortable to wear and therefore obviously would provide comfort to skin in contact with the material and wherein these materials prevent water leakage, wet feeling, and exudation of water and are washable for repeated use (See abstract; [0001]; [0002]; [0069-0070]).
‘209 and Schneider III does not specifically teach the claimed method for using an animal bedding product wherein the animal bedding product is placed where an animal can lie upon or within the animal bedding product. However, as Schneider III teaches forming animal bedding and by definition in order to be an animal bedding product an animal has to lie upon/in the bedding. Thus, Schneider III would obviously clearly be placing the animal bedding product where an animal can lie upon or within the animal bedding product when the dog/animal bed/bedding is placed in an area with animals/dogs and as such Schneider III reads on the instantly claimed method/renders obvious the instantly claimed method.
Jollez teaches that it was known to form powders of structurally similar 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, In. 8-11).
‘209 also does not teach the specific bedding of claim 7. This is cured by Microban.
Microban teaches that it was known to have dog beds which are textile based material and comprising and outer covering and an internal filling and that it was known to treat the beds with antimicrobial and anti-odor agents (See Examples of antimicrobial-protected pet products), they teach the Aspen pet antimicrobial gusseted pillow bed has a removable cover of chenille stripe fabric and as it’s a pillow bed it has an internal filling/pillow
It would have been obvious to treat the claimed textile animal bedding with the claimed active halosulfonamide compound and the claimed additives as taught by ‘209 and JP2004073619 and the combined references in order to form the claimed method of using an animal bedding product because it was known in the art to treat the same animal bedding with the same concentrations/amounts of the same/overlapping scope of the same active halosulfonamide compounds, e.g. N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide as taught by ‘209 and as such these concentrations are safe for contact with animals and it was known in the art to have the material being contacted, e.g. carpet, dog beds, etc. be up to about 99.99% of the treated material, e.g. you only need very small amounts of the active N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide/halosulfonamide compound to function as an anti-odor and/or antimicrobial compound as is taught by the combined references. Further, it is known in the art that "[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). Thus, it would be obvious to optimize the amounts of N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamideand the other claimed components, e.g. additives, being used on the animal bedding product to the ranges instantly claimed in order to develop the most antimicrobially and antiodor effective bedding product that is safe for contact with animals.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to formulate the claimed active halosulfonamide compound of applicant’s formula as the claimed sized particles because it was already known in the art to use halosulfonamides specifically the structurally similar chloramine-T in the claimed particle sizes to treat animal litters as this particle size would have a high surface to drug area and would therefore lead to increased surface to active agent area as compared to larger particle sizes and as such more surface area of the active is exposed to the environmental odors and microbes, thus in the instant case it would be obvious to form N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide/active halosulfonamide of the claimed particle size as taught by Jollez as more active agent is then exposed for interaction with microbes and odor present in the bedding thereby leading to effective odor control and antimicrobial activity with particles of this size.
It would have been obvious to apply the claimed antimicrobial compounds to dog beds having an outer covering and an internal filling as claimed because it was already known in the art to apply other antimicrobial and antiodor compounds to the same types of textile based pet bedding materials as is taught by Microban. Thus, it would have been obvious to switch out the microban for another effective antimicrobial/antiodor treatment which is known to be safe for contact by pets in order to afford additional options of antimicrobial and anti-odor treated pet beds having an outer covering and an internal filling.
Finally, it would have been obvious to include the claimed water-retentive additive with the other additives of ‘209 because JP2004073619 teaches water absorbing material/water-retentive materials which are useful for incorporating into sheets (e.g. bedding) and other textiles and wherein these materials are comfortable to wear and therefore obviously would provide comfort to skin in contact with the material and wherein these materials prevent water leakage, wet feeling, and exudation of water and are washable for repeated use which would be beneficial for pet bedding which gets wet with drool, licking, accidents, etc. while providing bedding which does not leak the liquid to the areas around the bedding in the home and provide washability to the bedding along with this absorbency.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-13, 15 of copending application 16990471 in view of Microban (https://web.archive.org/web/20160121173953/https://www.microban.com/blog/protecting-pet-products-from-harmful-microbes-with-antimicrobial-technology), Oregon State (https://juniper.oregonstate.edu/comparison-absorptive-capacity-animal-bedding-materials-western-juniper-western-redcedar-and, September 1999), Schneider et al. (US20060075975), CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Jollez as cited above.
‘471 teaches coating compositions comprising the claimed active agents, e.g. wherein X is Cl, etc. (e.g. chloramine-T, N-chloro-benzenesulfonamide which must be in salt form since M is alkali/alkali earth metal) in the claimed amounts and polymeric additives in overlapping amounts to those instantly claimed and wherein this coating is placed on any article. It would have been obvious to place this coating on the claimed animal bedding textile as claimed because it was known in the art to coat animal textile bedding products specifically those having an outer covering and an internal filling as claimed as is taught by Microban, especially since it was known to use the claimed amounts of the same active agents and polymeric additives in compositions for animal litters which animals are in direct contact with and because animal litters can be used as animal beddings and vice versa as taught by Oregon State.
Microban teaches that it was known to have dog beds which are textile based material and comprising and outer covering and an internal filling and that it was known to treat the beds with antimicrobial and anti-odor agents (See Examples of antimicrobial-protected pet products), they teach the Aspen pet antimicrobial gusseted pillow bed has a removable cover of chenille stripe fabric and as it’s a pillow bed it has an internal filling/pillow.
Oregon State teaches that animal bedding is used to provide padding/insulation for animals and to absorb moisture from urine, etc. i.e. bedding is used as animal litter and bedding, i.e. the same product can function/are known to function as both bedding and animal litter (see 1st paragraph literature section).
Schneider teaches impregnating/coating/treating an animal litter substrate which can be cellular polymeric materials and/or open cell polymeric materials, reconstituted paper, etc. with a composition comprising the claimed halo sulfonamide compounds of applicant’s formula I and broadly teaches wherein the active halosulfonamide compound can be the claimed N-chloro-4-benzenesulfonamide because Schneider teaches wherein R3 is COOM, X is halogen and M is alkali or alkaline earth metal and R1-R2, R4-R5 are all H ([0028]; [0030-0033]; claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19). Schneider teaches wherein the active halosulfonamide is present in amounts of 0.01 to about 5 wt% based on the total weight of the animal litter, which means that the litter itself is present in amounts of 50 wt% to 99 wt% of the animal litter composition (See [0023-0025]). Schneider teaches wherein the animal litter can further comprise additives (See [0026-0028]).
CA2238154A1 teaches textile bedding compositions for domestic animals which are/can be made of acrylic polymers which include monomers of vinyl acetate (thereby including polyvinyl acetate) as part of the textile base of the bedding article which reads on the claimed acrylic additive, and which are coated/treated with coating/laminate/sealer which contains latex and a microbicidal agent to coat/seal the fibers of the textile from microbes thereby inhibiting microbes from passing through the textile/fibers, and wherein the fibers have flame-resistant modacrylic polymer in the outer textile covering and/or the inner filling of the textile bed which read on claim 7 (See entire document; claims; pg. 2, ln. 10-19; pg. 3, ln. 1-6; 13-pg. 4, ln. 7; pg. 3, ln. 8-12, 22-pg. 5, ln. 19; pg. 7, ln. 23-31 (coating/sealer which prevent microbe penetration into the fibers); pg. 14, ln. 1-6 (acrylic fabric/textile); pg. 14, ln. 16-22; pg. 17, ln. 29-pg. 18, ln. 2; pg. 24, ln. 26-pg. 25, ln. 8; pg. 41, ln. 17-28).
JP2004073619 teaches water absorbing material/water-retentive materials which are useful for incorporating into sheets (e.g. bedding), diapers, clothes/textiles, sweat/moisture absorbing materials (which would include pet bedding as pets will lick their beds, etc.) and other absorbent materials which are comfortable to wear and therefore obviously would provide comfort to skin in contact with the material and wherein these materials prevent water leakage, wet feeling, and exudation of water and are washable for repeated use (See abstract; [0001]; [0002]; [0069-0070]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed pet bedding materials are obvious when taken in view of the coating composition and coated article of ‘471 since it was known in the art to treat the same types of animal bedding with antiodor and antimicrobial compounds and it was known to treat materials for contacting with animals, e.g. animal litter with the claimed compounds, additives, etc. in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘471 and the combined references above. It would be obvious to use the claimed additives and blends thereof as taught by JP 2004073619 and CA2238154A1 with the coating of ‘471 in and on the pet bedding taught by the combination of the prior art because ‘471 teaches that any articles (Which would include pet beds) can be coated with the coatings of ‘471 and the other combined references together teach that the claimed halosulfonamides are effective for treating pet bedding. It would have been obvious to optimize the amounts of the additives to read on the claimed amounts because it was already known to use the claimed additives on pet bedding and “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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Especially since the coatings of ‘471 do not exclude the claimed additives, etc. from the coating composition.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US8425890 (‘890) in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Microban (https://web.archive.org/web/20160121173953/https://www.microban.com/blog/protecting-pet-products-from-harmful-microbes-with-antimicrobial-technology).
‘890 teaches absorbent articles/substrates, e.g. polymers, cellulosic fibers, wood fluff, flat sheet, etc. which read on the claimed animal bedding and 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 halosulfonamide is in the form of a powder of the claimed particle size or wherein the additives are those now claimed in the claimed amounts. However, these deficiencies in ‘890 are addressed by the combined references listed above.
Schneider teaches and claims animal litter (which also reads on the claimed animal bedding) 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]; [0005]; [0011-0016]; [0022-0027]).
Schneider II also teaches that the absorbent materials may be treated/pre-treated with surfactants, wetting agents, antimicrobial agents, 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% (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]).
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).
Schneider llI teaches treating animal bedding specifically a dog bed or carpet (which are pet bedding and/or reads on the claimed textile base material/pet bedding products) with the claimed halosulfonamide compounds, specifically N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide, wherein X is chlorine as claimed (compound 6/[0038]; Examples 17 and 19) and wherein the treated textile further comprises one or more additional additives, e.g. an alcohol or a fragrance which are used on the bedding when applying the composition with the N-chloro-4-carboxysulfonamide (Example 17), and wherein the animal bedding comprises from about 50 wt% to about 99.99 wt% of the textile base material because only 8.5g of a spray composition comprising >90% water is being applied to the dog bed for instance (see examples 17 and 19) and a dog bed for even a very small dog is known in the art to weigh more than 17 g (which weighs less than an AA battery, which is ~24 g). Schneider III also teaches wherein the composition being applied to the dog bedding and/or carpet comprises additives, i.e. buffering agent which reads on the claimed pH stabilizer in amounts of from 0.1% up to the limit of solubility in the composition, i.e. alcohols, specifically low molecular weight alcohols can be present in the composition in amounts of 0.1 to about 80 weight percent of the total weight of the composition ([0086-0088]), which reads on the claimed 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt% claimed in claim 5. Schneider III further teaches that the presence of lower alcohols (see [0086-0088]), which are known to enhance odor removal activity of the halosulfonamide active and aid in disinfection and as such function as a cleaner which is one of the now claimed additive types.
CA2238154A1 teaches textile bedding compositions for domestic animals which are/can be made of acrylic polymers which include monomers of vinyl acetate (thereby including polyvinyl acetate) as part of the textile base of the bedding article which reads on the claimed acrylic additive, and which are coated/treated with coating/laminate/sealer which contains latex and a microbicidal agent to coat/seal the fibers of the textile from microbes thereby inhibiting microbes from passing through the textile/fibers, and wherein the fibers have flame-resistant modacrylic polymer in the outer textile covering and/or the inner filling of the textile bed which read on claim 7 (See entire document; claims; pg. 2, ln. 10-19; pg. 3, ln. 1-6; 13-pg. 4, ln. 7; pg. 3, ln. 8-12, 22-pg. 5, ln. 19; pg. 7, ln. 23-31 (coating/sealer which prevent microbe penetration into the fibers); pg. 14, ln. 1-6 (acrylic fabric/textile); pg. 14, ln. 16-22; pg. 17, ln. 29-pg. 18, ln. 2; pg. 24, ln. 26-pg. 25, ln. 8; pg. 41, ln. 17-28).
JP2004073619 teaches water absorbing material/water-retentive materials which are useful for incorporating into sheets (e.g. bedding), diapers, clothes/textiles, sweat/moisture absorbing materials (which would include pet bedding as pets will lick their beds, etc.) and other absorbent materials which are comfortable to wear and therefore obviously would provide comfort to skin in contact with the material and wherein these materials prevent water leakage, wet feeling, and exudation of water and are washable for repeated use (See abstract; [0001]; [0002]; [0069-0070]).
Microban teaches that it was known to have dog beds which are textile based material and comprising and outer covering and an internal filling and that it was known to treat the beds with antimicrobial and anti-odor agents (See Examples of antimicrobial-protected pet products), they teach the Aspen pet antimicrobial gusseted pillow bed has a removable cover of chenille stripe fabric and as it’s a pillow bed it has an internal filling/pillow.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the instantly claimed pet bedding materials are obvious when taken in view of the odor controlling bodily fluid absorbent member of ‘890 since it was known in the art to treat the same types of animal bedding with the claimed compounds and/or other antiodor and antimicrobial compounds having the claimed particle size, etc. and it was known to treat materials for contacting with animals, e.g. animal litter and animal bedding with the claimed compounds, additives, etc. in the claimed amounts as taught by ‘890 and the combined references as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this in order to provide even more useful materials coated with the well-known halosulfonamide active agents instantly claimed since it was known to be obvious to treat animal litters, bedding materials, including dog beds and sheets with the claimed compounds in the claimed amounts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed inventions instantly claimed because ‘890 in view of the combined references above together 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 each of the claimed additives are known to be used in animal beddings and it would have been obvious to optimize the amounts of the additives in order to provide the most effective coatings, water-retentive polymers, etc. to the animal/dog bedding. 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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 the combined references cited above.
Claims 1-7 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), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Microban (cited above) 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), and Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Microban (https://web.archive.org/web/20160121173953/https://www.microban.com/blog/protecting-pet-products-from-harmful-microbes-with-antimicrobial-technology).
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of US9987389 (‘389) in view of in view of Schneider (US20060075975) “Schneider”, Schneider et al. (US20100215612) “Schneider II”, Jollez (WO2015031998), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Microban (https://web.archive.org/web/20160121173953/https://www.microban.com/blog/protecting-pet-products-from-harmful-microbes-with-antimicrobial-technology).
‘389 teaches absorbent articles/substrates, e.g. wood fluff, cellulosic fiber, etc. which read on the claimed pet bed/antimicrobial bedding product for animals, and 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. 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 additives are the newly specifically claimed additives in the claimed amounts. However, these deficiencies in ‘389 are addressed by the combined references cited above.
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, and/or the active halosulfonamide compounds can be mixed with other additives such as binders, etc. 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]).
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).
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.
CA2238154A1 teaches textile bedding compositions for domestic animals which are/can be made of acrylic polymers which include monomers of vinyl acetate (thereby including polyvinyl acetate) as part of the textile base of the bedding article which reads on the claimed acrylic additive, and which are coated/treated with coating/laminate/sealer which contains latex and a microbicidal agent to coat/seal the fibers of the textile from microbes thereby inhibiting microbes from passing through the textile/fibers, and wherein the fibers have flame-resistant modacrylic polymer in the outer textile covering and/or the inner filling of the textile bed which read on claim 7 (See entire document; claims; pg. 2, ln. 10-19; pg. 3, ln. 1-6; 13-pg. 4, ln. 7; pg. 3, ln. 8-12, 22-pg. 5, ln. 19; pg. 7, ln. 23-31 (coating/sealer which prevent microbe penetration into the fibers); pg. 14, ln. 1-6 (acrylic fabric/textile); pg. 14, ln. 16-22; pg. 17, ln. 29-pg. 18, ln. 2; pg. 24, ln. 26-pg. 25, ln. 8; pg. 41, ln. 17-28).
JP2004073619 teaches water absorbing material/water-retentive materials which are useful for incorporating into sheets (e.g. bedding), diapers, clothes/textiles, sweat/moisture absorbing materials (which would include pet bedding as pets will lick their beds, etc.) and other absorbent materials which are comfortable to wear and therefore obviously would provide comfort to skin in contact with the material and wherein these materials prevent water leakage, wet feeling, and exudation of water and are washable for repeated use (See abstract; [0001]; [0002]; [0069-0070]).
Microban teaches that it was known to have dog beds which are textile based material and comprising and outer covering and an internal filling and that it was known to treat the beds with antimicrobial and anti-odor agents (See Examples of antimicrobial-protected pet products), they teach the Aspen pet antimicrobial gusseted pillow bed has a removable cover of chenille stripe fabric and as it’s a pillow bed it has an internal filling/pillow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the claimed animal bedding materials and/or pet bed instantly claimed because ‘389 in view of combined references cited above teach that it was known to apply the claimed active halosulfonamide compounds to various substrates including animal litters/animal bedding, 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 additives in the claimed amounts because for instance each of the claimed additives are known to be used with pet bedding to improve fire resistance, provide latex sealing coatings for controlled release of antimicrobials, provide water/moisture absorption when necessary to keep pet messes off of furniture/flooring but also provide easy washability to the pet bedding, etc. as discussed above. 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 reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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 the combined references for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 1-7 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), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Microban (https://web.archive.org/web/20160121173953/https://www.microban.com/blog/protecting-pet-products-from-harmful-microbes-with-antimicrobial-technology) 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), Schneider et al. (US20050287109) “Schneider III”, CA2238154A1, JP2004073619, and Microban (https://web.archive.org/web/20160121173953/https://www.microban.com/blog/protecting-pet-products-from-harmful-microbes-with-antimicrobial-technology).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and further consideration of applicant’s claims have prompted the new grounds of rejection presented herein under 103, and double patenting. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of record have been fully considered and insofar as they pertain to the new grounds of rejection are addressed herein as these arguments were not persuasive at this time.
Applicants argue that the rejection over claims 13-16 is overcome because applicants have revised the scope of additives. This amendment has changed the scope of the claim and the revised scope of additives is addressed with the new secondary reference(s) cited and discussed above.
Applicants argue that the rejection over claims 1-7 is overcome because applicants have revised the scope of additives. This amendment has changed the scope of the claim and the revised scope of additives is addressed with the new secondary reference(s) cited and discussed above.
Applicants argue that the rejection over claims 8-12 is overcome because applicants have revised the scope of additives. This amendment has changed the scope of the claim and the revised scope of additives is addressed with the new secondary reference(s) cited and discussed above.
Applicants first state that they will submit a terminal disclaimer over copending 17971209 and 16990471 when they are the only remaining rejections. 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 include additives not taught by the combined prior art of record. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the previous grounds of rejection. However, applicant’s amendments have prompted the new grounds of rejection under double patenting presented herein.
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 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
Prosecution Insights