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.
Claims 1-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN 110583496) in view of Lipscomb et al. (US 2014/0069344) and Nga et al. (US 10383308) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/9/24).
Regarding Claim 1, Sun discloses a white clumping animal litter including a pH health indicator (pH indicating material; “wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1 % of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation), the animal litter comprising:
a particulate substrate that is white (“Preferably, the carrier is as follows:… whiteness of ≥ 87.0%” Page 3 Paragraph 5 of translation), and has a substantially neutral pH (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch,… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation, starch, and flour have a substantially neutral pH), wherein the particulate substrate is configured to provide clumping of such particles when wetted during use (“the pH of the invention indicating the cat litter caking effect when using,” Page 4 Paragraph 10 of translation); wherein the particulate substrate comprises composite particles that are substantially free of cellulose material (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch,… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation, the combination does not require cellulose fibers), and wherein the composite particles comprise both starch and dextrin or another modified starch, wherein the starch and dextrin or another modified starch are agglomerated together into the composite particles (“step 1: the common soybean, common starch, starch fibers, modified starch, plant fibre, dextrin and flour is any one kind or several kinds of stirring after mixing uniformly, mechanism with cat litter particles into granules, then drying,” Page 3, step 1), and
pH health indicator particles admixed with the white substrate particles (pH indicating material; “wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1 % of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation);
wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a first color when wetted with a substantially neutral pH liquid, wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a second color, different from the first color, when wetted with a liquid having an acidic pH, and wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a third color, different from the first and second colors, when wetted with a liquid having a basic pH (“as shown in FIG. 2, pH ≤ 5.0 colour from light yellow to orange, pH between 5.0~7.0 is shallow yellow to light green, PH ≥ 7.0 pale to dark blue;” Page 6 Paragraph 3 of translation).
Sun fails to disclose the dextrin or other modified starch comprises from 20% to about 50% by weight of the composite particles; and wherein the litter exhibits a clump retention of at least about 90%.
However, Lipscomb teaches a similar litter, wherein the dextrin or other modified starch comprises from 10% to about 50% by weight of the composite particles (“each pellet has a dextrin content varying… between 4% and 12% of pellet, and/or between 5% and 15%” Paragraph [0124]; Applicant fails to provide criticality why dextrin content needs to be above 20% and even states in Paragraph [0091] of the specification “dextrin or other modified starch may be present in an amount of no more than…20% by weight. Exemplary ranges include, but are not limited to 10% to 50%”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate particles of Sun, with the 10-50% dextrin of Lipscomb, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the absorptivity of the litter and help decrease odor.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 15% dextrin of Lipscomb, to be within 20% to about 50% dextrin, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the overall deodorizing properties of the litter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, Nga teaches a litter comprising starch (Col. 3 lines 33-39), wherein the litter exhibits a clump retention of at least about 90% (“Ideally, greater than 90%, and more ideally, greater than 95% of the particles will be retained in a clump after 3 hours upon addition of an aqueous solution, such as deionized water or animal urine. Greater than 80% particle retention in the clump is preferred.” Col. 7 lines 51-55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clumping litter of Sun, to have at least a 90% clump retention as taught by Nga, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help further prevent the build-up of odor over time.
Regarding Claim 2, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the pH health indicator particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 1% to about 25% by weight (“wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1 % of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the pH health indicator particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 5% to about 15% by weight (“obtain the pH indicating cat litter, wherein the mass percentage of the pH indicating material for cat urine is 5wt%” Page 5 last Paragraph of translation).
Regarding Claim 4, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the non-pH indicator particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 75% to about 99% by weight (“wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1 % of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation; the remaining amount of litter would be 99%).
Regarding Claim 5, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1. Sun further discloses the litter of claim 1, wherein the non-pH indicator particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 85% to about 95% by weight (“obtain the pH indicating cat litter, wherein the mass percentage of the pH indicating material for cat urine is 5wt%” Page 5 last Paragraph of translation; the remaining amount of litter would be 95%).
Regarding Claim 13, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1. Sun further discloses the litter of claim 1, wherein substantially all components of the litter are plant-based (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Lipscomb and Nga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nuanes (US 2021/0169037).
Regarding Claim 7, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the composite particles further comprise powdered activated carbon.
However, Nuanes teaches a litter, wherein the composite particles further comprise powdered activated carbon (Paragraphs [0051-0053]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite particles of Sun, with the
powdered activated carbon of Nuanes, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the build-up of odors.
Regarding Claim 8, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 7.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the powdered activated carbon is present in an amount of from about 0.1% to about 5% by weight of the composite particles.
However, Nuanes teaches a litter, wherein the powdered activated carbon is present in an amount of from about 0.1% to about 5% by weight of the composite particles (“PAC content is greater than 1%, greater than 1% to about 3%, and greater than 1% to about 5%, by weight of the composite particles or by weight of the litter composition as a whole” Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite particles of Sun, with the
powdered activated carbon of Nuanes, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the build-up of odors.
Regarding Claim 9, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 7.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the powdered activated carbon is present in an amount of from about 0.25% to about 3% by weight of the composite particles.
However, Nuanes teaches a litter, wherein the powdered activated carbon is present in an amount of from about 0.25% to about 3% by weight of the composite particles (“PAC content is greater than 1%, greater than 1% to about 3%, and greater than 1% to about 5%, by weight of the composite particles or by weight of the litter composition as a whole” Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite particles of Sun, with the
powdered activated carbon of Nuanes, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the build-up of odors.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Nga and Lipscomb as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 110036924).
Regarding Claim 10, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the composite particles further comprise a preservative.
However, Li ‘924 teaches the litter, wherein the composite particles further comprise a preservative (preservative- Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the composite particles of Sun, with the preservative of Li ‘924 with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent bacterial growth an increase hygienic conditions for the animal.
Regarding Claim 11, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 10.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the preservative is present in an amount of up to 2% by weight of the composite particles.
However, Li ‘924 teaches the litter, wherein the preservative is present in an amount of up to 2% by weight of the composite particles (“cat litter manufacturing raw materials components by mass proportion can be… 2% of preservative,” Page 3 of translation, First Embodiment).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the composite particles of Sun, with the preservative of Li ‘924 with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent bacterial growth an increase hygienic conditions for the animal.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Lipscomb and Nga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pero et al. (US 2008/0295778) (cited by Applicant in IDS dated 9/9/24).
Regarding Claim 12, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 1.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the pH health indicator particles comprise silica gel crystals with a pH indicator.
However, Pero teaches an indicator for use with a clumping animal litter (Abstract), wherein the pH health indicator particles comprise silica gel crystals with a pH indicator (“sample animal litter formula that provides calorimetric detection of ammonia includes an absorbent material suitable for use as an animal litter (e.g., sodium bentonite) and about 1% carrier particle (e.g., silica bead or zeolite) coated with a strong acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) and a pH indicator that changes color above pH 7” Paragraph [0031], the carrier particle made of a silica bead would be non-clumping; “wherein the carrier particle is silica gel, zeolite, or a clay different from the absorbent material suitable for use as an animal litter.” Claim 14)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pH indicators of Sun, have a silica gel carrier as taught by Pero, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the particles absorb
sufficient liquid to activate the color indicator, while creating an easier and more clear visual indication of color changes.
Claims 14-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN 110583496) in view of Lipscomb et al. (US 2014/0069344) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/9/24), Pero et al. (US 2008/0295778) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/9/24), and Nga et al. (US 10383308).
Regarding Claim 14, Sun discloses a clumping animal litter formed from renewable components and including a pH health indicator (pH indicating material; “wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1% of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation), the animal litter comprising:
composite particles that are white (“Preferably, the carrier is as follows:… whiteness of ≥ 87.0%” Page 3 Paragraph 5 of translation), and include a substantially neutral pH (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch,… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation, starch, and flour have a substantially neutral pH), the composite particles including starch and dextrin or another modified starch agglomerated together into the composite particles (Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation), the starch and the dextrin or other modified starch being substantially homogeneously distributed throughout the composite particles (“step 1: the common soybean, common starch, starch fibers, modified starch, plant fibre, dextrin and flour is any one kind or several kinds of stirring after mixing uniformly, mechanism with cat litter particles into granules, then drying,” Page 3, step 1);
pH health indicator particles admixed with the composite particles (pH indicating material), wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a first color when wetted with a substantially neutral pH liquid, wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a second color, different from the first color, when wetted with a liquid having an acidic pH, and wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a third color, different from the first and second colors, when wetted with a liquid having a basic pH (“as shown in FIG. 2, pH ≤ 5.0 colour from light yellow to orange, pH between 5.0~7.0 is shallow yellow to light green, PH ≥ 7.0 pale to dark blue;” Page 6 Paragraph 3 of translation); and
wherein the litter is substantially free of non-renewable mineral components (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation).
Sun fails to disclose wherein the dextrin or other modified starch comprises from 20% to about 50% by weight of the composite particles and the starch comprises from about 50% to 80% by weight of the composite particles, wherein the pH health indicator particles are not clumping by themselves, and wherein the litter exhibits a clump retention of at least about 90%.
However, Lipscomb teaches a similar litter, wherein the dextrin or other modified starch comprises from 10% to about 50% by weight of the composite particles (“each pellet has a dextrin content varying… between 4% and 12% of pellet, and/or between 5% and 15%” Paragraph [0124]; Applicant fails to provide criticality why dextrin content needs to be above 20% and even states in Paragraph [0091] of the specification “dextrin or other modified starch may be present in an amount of no more than…20% by weight. Exemplary ranges include, but are not limited to 10% to 50%”) and the starch comprises from about 50% to 80% by weight of the composite particles (“The admixture can be made of a dry admixture formed of at least 70% by dry admixture weight of at least one cereal grain having a high carbohydrate content of at least 65% by cereal grain weight and having a high starch content of at least 60%” Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate particles of Sun, with the 50-80% starch and 10-50% dextrin of Lipscomb, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the absorptivity of the litter and help decrease odor.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 15% dextrin of Lipscomb, to be within 20% to about 50% dextrin, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the overall deodorizing properties of the litter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, Pero teaches an indicator for use with a clumping animal litter (Abstract) wherein the pH health indicator particles are not clumping by themselves (“sample animal litter formula that provides calorimetric detection of ammonia includes an absorbent material suitable for use as an animal litter (e.g., sodium bentonite) and about 1% carrier particle (e.g., silica bead or zeolite) coated with a strong acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) and a pH indicator that changes color above pH 7” Paragraph [0031], the carrier particle made of a silica bead would be non-clumping; “wherein the carrier particle is silica gel, zeolite, or a clay different from the absorbent material suitable for use as an animal litter.” Claim 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pH indicators of Sun, to be non-clumping as taught by Pero, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the particles absorb
sufficient liquid to activate the color indicator, while creating an easier and more clear visual indication of color changes.
Additionally, Nga teaches a litter comprising starch (Col. 3 lines 33-39), wherein the litter exhibits a clump retention of at least about 90% (“Ideally, greater than 90%, and more ideally, greater than 95% of the particles will be retained in a clump after 3 hours upon addition of an aqueous solution, such as deionized water or animal urine. Greater than 80% particle retention in the clump is preferred.” Col. 7 lines 51-55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clumping litter of Sun, to have at least a 90% clump retention as taught by Nga, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help further prevent the build-up of odor over time.
Regarding Claim 15, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 14. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the pH health indicator particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 1% to about 25% by weight (“wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1 % of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation).
Regarding Claim 16, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 14. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the non-pH indicator particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 75% to about 99% by weight (“wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1 % of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation; the remaining amount of litter would be 99%).
Regarding Claim 17, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 14. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the starch of the composite particles comprises natural starch (“the common starch is potato starch, corn starch, sweet potato starch, pea starch, green bean powder, lotus root starch is any one kind of or several kinds.” Page 3 Paragraph 6 of translation).
Regarding Claim 21, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 14. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the composite particles are substantially free of cellulose material (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch,… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation, the combination does not require cellulose fibers).
Regarding Claim 20, Sun discloses a clumping animal litter formed from renewable components and including a pH health indicator (pH indicating material; “wherein the pH indicating material for cat urine of cat litter 1 % of the total weight of the 100wt%.” Page 3 Paragraph 7 of translation), the animal litter comprising:
composite particles that are white (“Preferably, the carrier is as follows:… whiteness of ≥ 87.0%” Page 3 Paragraph 5 of translation), and include a substantially neutral pH that is from about 6.5 to about 7.5 (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch,… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation, starch, and flour have a substantially neutral pH that fall within applicant’s definition of “about”), the composite particles including starch and dextrin or another modified starch agglomerated together into the composite particles (Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation), the starch and the dextrin or other modified starch being substantially homogeneously distributed throughout the composite particles (“step 1: the common soybean, common starch, starch fibers, modified starch, plant fibre, dextrin and flour is any one kind or several kinds of stirring after mixing uniformly, mechanism with cat litter particles into granules, then drying,” Page 3, step 1);
wherein the white composite particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 85% to about 95% by weight (“obtain the pH indicating cat litter, wherein the mass percentage of the pH indicating material for cat urine is 5wt%” Page 5 last Paragraph of translation; the remaining amount of litter would be 95%).
pH health indicator particles admixed with the composite particles (pH indicating material), wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a first color when wetted with a substantially neutral pH liquid, wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a second color, different from the first color, when wetted with a liquid having an acidic pH, and wherein the pH health indicator particles are of a third color, different from the first and second colors, when wetted with a liquid having a basic pH (“as shown in FIG. 2, pH ≤ 5.0 colour from light yellow to orange, pH between 5.0~7.0 is shallow yellow to light green, PH ≥ 7.0 pale to dark blue;” Page 6 Paragraph 3 of translation);
wherein the pH health indicator particles are included within the animal litter in an amount of about 5% to about 15% by weight (“obtain the pH indicating cat litter, wherein the mass percentage of the pH indicating material for cat urine is 5wt%” Page 5 last Paragraph of translation);
wherein the litter is substantially free of non-renewable mineral components (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch,… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation).
Sun fails to disclose wherein the dextrin or other modified starch comprises from 20% to about 50% by weight of the composite particles and the starch comprises from about 50% to 80% by weight of the composite particles; wherein the pH health indicator particles are not clumping by themselves, and wherein the litter exhibits a clump retention of at least about 90%.
However, Lipscomb teaches a similar litter, wherein the dextrin or other modified starch comprises from 10% to about 50% by weight of the composite particles (“each pellet has a dextrin content varying… between 4% and 12% of pellet, and/or between 5% and 15%” Paragraph [0124]; Applicant fails to provide criticality why dextrin content needs to be above 20% and even states in Paragraph [0091] of the specification “dextrin or other modified starch may be present in an amount of no more than…20% by weight. Exemplary ranges include, but are not limited to 10% to 50%”) and the starch comprises from about 50% to 80% by weight of the composite particles (“The admixture can be made of a dry admixture formed of at least 70% by dry admixture weight of at least one cereal grain having a high carbohydrate content of at least 65% by cereal grain weight and having a high starch content of at least 60%” Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate particles of Sun, with the 50-80% starch and 10-50% dextrin of Lipscomb, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the absorptivity of the litter and help decrease odor.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 15% dextrin of Lipscomb, to be within 20% to about 50% dextrin, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the overall deodorizing properties of the litter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, Pero teaches an indicator for use with a clumping animal litter (Abstract) wherein the pH health indicator particles are not clumping by themselves (“sample animal litter formula that provides calorimetric detection of ammonia includes an absorbent material suitable for use as an animal litter (e.g., sodium bentonite) and about 1% carrier particle (e.g., silica bead or zeolite) coated with a strong acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) and a pH indicator that changes color above pH 7” Paragraph [0031], the carrier particle made of a silica bead would be non-clumping; “wherein the carrier particle is silica gel, zeolite, or a clay different from the absorbent material suitable for use as an animal litter.” Claim 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pH indicators of Sun, to be non-clumping as taught by Pero, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the particles absorb
sufficient liquid to activate the color indicator, while creating an easier and more clear visual indication of color changes.
Additionally, Nga teaches a litter comprising starch (Col. 3 lines 33-39), wherein the litter exhibits a clump retention of at least about 90% (“Ideally, greater than 90%, and more ideally, greater than 95% of the particles will be retained in a clump after 3 hours upon addition of an aqueous solution, such as deionized water or animal urine. Greater than 80% particle retention in the clump is preferred.” Col. 7 lines 51-55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clumping litter of Sun, to have at least a 90% clump retention as taught by Nga, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help further prevent the build-up of odor over time.
Regarding Claim 22, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 20. Sun further discloses the litter, wherein the composite particles are substantially free of cellulose material (“the base curd cat litter is any one kind of or the mixture of several of… common starch, starch fibers, modified starch,… dextrin and flour.” Page 3 Paragraph 9 of translation, the combination does not require cellulose fibers).
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Lipscomb, Pero, and Nga as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Pero et al. (US 2008/0295778)
Regarding Claim 18, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 14.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the pH health indicator particles comprise silica gel crystals with a pH indicator.
However, Pero teaches the litter, wherein the pH health indicator particles comprise silica gel crystals with a pH indicator (“wherein the carrier particle is silica gel,” Claim 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pH indicators of Sun, have a silica gel carrier as taught by Pero, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the particles absorb
sufficient liquid to activate the color indicator, while creating an easier and more clear visual indication of color changes.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Lipscomb, Pero, and Nga as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nuanes (US 2021/0169037) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/9/24).
Regarding Claim 19, Sun as modified teaches the litter of claim 14.
Sun fails to disclose the litter, wherein the composite particles further comprise powdered activated carbon.
However, Nuanes teaches a similar litter wherein the composite particles further comprise powdered activated carbon (Paragraphs [0051-0053]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite particles of Sun, with the powdered activated carbon of Nuanes, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the build-up of odors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that “It is further not certain that Sun actually teaches composite particles, formed from multiple components (e.g., both starch and dextrin or another modified starch)” and Sun fails to disclose the homogenous distribution in the newly amended claims. The Office respectfully disagrees. The newly cited passage in Sun teaches mixing the elements before creating the granules (“step 1: the common soybean, common starch, starch fibers, modified starch, plant fibre, dextrin and flour is any one kind or several kinds of stirring after mixing uniformly, mechanism with cat litter particles into granules, then drying,” Page 3, step 1).
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Lipscomb fails to teach the required 20-50% weight of the particles. The Office respectfully disagrees. While Lipscomb does teach a maximum of 15% dextrin, Applicant’s specification teaches that “In an embodiment, the amount of the dextrin or similar modified starch may be greater than 10%” (Paragraph [0023]) and “The dextrin or other modified starch may be present in an amount of no more than 50%, 45%, 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%, or 20% by weight. Exemplary ranges include, but are not limited to 10% to 50%, 15% to 45%, 15% to 40%, or 20% to 40% by weight of the composite particles.” (Paragraph [0091]. The specification fails to state any criticality or the benefits of a 20% value of dextrin vs a 10% or 15% value of dextrin. Figure 6 shows that clump strength does tend to increase when the dextrin vales are around 20-35%, however, the clump strength at 15% is still higher than the clump strengths shown in 40% and 50% weight. Therefore there is no apparent benefit of a 20-50% weight over a 15% weight. Therefore, even though Lipscomb’s process only results in 15% dextrin, this value does not teach away from Applicant’s invention, as it falls within the described ranges of dextrin, with no specific benefits attached to that specific value.
Additionally, The Office does not consider arguments made in separate applications from the one currently being prosecuted.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/29/26 with respect to claims 1, 12, 14, 18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added reference Pero et al. (US 2008/0295778) in combination with previously used references, teaches the amendments regarding the pH health indicator particles, as amended, as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Newly added reference Nga et al. (US 10383308), in combination with previously used references, teaches the litter clump retention, as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
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 ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 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.
/A.K.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights