DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 04 October 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant further elected incinerated poultry litter as the combustion product.
Claims 4-5 and 19-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 October 2025.
Claims 1-3 and 6-18 are examined herein to the extent that the combustion product or an alkaline material is incinerated poultry litter, e.g., applicant's elected species.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 02/24/203 and 09/26/2024 have been considered by the Examiner. A signed and initialed copy of the IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2, 6 and 9, which are dependent on claim 1, recites “combustion product and/or an alkaline material” (emphasis added), while claim 1 recites “a combustion product or an alkaline material”. Thus, claims 2, 6 and 9 fail to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOMOHIDE (JP 2011/235248 A, published 01 February 2017) in view of BOECKMANN (“Wood Ash to Deter Slugs & Snails”, electronic publication obtained from URL: https://www.slughelp.com/ash-to-deter-slugs-and-snails/ on 13 November 2025, earliest publication date using Wayback Machine is 08 June 2020) and JACOBS (“How to Keep Slugs & Snails Away”, electronic publication obtain from URL: https://www.agardenforthehouse.com/hostas-how-to-keep-slugs-snails-away/ on 13 November 2025, last updated date of 25 May 2012) as evidenced by the instant specification.
Tomohide is primarily directed towards granular poultry droppings combustion ash (abstract of the English translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-10, Tomohide discloses granule of chicken manure ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) that are used as fertilizer (second page, seventh to ninth paragraphs of the English translation). Tomohide discloses granular chicken manure burning ash product (e.g., the only material, about 100%) with a particle size 2.0-4.0 mm (Example 1, paragraph bridging fourth and fifth page of the English translation).
Regarding claims 7-8, Tomohide does not disclose that the granule of chicken manure ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) have heavy metals or pesticides (see entire English translation of the foreign patent document).
Regarding claim 11, Tomohide discloses that the granules obtained by briquette granulation that are close as possible to true sphere (third page, second paragraph of the English translation).
Regarding claim 18, Tomohide discloses that chicken manure combustion ash is alkaline (fourth page, third paragraph of the English translation). Tomohide discloses granular chicken manure burning ash product (e.g., the only material, about 100%) with a particle size 2.0-4.0 mm (Example 1, paragraph bridging fourth and fifth page of the English translation). As evidenced by the instant specification, granules of ash with a size of from 1.5 to 5.0 mm after drying has a bulk density of 1kg/L (page 10, lines 1-2). Thus, the granule of chicken manure ash disclosed by Tomohide is substantially the same as the instantly claimed granules of incinerated poultry litter, and necessarily would have the same properties, e.g., have a bulk density of from 0.8 to 1.2 kg/L, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Tomohide does not specifically teach that the granule of chicken manure combustion ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) are used to form a barrier to molluscs (e.g., claim 1). Tomohide does not specifically teach preventing molluscs from accessing plants comprising arranging the composition comprising granule of chicken manure combustion ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) to form a barrier around a target to be protected from molluscs (e.g., claim 2). Tomohide does not specifically teach that the molluscs include slugs and snails (e.g., claim 12). The deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Boeckmann and Jacobs.
Boeckmann is primarily directed towards using wood ash to deter slugs and snails in the garden (see entire electronic publication).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 12-17, Boeckmann teaches that the drier it is underground, the harder it becomes for slugs and snails to move around (first page of the copy of the electronic publication). Boeckmann teaches ash works to repel some slugs and snails. Boeckmann teaches that snails and leopard slugs turn around immediately after coming into contact with a wall of ash (page 3 of the copy of the electronic publication). Boeckmann teaches scattering dry ash around threatened plants to form a protective wall (e.g., preventing molluscs from accessing plants, within 1 meter of the target, used as a barrier, granules in contact with one another, closed shape) (under “How to Use Ash” on page 4 of the copy of the electronic publication). Boeckmann teaches that ash also acts as a fertilizer (under “Advantages” on the fourth page of the copy of the electronic publication).
Jacobs is primarily directed towards how to keep slugs and snails away from plants (see entire copy of the electronic publication).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 12-17, Jacobs teaches that slugs and snails are physiologically acidic and that they detest alkaline soils (third page of the copy of the electronic publication). Jacobs teaches that hostas and vegetables of all kinds enjoy soil with a fairly high pH (third page of the copy of the electronic publication). Jacobs teaches pouring lime which is alkaline in a circle around each hosta which deterred slugs (fourth and fifth pages of the copy of the electronic publication).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use granule of chicken manure ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) to produce a wall around a plant threatened by snails and slugs in order to deter the snails and slugs from damaging the plant. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications because granule of chicken manure ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) are dry like wood ash, also act as a fertilizer, and further is alkaline, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that granule of chicken manure ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) can be used to provide a wall around plants to deter snails and slugs from accessing the plants. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success because Tomohide discloses granule of chicken manure ash (e.g., incinerated poultry litter) that are used as fertilizer (second page, seventh to ninth paragraphs of the English translation). Tomohide discloses granular chicken manure burning ash product (e.g., the only material, about 100%) with a particle size 2.0-4.0 mm (Example 1, paragraph bridging fourth and fifth page of the English translation). Tomohide discloses that chicken manure combustion ash is alkaline (fourth page, third paragraph of the English translation). Boeckmann teaches that the drier it is underground, the harder it becomes for slugs and snails to move around (first page of the copy of the electronic publication). Boeckmann teaches ash works to repel some slugs and snails. Boeckmann teaches that snails and leopard slugs turn around immediately after coming into contact with a wall of ash (page 3 of the copy of the electronic publication). Boeckmann teaches scattering dry ash around threatened plants to form a protective wall (e.g., preventing molluscs from accessing plants, within 1 meter of the target, used as a barrier, granules in contact with one another, closed shape) (under “How to Use Ash” on page 4 of the copy of the electronic publication). Boeckmann teaches that ash also acts as a fertilizer (under “Advantages” on the fourth page of the copy of the electronic publication).
Conclusion and Correspondence
No claims are found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/John P Nguyen/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600