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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Lipscomb et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,266,090).
In regard to claim 1, Lipscomb et al. teaches a water absorption treatment material (i.e. litter) comprising a plurality of grains (e.g. pellets) having a water absorbing property (Col. 1, lines 37-40). Lipscomb et al. further teaches that the plurality of grains are made up of a high carbohydrate, high starch grain cereal, and describes rice flour as an option (Col. 17, lines 15-50 & Claim 8) and that the high carbohydrate high starch grain cereal may account for 90-99 (~100%) of the non-water weight of the litter admixture prior to extrusion (Col. 21, lines 53-60) and that after extrusion 0.1-15% of the starch within the admixture is gelatinized to dextrin, a carbohydrate polymer binder (Col. 4, line 64 – Col. 5, line 3).
In regard to claims 2-3, Lipscomb et al. teaches that the litter may be comprised of 90-99% high carbohydrate, high starch grain cereal, (i.e. the rice flour), which is greater than both the ≥50% and ≥80% by weight limitations of claims 2 and 3.
In regards to claim 4, Lipscomb et al. teaches that the extruded grains may be covered by a coating which completely covers the surface of the extruded grains (Col. 29, line 62 – Col. 30, line 12).
In regard to claim 5, the instant claim recites that a granular core portion and an outer coating portion of the material contain rice flour. The instant claims do not place any mathematical constraints on the granular core portion or coating portion, or that the two portions are significantly different in composition. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision the uncoated treated litter granules of Lipscomb et al. (Col. 29, lines 29-58) to comprise an inner core portion measured from the center of the grain and an outer coating portion which comprises a given portion of the grain starting from the water-treated surface. As the extrudate which makes up the pellets/grains is described as a homogenous mixture (Col. 24, lines 23-29) which may comprise 90-99% of the high carbohydrate, high starch cereal grain (e.g. rice flour, Col. 21, lines 53-66), an inner (granular core) and outer (coating) portion of the treated uncoated pellet would contain said rice flour as a main material as instantly claimed.
In regard to claim 6, Lipscomb et al. teaches that the coating may comprise an absorbent inorganic material such as bentonite, sodium bicarbonate, zeolites, etc. which is different from the high carbohydrate high starch grain cereal (Col. 11, lines 21-34).
In regard to claim 7, Lipscomb et al. teaches that extruded grains may be used without the application of any adsorbent coatings (Col. 29, lines 29-46). Even if the treatment steps described are in themselves interpreted as a type of coating which alters the pellet surface, the intermediate product of the dried extruded pellets would still anticipate the instantly claimed uncovered granule structure.
In regard to claims 9-10, rice flour and dextrin (a product of the gelatination process taught) are both food-grade materials and organic substances, and therefore meet the instantly claimed limitations of claims 9 and 10.
In regard to claims 11-13, Lipscomb et al. teaches a method of producing a water absorption treatment material comprising a grain forming step (see Litter Pellet Making Methods, Col 16 - 31) and teaches that grains comprise a high carbohydrate high starch grain cereal as 90-99% of the grain (Col. 21, lines 53-60) and that the high carbohydrate high starch grain cereal may be rice flour (Col. 17, lines 15-50 & Claim 8).
In regard to claim 14, Lipscomb et al. teaches a step of forming a granular core and forming a clay coating applied to said granular core (Col 16-30, Col. 29).
In regard to claim 15, Lipscomb et al. teaches a granular litter of a homogenous composition wherein rice flour comprises a majority of the composition (i.e. is a main material). A person of ordinary skill in the art could readily envision that the intermediate product or uncoated treated pellets could be divided into an inner core portion and outer coating portion as defined by the instant claim, and therefore both the inner core portion and outer coating portion contain rice flour (see above rejection of claim 5).
In regard to claim 16, Lipscomb et al. teaches the granular core may comprise 90-99% rice flour and the coating may comprise an inorganic absorbent material (see above rejection of claim 6).
In regard to claim 17, Lipscomb et al. teaches a method in which the formed grains are in the form of an uncovered granule (see above rejection of claim 7).
In regard to claims 19 and 20, Lipscomb et al. teaches that the plurality of absorbent grains comprise rice flour and dextrin after processing, both of which are food materials and organic substances (see above rejections of claims 9 and 10).
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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al.
In regard to claim 8, Lipscomb et al. teaches that the plurality of grains may be comprised of 90-99% (~100%) a high carbohydrate high starch grain cereal (e.g. rice flour, Col. 21, lines 53-60) and after gelatinization at least 0.1% carbohydrate polymer binder (Col. 4, line 64-65). The instant specification defines “consisting essentially of rice flour” means that an additive material such as coloring matter or perfume may be contained in each grain unless the water absorbing property of the grain is inhibited [0033]. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been capable of selecting a plurality of grains comprising ≥99% rice flour and 0.1-1% carbohydrate polymer binder (e.g. dextrin), which reads to the instantly claimed subject matter, based on the teachings of Lipscomb et al.’s general disclosure.
In regard to claim 18, Lipscomb et al. teaches that a plurality of grains are formed wherein the grains consist essentially of rice flour (as described, a high carbohydrate high starch grain cereal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select ~99% rice flour and ~1% dextrin by weight as the composition for the absorbent grains through process optimization as noted above in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application No. 20170000079A1, for disclosing the use of rice meal, rice flour, glutinous rice meal, or glutinous rice flour as an adhesion agent comprising 20-30 wt% of a litter product.
Chinese Patent Application No. 107455268A, for disclosing the use of glutinous rice flour as a high-density source of amylopectin and effective absorbent.
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