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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group in the reply filed on 3/31/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the process claims inherently result in the formation of the product as claimed. This is found persuasive because the process claims recite identical structural limitations of the product claims.
The restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 2/25/2026 is hereby WITHDRAWN.
Claims 35-56, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/409,755, filed September 24, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 2 October 2023, 13 December 2023, 9 February 2024, 5 December 2024, and 21 May 2025 have been considered by the examiner. Duplicate entries of prior art which appear on previous IDS have been struck from the record for clarity.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 25 Is drawn to a room temperature moisture-curing water-activated adhesive comprising a room temperature-moisture curing water-activated thermoset adhesive and a room temperature moisture-curing water-activated thermoplastic adhesive. The aforementioned thermoset and thermoplastic adhesives are not disclosed in the specification.
Claim 25 further specifies the moisture-curing water-activated adhesive specifically functions at room temperature, which is not explicitly disclosed in the specification. Working ranges for temperatures in the specification are only provided as relevant for the solubility of the disclosed starch mixtures/binders/etc.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “such as cat body temperature urine having a temperature between about 1000 Fahrenheit and about 104°,” in paragraph [0021] appears to contain a typographical error, where 1000 should be 100°.
Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.\
Claims 2-13, 17-21, 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the modified starch water absorbing clumping agent" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-13 are rejected via their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the admixture" In lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 is rejected via its dependency on claim 17.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the admixture" In lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 20-21 are rejected via their dependency on claim 19.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the modified starch water absorbing clumping agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 24-26 are rejected via their dependency on claim 23.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the room temperature moisture-curing water-activated adhesive" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the outer region of the modified starch water-absorbent clumping agent" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 28-34 are rejected via their dependency on claim 27.
Given the complexity of the claim language, it is important proper antecedent basis is maintained throughout the chain of dependency to ensure clarity to when a previous component of the composition Is being referenced versus when a new component is introduced to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 23, 27, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski et al. (Pub No. US-20140000525-A1, published 2 Jan 2014) in view of Kornmayer et al. (Pub. No. US-20150040833-A1, published 12 Feb 2015).
In regard to claim 1, Schumski et al. teaches a sorbent granular litter [0023], comprising sorbent litter granules which clump together when wetted (line 1, [0003]) which are comprised of an inner substrate particle [0024] and a modified-starch clumping agent (pre-gelled starch, [0002]). Schumski et al. further teaches that a dust control agent may be added to the modified-starch clumping agent (e.g. vegetable or petroleum-based oil) to tack the clumping agent on to the surface of the base material [0021], adhering the clumping agent to the inner substrate particle. Schumski et al. does not teach that the clumping agent (e.g. the pre-gel modified starch and hydrocolloid) self-adhere to the inner particulate.
However, Kornmayer et al. teaches a self-clumping liter comprising a plurality of individual grains which are comprised of a plurality of carrier grains mantled by an intermediate layer. Said intermediate layer comprises a chemically modified starch and a hydrocolloid which form an adhesive matrix and adhere the intermediate layer to the carrier grains. Schumski et al. acknowledges that the clumping agent taught must be mixed with an oil-based carrier (e.g. vegetable or petroleum-based oils, [0021]) or rely upon the tack of added binder in the substrate particulate in order to adhere to the inner particle [0025], both of which are an added expense to the production of the litter product. In contrast, the self-adhering matrix disclosed by Kornmayer et al. does not limit the inner particulate matter to those that naturally contain a binder or were pre-processed to be coated in a binder as suggested by Schumski et al. [0025]. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would be motivated to modify the teachings of Schumski et al. to make the clumping agent self-adhering as taught by Kornmayer et al. in order to reduce the steps necessary to produce the litter product, thereby reducing cost. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the clumping agent of Schumski et al. to self-adhere to an inner substrate particle as taught by Kornmayer et al. in order to yield the self-clumping sorbent granular litter of claim 1.
In regard to claims 2 and 23, the combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. are applied as above. Schumski et al. is silent on the structure of the clumping agent coating on the particulate substrate. However, Kornmayer et al. teaches that the particulate substrate (2) is mantled by the intermediate layer (5) which comprises a pre-gel modified starch and hydrocolloid adhesive matrix (16) (Figure 1, [0031] and [0039]). The intermediate layer has an observable thickness, and self-adheres to the particular substrate and the interface of the modified-starch clumping agent and inner particular substrate (matrix 16 and surface 3 in Figure 1, [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a clumping agent which encapsulates a substrate particle would be adhered by an inner region which is in contact with the inner substrate particle.
In regard to claim 3, as stated in regards to claim 2, Schumski et al. is silent on the structure of the clumping agent coating on the particulate substrate. However, after coating a particulate substrate with a clumping agent carried in oil, the resulting granule would necessarily have an outer surface as instantly claimed. The modified teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. would result in an inner substrate particulate coated with a self-adhering clumping agent present in a measurable depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time that a coating which is not defined as a monolayer would have an inner region in contact with the inner particulate substrate and an outer region in contact with the environment.
In regard to claim 27, Schumski et al. teaches a particulate substrate which is a particle with a defined outer surface and the clumping agent coating is distributed onto the surface of the particulate material [0023]. The combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al., where the clumping agent self-adheres to the inner substrate particle via an adhesive matrix as taught by Kornmayer et al., would be adhered to the outer surface of the inner substrate particle as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 35, Schumski et al. teaches a method of making a self-clumping sorbet granular litter by applying a modified-starch clumping agent onto a substrate particle [0023]. Schumski et al. does not teach that the modified starch clumping agent is self-adhered to the substrate particle. However, Kornmayer et al. teaches a self-clumping liter comprising a plurality of individual grains which are comprised of a plurality of carrier grains mantled by an intermediate layer. Said intermediate layer comprises a chemically modified starch and a hydrocolloid which form an adhesive matrix and adhere the intermediate layer to the carrier grains. Schumski et al. acknowledges that the clumping agent taught must be mixed with an oil-based carrier (e.g. vegetable or petroleum-based oils, [0021]) or rely upon the tack of added binder in the substrate particulate in order to adhere to the inner particle [0025], both of which are an added expense to the production of the litter product. In contrast, the self-adhering matrix disclosed by Kornmayer et al. does not limit the inner particulate matter to those that naturally contain a binder or were pre-processed to be coated in a binder as suggested by Schumski et al. [0025]. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would be motivated to modify the teachings of Schumski et al. to make the clumping agent self-adhering as taught by Kornmayer et al. in order to reduce the steps necessary to produce the litter product, thereby reducing cost. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the clumping agent of Schumski et al. to self-adhere to an inner substrate particle as taught by Kornmayer et al. in order to yield the method of claim 35.
In regard to clams 36 and 37, Schumski et al. is silent on the structure of the clumping agent coating on the particulate substrate. However, Kornmayer et al. teaches that the particulate substrate (2) is mantled by the intermediate layer (5) which comprises a pre-gel modified starch and hydrocolloid adhesive matrix (16) (Figure 1, [0031] and [0039]). The intermediate layer has an observable thickness, and self-adheres to the particular substrate and the interface of the modified-starch clumping agent and inner particular substrate (matrix 16 and surface 3 in Figure 1, [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a clumping agent which encapsulates a substrate particle would be adhered by an inner region which is in contact with the inner substrate particle as instantly claimed in claim 36. Furthermore, after coating a particulate substrate with a clumping agent as suggested by Schumski et al., the resulting granule would necessarily have an outer surface as instantly claimed in claim 37. The modified teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. would result in an inner substrate particulate coated with a self-adhering clumping agent present in a measurable depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time that a coating which is not defined as a monolayer would have an inner region in contact with the inner particulate substrate and an outer region in contact with the environment.
Claims 4-13 and 38-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. as applied to claims 3 and 37 above, and further in view of Lipscomb et al. (Pub. No. US-20170245460-A1, published 31 Aug 2017, herein referred to as Lipscomb '460).
In regard to claims 4, 9, 38, and 43, neither Schumski et al. or Kornmayer et al. teach that the outer surface of the litter granules is comprised of at least a plurality of pairs of upraised projections. However, Lipscomb ‘460 teaches a granular litter blend wherein at least one component is a dust-adhering liquid absorbent granule, made from a starch-containing extrudate [0016], which further has at least a plurality of liquid wicking tendrils extending outwardly from the pellet surface [0013], [0085]. Lipscomb ‘460 further teaches the liquid-wicking tendrils provide a significantly larger surface area to more rapidly absorb liquid [0085] and through electrostatic interactions attract and collect dust [0088]. Therefore, the liquid-wicking tendrils improve the efficacy of the litter product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to add projections (i.e. liquid wicking tendrils) to the outer surface of the litter granules as suggested by Lipscomb ‘460 to improve the speed at which the granules absorb liquid and provide a dust-reducing mechanism.
In regard to claims 5, 6, 39, and 40, the combined teachings of Schumski et al., Kornmayer et al., and Lipscomb ‘460 are applied as above to claims 4 and 38 respectively. Lipscomb ‘460 further teaches that the liquid-wicking tendrils on the surface of the litter granules have a width between 0.5-500 µm and a length between 1-500 µm [0085]. The dimensions of the liquid-wicking tendrils have a direct impact on the surface area of the litter granules, which in turn effects the liquid-wicking ability of the litter.
As microscopic is defined as anything not visible to the naked eye, measurements generally under 100 µm are considered microscopic. Nanoscale is defined as measurements smaller than 1 µm. The width and length of the liquid-wicking tendrils disclosed by Lipscomb ‘460 both overlaps the microscopic range (0<x<100 µm) and overlaps (in width) and abuts to (in length) the nanoscale range (x<1 µm). With respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
In regard to claims 7 and 41, the combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the outer surface of the litter granule comprise cracks which improve water absorption. However, Lipscomb ‘460 teaches litter granules which are porous, and comprise an outer surface that has at least a plurality of spaced apart pores formed therein that further facilitate water absorption [0070]. Lipscomb further teaches that the inclusion of pores on the surface of the litter granules specifically increases the speed of absorption of liquid into the granules [0070]. Both the pores of Lipscomb ‘460 and instantly claimed cracks are discontinuities in the topmost surface of a material and are described as being formed and/or configured to improve water absorption. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the disclosed plurality of spaced apart pores on the outer surface of the absorbent granule disclosed in Lipscomb ‘460 reads to the instantly claimed plurality of pairs of cracks formed in the outer surface of a self-clumping sorbent granule. As previously stated, the inclusion of such pores on the outer surface of the granule facilitates water absorption by increasing the speed of absorption, and thus would be advantageous in a similar litter product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to include surface pores as disclosed by Lipscomb ‘460 to improve the water/liquid absorptivity of the litter granules.
In regard to claims 8, 12, 42, and 46, the combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the cracks in the surface of the litter granules are microcracks. Microcracks, as informed by the instant specification, are interpreted to include cracks and deviations in the outer surface which are on the microscale (µm). Lipscomb ‘460 further teaches that the pores, voids, pinholes, and/or holes (abovementioned as pores) contributed to the surface roughness of the litter granules and have an opening width or diameter of 0.2-15% of the narrowest width, length, or diameter or the extruded litter pellet, granule, and or particle on which the pores, voids, pinholes, and/or holes are formed (lines 1-9, [0123]). Example absorbent granules (42) have a preferred size of between US #18 and US #40 mesh (or 425-100 µm particle widths, [0048]). Estimating preferred pore size from granules (42) results in pore openings which may range from 85 to 150 µm wide, which are on the microscale. Lipscomb ‘460 teaches that such embodiments of granular litter particles reduced segregation, separation, and/or stratification of the litter particles as compared to convention litters on account of the porous outer surface [0124]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to include microscale cracks, pores or surface deformations as taught by Lipscomb ‘460 in order to maximize the rate of water absorption into the litter granules. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would further be motivated to optimize the size of pores or cracks on the outer surface of the litter granules. The size range of the claimed cracks as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made by selecting the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
In regard to claims 10 and 44, Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that a substantial portion of the outer surfaces of the litter granules comprise upraised projections, but Lipscomb ‘460 shows that the projections on the outer surface of the litter granules are distributed across a substantial amount of or majority of the outer surface (see Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to apply the projections as suggested by Lipscomb ‘460 to the combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to maximize the added surface area of the litter granules, as the increased surface area of the liquid-wicking tendrils, and discussed in regard to claim 9, greatly increase the rate of water absorption of the litter granules overall.
In regard to claims 11 and 45, as discussed in regard to claims 5 and 39, Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the outer surface of the litter granule is comprised of microscopic projections. Lipscomb ‘460 further teaches that the liquid-wicking tendrils on the surface of the litter granules have a width between 0.5-500 µm and a length between 1-500 µm [0085]. The dimensions of the liquid-wicking tendrils have a direct impact on the surface area of the litter granules, which in turn effects the liquid-wicking ability of the litter. The width and length of the liquid-wicking tendrils disclosed by Lipscomb ‘460 overlaps the microscopic range (0<x<100 µm). With respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
In regard to claims 13 and 47, Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the outer surface of the litter granules is comprised of a plurality of microscopic upraised projections and a plurality of microcracks. However, Lipscomb ‘460 teaches absorbent litter granules with an outer surface which comprises upraised projections with dimensions between 0.5-500 µm in width and 1-500 µm in length [0085], which are beneficial to the granules’ rate of water absorption [0085], and surface pores, which read to the instantly claimed cracks, with estimated dimensions of 85- 150 µm ([0123], [0048], see above rejection of claims 7, 8 & 12), and are beneficial to the rate of water absorption [0070]. Lipscomb further teaches that the combination of microscopic projections (tendrils) and microcracks (pores) results in a rough outer surface which increases the physical engagement of the litter granules and overall has improved resistance to segregation, separation, and/or stratification in a multicomponent blend of particles over conventional litters [0106]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who was aware of Lipscomb, to modify the teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to have a surface of a litter granule comprised of both microscopic projections and microcracks for the individual improvements to water absorption speed, and the synergistic benefit of both which allows for high surface roughness and high physical engagement with other litter granules.
Claims 14-22 and 48-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. as applied to claim 3 and 35 above, and further in view of Lipscomb et al. (Pub. No. US-20160165835-A1, published 16 Jun 2016, herein referred to as Lipscomb ‘835).
In regard to claims 14, 22, 48, and 56, Schumski et al. teachings a clumping agent comprising a pre-gelled starch, a polyoxygenated moiety, and divided carboxymethylcellulose (Abstract). The pre-gelled starch of Schumski et al. reads to the second constituent of claims 14 and 48 as a moisture-reactivating moisture recuing binder which can be moisture activated and cured a plurality of times as dependent claims 21, 22 and 55, 56 respectively recite pre-gelatinized starches as acceptable second constituents.
The combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach a constituent of the clumping agent which is a single-time moisture activated single time moisture cured binder. However, Lipscomb ‘835 teaches a granular cat litter which is an extruded admixture including a clumping agent composed in part by a dextrinized starch that acts as a flowable adhesive (Abstract). Lipscomb ‘835 teaches that the extrusion of an admixture comprising a high starch content cereal grain results in starch dextrinization, or the process of breaking down starches into the molecule dextrin [0010]. The resulting dextrinized starch clumping agent when disposed on the surface of a litter granule or pellet reacts to/is dissolved by water or cat urine to adhesively bond adjacent pellets or granules together to clump litter without a guar gum or other added binder [0030], [0040]. The dextrinized starch clumping agent is further advantageous over other clumping agents as it is biodegradable and toilet flushable, which improves consumer appeal [0040]. The dextrinized starch reads to a single-time moisture-activated cured binder because it activates by being dissolved in water and forming a hard clumped litter, which cannot be redissolved/reactivated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the clumping agent of Schumski et al. to include the dextrinized starch of Lipscomb ‘835 instead of finely divided carboxymethylcellulose as a second clumping component, as instantly claimed in claims 14 and 48, in order to produce a robust clumping agent which had significantly increased cold water solubility, as the dextrin readily dissolves in water as opposed to the CMC which is partially water soluble. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Schumski et al., Kornmayer et al., and Lipscomb ‘835 teach a self-clumping sorbent litter granule comprised of a dextrinized starch and a pre-gelatinized starch as instantly claimed in claims 22 and a method of producing such a litter by contacting the clumping agent with a substrate particle in claim 56.
In regard to claims 15 and 49, Schumski et al. teaches that other additives may be added to the clumping agents [0021]. Specifically, Schumski et al. cites that advantageous additions may be bentonite clays [0021], which are well-known water absorbents which swell when in contact with water.
In regard to claims 16-18 and 50-52, the dextrinized starch taught by Lipscomb ‘835, which corresponds to the instantly claimed clumping agent first constituent, comprises the cold-water soluble starch dextrin (as per claims 16 & 50, Lipscomb ‘835 [0010]). Specifically, the clumping agent disclosed may contain white dextrin and/or yellow dextrin [0038] which are known in the art to be 25-80% soluble in cold (<72°F) water (as per claims 16 & 50; partially water soluble between 68-72°F). Furthermore, Lipscomb ‘835 teaches that the dextrinized starch component of the clumping agent is produced via adiabatic high-pressure extrusion of a high-starch admixture (as per claims 17 & 51, [0009]-[0010]). As instantly claimed in claim 18 and 52, Lipscomb ‘835 teaches that the clumping agent comprises between 1-10% carbohydrate binder which has been converted to dextrin and thus a dextrinized starch [0010].
As discussed in regard to claims 14 and 48, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to combine the dextrinized starch clumping agent of Lipscomb ‘835 with the teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to produce the self-clumping sorbent granular litter as instantly claimed. As such, the sorbent litter granules would possess the claimed limitations of claims 16 and 18 by comprising dextrinized starch as a constituent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to produce the dextrinized starch as suggested by Lipscomb ‘835, which is produced via extrusion-based modification of an existing starch admixture, and is further supported by Schumski et al., which teaches that pre-heating and subsequent drying by extrusion imparts the necessary cold-water solubility to the employed starches [0015]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to use an extrusion-modified starch comprising starch in the admixture which is modified during extrusion as instantly claimed in claims 17 and 51.
In regard to claims 19-21 and 52-55, Schumski et al. teaches a clumping agent comprised of a finely divided pre-gelatinized starch (as per claim 20, [0007]) which possesses cold water solubility prior to particle division, imparted through a gelatinization process (as per claims 19 & 53, [0015]) which involves heating the starch and subsequent drying via extrusion of the starch-containing admixture (as per claims 20 & 54, [0015]). With regard to specific temperatures in which the cold-water soluble starch is partially soluble (as per claims 19 and 53), Schumski et al. does not disclose the specific solubility of the pre-gelatinized starch between 68-72°F. Instead, Schumski et al. provides illustrative examples of similar starches which share cold-water solubility properties with the inventive pre-gelatinized starch, including E1400 Dextrin and E1401 Modified starch (acid treated starch), which are partially to completely soluble in water at 68-72°F. It would then be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time that the pre-gelatinized starch with imparted cold water solubility, as disclosed in Schumski et al., is partially to completely soluble in water at 68-72°F.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Sogou et al. (Pub. No. US-20150048538-A1, published 19 Feb 2016).
In regard to claim 24, Schumski et al. teaches a clumping agent comprising water-swellable modified starch (divided pre-gelled starch) and a cellulose component which is coated onto a particulate. Kornmayer et al. teaches a clumping agent coating comprising an adhesive gel matrix comprising a swelling starch and a swelling hydrocolloid (a polysaccharide or protein). In Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al., the second, non-starch swelling component acts as a binder or thickener (Schumski et al. Abstract & Kornmayer et al. [0038]).
The combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the modified starch water absorbing clumping agent comprises a second starch modified into an at least partially water-soluble binder/water activated adhesive. However, Sogou et al. teaches a sorbent granular litter comprising a water-absorbing material, a hydraulic binder, and water-soluble starch thickener wherein the hydraulic binder and starch thickener work in tandem to form the granules, retain a final shape with adequate crush strength, and prevent the wetted litter from scattering while having a low bulk density ([0030], [0036], [0040]). The hydraulic binder and starch thickener of Sogou et al. provide the advantage over the hydrocolloid binders of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. of hardening after contact with water and providing significant strength to the litter after wetting [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. with the modified starch thickener-hydraulic binder system of Sogou et al. in order to produce a clumping agent coating which self-adhered to the substrate particles and added strength to the granular litter to prevent scattering to yield the self-clumping sorbent granular litter as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 25, the hydraulic binder/starch thickener of Sogou et al. is a moisture-curing water activated adhesive as the hydraulic binder reacts with water to harden (i.e. curing) and the starch thickener increases the viscosity of the substrate and binder in water [0030], [0036], [0040].
In regard to claim 26, the hydraulic binder of Sogou et al. reads to a room-temperature moisture-curing water-activated thermoset adhesive as it hardens on contact with water and does not redissolve after subsequent exposure to water [0030]. Furthermore, the starch thickener of Sogou et al. reads to a room temperature moisture-curing water-activated thermoplastic adhesive as the starch thickener does not cure into a hardened form upon exposure to water and is readily partially water-soluble.
Claims 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Lipscomb et al. (Pub. No. US-20210274745-A1, published 09 Sep 2021, herein referred to as Lipscomb ‘745).
In regard to claim 28, Schumski et al. teaches a clumping agent comprising water-swellable modified starch (divided pre-gelled starch) and a cellulose component which is coated onto a particulate. Kornmayer et al. teaches a clumping agent coating comprising an adhesive gel matrix comprising a swelling starch and a swelling hydrocolloid (a polysaccharide or protein). In Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al., the second, non-starch swelling component acts as a binder or thickener, and in the case of Kornmayer et al., adheres the clumping agent layer to the inner substrate particle (Schumski et al. Abstract & Kornmayer et al. [0038]). Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the outer region of the modified starch clumping agent is comprised of cold water swellable starch and a cold water soluble modified starch binder.
However, Lipscomb ‘745 teaches a combination of an extruded granular absorbent and non-extruded granular material which agglutinate into a clump when wetted (Abstract) wherein the extruded granular material, a modified starch, acts as a superior binder (e.g. agglutinating agent) as compared to conventional binders ([0006] & [0022]). The disclosed binder is an extrusion modified starch which is cold water soluble and when wetted forms a flowable adhesive which causes the extrudate to agglutinate together and further acts as a clumping and clump hardening agent when the absorbent dries to a moisture content of <12% ([0041] & [0043]) which reads to the instantly claimed cold water soluble modified starch binder of claim 28. After drying, the modified starch binder of Lipscomb ‘745 imparts considerable strength to the litter granules including a clump strength of 200 PSI and clump retention above 90% [0044]. A person of ordinary skill would recognize the effect that the modified starch binder of Lipscomb ‘745 has on the granular litter product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to replace cellulose-based binders in the outer clumping agent layer with the modified starch binder of Lipscomb ‘745 to improve the structural integrity of the formed absorbent litter granules.
In regard to claim 29, Schumski et al. teaches a modified starch clumping agent comprising a cold water swellable water-absorbent modified starch in the form of a pre-gelatinized starch which can be disposed on a substrate particle (Abstract). As discussed above with regard to claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the clumping agent of Schumski et al. to include a binder or adhesive which would allow the clumping agent to self-adhere to the substrate particle as suggested by Kornmayer et al. The combined teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the clumping agent is also comprised of a cold water soluble starch binder which forms a flowable adhesive that when wetted allows the clumping agent to self-adhere to the outer region of the inner substrate particle.
However, Lipscomb ‘745 teaches a combination of an extruded granular absorbent and non-extruded granular material which agglutinate into a clump when wetted (Abstract) wherein the extruded granular material, a modified starch, acts as a superior binder (e.g. agglutinating agent) as compared to conventional binders ([0006] & [0022]). The disclosed binder is an extrusion modified starch which is cold water soluble and when wetted forms a flowable adhesive which causes the extrudate to agglutinate together and further acts as a clumping and clump hardening agent when the absorbent dries to a moisture content of <12% ([0041] & [0043]) which reads to the instantly claimed cold water soluble modified starch binder of claim 28. After drying, the modified starch binder of Lipscomb ‘745 imparts considerable strength to the litter granules including a clump strength of 200 PSI and clump retention above 90% [0044]. A person of ordinary skill would recognize the effect that the modified starch binder of Lipscomb ‘745 has on the granular litter product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the teachings of Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. to replace cellulose-based binders in the outer clumping agent layer with the modified starch binder of Lipscomb ‘745 to improve the structural integrity of the formed absorbent litter granules and form a clumping agent as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 30, Lipscomb ‘745 discloses that the water soluble modified starch clumping agent when wetted forms a flowable adhesive when the granules/pellets are wetted and produces a hardened clump when the agglutinated absorbent dries to a moisture content of <12% ([0043]-[0044]). As discussed in regard to claim 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to employ the water-soluble modified starch binder of Lipscomb ‘745 in the clumping agent and the granule litter of the combined teachings of Schumksi et al. and Kornmayer et al. because of its strength-enhancing effect on the litter product (see above).
In regard to claims 31-33, Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the moisture content of the self-clumping absorbent granule is reduced to transition the flowable adhesive of the clumping agent from a flowing liquid or gel into a solid, hard, glassy material. However, Lipscomb ‘745 teaches that the litter granules, after being wetted, are dried to a moisture content no greater than 12% and produce a solid, relatively hard clump [0044]. The moisture reduction causes the wetted water-soluble modified starch binder to transition from a flowable adhesive/viscous gel into agglutinated clumps which become increasingly harder as it dries [0043]. The increased hardness of the litter granules imparted by the drying of the litter granules is key to imparting the disclosed improved clump strength [0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to dry the litter granules containing the water soluble modified starch binder to a moisture content of no greater than 12% as disclosed in the prior art to achieve the desired clump strength.
In regard to claim 34, Schumski et al. and Kornmayer et al. do not teach that the moisture content of the self-clumping absorbent granule is reduced to no greater than 8% by weight to transition the flowable adhesive of the clumping agent from a flowing liquid or gel into a solid, hard, glassy material. However, Lipscomb ‘745 teaches that the litter granules, after being wetted, are dried to a moisture content no greater than 12% and produce a solid, relatively hard clump [0044]. The moisture reduction causes the wetted water-soluble modified starch binder to transition from a flowable adhesive/viscous gel into agglutinated clumps which become increasingly harder as it dries [0043]. Lipscomb ‘745 further teaches that the hardness of the formed clumps increases over time as the agglutinated absorbent dries, which is indicative that moisture content has a direct effect on the resulting hardness/clump strength of the produced litter granules [0043]. With respect to the encompassing and overlapping ranges of granule moisture (0-12% previously disclosed vs. 0-8% instantly claimed), the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chinese Patent Application No. 112956418A, which discloses a caked cat litter which comprises both corn starch as base material and pregelatinized starch as an adhesive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights