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 .
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20150238931 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Raymond et al. (US 20150128869 A1), hereinafter Raymond, and Dorsey (CA 2201690 C).
Regarding claim 1, Lipscomb discloses an animal litter filler for use in an animal litter container including at least one litter filler granular material (¶ 0033, ¶ 0041-0045 discuss granular filler material for animal litter) and at least one bio-enzymatic treatment solution (¶ 0006, ¶ 0014, ¶ 0055-0058, ¶ 0064-0065, ¶ 0113 discuss treatment solutions including odor, urea degradation, urease formation, bacterial, fungal, yeast, and viral inhibitors, ¶ 0055 discusses the treatment solution incorporating the bio-enzymatic solution, Dicyandiamide, which functions as a urease inhibitor that inhibits the action of the urease enzyme to prevent urease from breaking down urea in urine absorbed by pellets of granular absorbent containing DCD; ¶ 0056 and ¶ 0057 similarly discuss hydroquinone and N-[n-butyl] thiophosphoric triamide); and activated charcoal (¶ 0110, lines 20-22, “Where desiccant packets are used, silica gel, activated charcoal, calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, Montmorillonite clay and/or molecular sieves can be used as a desiccant”).
Lipscomb, however, fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one litter filler granular material includes soybean fibre; and wherein the concentration of the activated charcoal in the animal litter filler is between 0.01% to 1% w/w.
Raymond is in the field of animal litter and teaches wherein the at least one litter filler granular material includes soybean fibre (¶ 0005, lines 18-23, “The organic substrate can be selected from the group consisting of corn cob, corn meal, soybean, soybean meal, wheat meal, wheat straw, alfalfa meal, peanut hulls, rice hulls, walnut shells, paper, paper sludge, pine sawdust, diaper fluff, and any combination thereof”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal litter before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lipscomb such that the at least one litter filler granular material includes soybean fibre, as taught by the lower soybean fibre of Raymond. The soybean fiber would improve absorption characteristics, which would improve overall performance of the litter. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Dorsey is in the field of absorptive materials and teaches wherein the concentration of the activated charcoal in the animal litter filler is between 0.01% to 1% w/w (page 9, lines 16-18, “In one embodiment the absorbent composition contains an activated carbon which is a reactivated coconut carbon present in an effective amount, between about 0.1 wt. % and about 5 wt.%, preferably between about 0.5 wt % and abut 2 wt. % activated carbon”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of absorptive materials before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lipscomb and Raymond such that the concentration of the activated charcoal in the animal litter filler is between 0.01% to 1% w/w, as taught by the activated charcoal composition of Dorsey. The activated charcoal would improve odor absorption, which would improve overall performance of the litter. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Lipscomb discloses wherein the at least one litter filler granular material includes one or more of the following: corn starch, peas, and tapioca flour (¶ 0068).
Regarding claim 6, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Lipscomb discloses wherein the at least one bio-enzymatic treatment solution is derived from one or more of the following: deposited marine substances, mineral substances from volcanic ash, rosemary, sesamin, mugwort [Artemisia vulgaris], Coltsfoot [Tussilago farfara], plants derived from Sasa, cherry blossom, plants derived from Nelumbonaceae, humic acid, plant-based aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria, and soil-based aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria (¶ 0065, lines 1-5, “A preferred anti-parasitic treatment capable of inhibiting and/or killing toxoplasma gondii protozoa is formed of artemisinin in a ground, powdered, or other comminuted form and/or in a form that can be solubilized or dissolved in a liquid, such as water, to treat each pellet”).
Regarding claim 7, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Lipscomb discloses further including sodium bicarbonate (¶ 0007, lines 13-16, “the coating includes or is formed of an absorbent material, such as a smectite that can be a bentonite clay, such as sodium bentonite, and which can include zeolite, sodium bicarbonate”).
Regarding claim 8, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 7.
Lipscomb discloses wherein the concentration of the sodium bicarbonate in the animal litter filler is between 0.5% to 2.5% w/w (¶ 0049, “One preferred coating formulation includes at least 80% by coating weight of smectite that preferably is sodium bentonite that is ground or crushed into a powder having an average mesh size of about 50 mesh or greater and which has an average particle size no greater than about 400 microns. Such a powdered coating includes no more than 10% by coating weight of either sodium bicarbonate or calcium bicarbonate. Where the powdered coating includes zeolite, the powdered coating includes no more than 8% by coating weight of zeolite. Such a powdered coating formulation can contain silica, e.g., crystalline silica, but not more than about 8% by coating weight. Where the powdered coating includes a scent or a fragrance, such a powdered coating includes no more than 2% and preferably less than about 1% by coating weight of a scent or fragrance. Such a coating is not limited to just these constituents as other constituents can be used. The amount of coating applied to each absorbent pellet preferably amounts to no more than 5% pellet weight once the coating has dried or cured”).
Regarding claim 11, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Lipscomb discloses wherein the bio-enzymatic treatment solution has a deodorising effect (¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 12, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Lipscomb discloses wherein the bio-enzymatic treatment solution has an antimicrobial effect (¶ 0053, lines 1-5, “In a preferred coating arrangement, the liquid with which the ground or powdered coating formulation is mixed provides a liquid carrier for the ground or powdered coating formulation that can and preferably does include one or more antimicrobial agents”).
Regarding claim 13, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Lipscomb discloses wherein the bio-enzymatic treatment solution is a natural organic and plant-based treatment solution (¶ 0328, lines 1-4, “The present invention is directed to an granular absorbent and method for making such a granular absorbent by extruding pellets made at least partially of an organic or plant material”).
Regarding claim 14, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the apparatus of claim 13.
Lipscomb discloses wherein the natural organic and plant-based treatment solution includes but is not limited to one or more of humic acid, rosemary oil, sesamin, Artemisia vulgaris extract, Tussilago farfara extract, Sasa extract, cherry blossom extract, Nelumbonaceae extract, and mineral water (¶ 0065, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses a method of manufacturing an animal litter filler as claimed in claim 1, the method including the steps of mixing one or more ingredients to form the litter filler granular material (Lipscomb; ¶ 0094-0096 discuss the mixing process for manufacturing the animal litter); adding an amount of the at least one bio-enzymatic treatment solution to the at least one litter filler granular material (Lipscomb; ¶ 0113); adding activated charcoal to the animal litter filler at a concentration of between 0.01% to 1% w/w (Dorsey; page 9, lines 16-18); and forming and drying the mixture to produce the animal litter filler (Lipscomb; ¶ 0016 discusses drying steps in the manufacturing process for the animal litter).
Regarding claim 18, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the method of claim 15.
Lipscomb discloses further including the step of adding sodium bicarbonate to the animal litter filler at a concentration of between 0.5% to 2.5% w/w (¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 20, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the method of claim 15.
Lipscomb discloses further including the step of granulating the animal litter filler, the granulated animal litter filler having a granular diameter of between 1 to 3 mm and a granular length between 10 to 100 mm (¶ 0033).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb (US 20150238931 A1) in view of Raymond (US 20150128869 A1) and Dorsey (CA 2201690 C), as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Fan (CN 110521613 A).
Regarding claim 16, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the method of claim 15, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the step of forming and drying the mixture includes heating the mixture to a temperature between 70°C to 90°C.
Fan is in the field of manufacturing odor absorbing material and teaches wherein the step of forming and drying the mixture includes heating the mixture to a temperature between 70°C to 90°C (page 4, lines 19 and 20, “The preparation method of the cat litter of specific embodiment according to the present invention, wherein in step [4], the temperature of the drying Degree is 75 DEG C or less”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of odor absorptive materials before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey to include the step of forming and drying the mixture includes heating the mixture to a temperature between 70°C to 90°C, as taught by the drying temperatures of Fan. The operation temperature would more effectively dry the material, which would improve overall performance of the litter. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey discloses the method of claim 15, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the step of forming and drying the mixture to produce the animal litter filler further includes drying the animal litter filler at or below 60°C.
Fan is in the field of manufacturing odor absorbing material and teaches wherein the step of forming and drying the mixture to produce the animal litter filler further includes drying the animal litter filler at or below 60°C (page 4, lines 19 and 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of odor absorptive materials before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey to include the step of forming and drying the mixture to produce the animal litter filler further includes drying the animal litter filler at or below 60°C, as taught by the drying temperatures of Fan. The operation temperature would more effectively dry the material, which would improve overall performance of the litter. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. All subject matter incorporated into the amended claims has previously been disclosed by Lipscomb in view of Raymond and Dorsey as demonstrated in the rejection filed 05/01/2025, and the Applicant has not submitted arguments specifically pointing out how the applied references fail to teach the claimed invention other than broad allegations such as “Applicant submits that none of Lipscomb, Raymond, Dorsey and Fan disclosure all of the features or the combination of features of the claimed animal litter filler,” and “In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the prior art utilized by the Examiner fails to teach or suggest all the features of independent claims 1 and 15 and their dependent claims.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Tyler, US 20070253785 A1, discusses containment systems, methods, and devices.
Jardine, US 20120234244 A1, discusses a system and method for continuous vermiculture cycle.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642