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 without traverse of Group I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/04/2026.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, which recites, “papers, silica gel and diatomaceous earth as three major materials”, it is not clear what does major material mean and how can three materials can each be major material in a composition, Applicant is advised to define what major material means or include the weight percent of each material. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 2006/0054096) in view of DeLeeuw et al. (US 7343874).
Regarding claim 1, Ikegami discloses granular materials contain aromatic granular materials each of which has base material (water absorption material of present invention) which generates heat by absorbing water and an aromatic component adsorbed onto the base material (abstract). The base material is at least one material selected from the group of bentonite, acid clay, silica gel, and diatomaceous earth (claim 8).
However, Ikegami fails to disclose that the granular base material contains papers.
Whereas, DeLeeuw discloses particulate litter composition, comprising: a substantially particulate silica gel material; and at least one binding agent adhered to said silica gel material with a substantially water soluble fixing agent to form a scoopable particulate litter composition (claim 1). DeLeeuw discloses litter composition includes a supplemental absorbent material and supplemental absorbent material comprises a mineral selected from the group consisting of paper, cellulosic web, wood chips (claims 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include papers as taught by DeLeeuw in the granular materials of Ikegami motivated by the desire to have superabsorbent properties.
As Ikegami in view of DeLeeuw discloses granular materials comprising papers, silica gel and diatomaceous earth, it would act as major materials as presently claimed.
However, the recitation in the claims that the water absorbent material is “for absorbing liquid containing a malodorous substance” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Ikegami in view of DeLeeuw disclose water absorbing material as presently claimed, it is clear that the water absorbing material of Ikegami in view of DeLeeuw would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for absorbing liquid containing a malodorous substance, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Regarding claim 2, DeLeeuw discloses litter composition includes a supplemental absorbent material and supplemental absorbent material comprises a mineral selected from the group consisting of paper, cellulosic web, wood chips, diatomaceous earth (claims 49-50).The supplemental absorbent material comprises up to approximately 60%, by weight, of said lifter composition (claim 46), thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to include paper in an amount of 50% or more to make paper as the main material of the grain.
Regarding claim 3, with respect to the weight ratio of the silica gel being equal to the weight ratio of the diatomaceous earth, When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 4, Ikegami discloses silica gel" is the coagulation of a colloidal solution of silicic acid, and due to being a porous substance and having hydroxyl groups on its surface, has the property of physically and chemically adsorbing water. "Diatomaceous earth" has silicic acid as the main component, and is from several .mu.m to several dozen .mu.m in diameter, has formed therein numerous pores of 0.1 .mu.m to 10 .mu.m that lead from the interior to the exterior, and has excellent water absorbing and adsorbing property (para 0026). With respect to the weight ratio of the silica gel smaller than a weight ratio of the diatomaceous earth, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization motivated by the desire to have desired water absorbing and adsorbing property, 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 5-6, Ikegami discloses silica gel" is the coagulation of a colloidal solution of silicic acid, and due to being a porous substance and having hydroxyl groups on its surface, has the property of physically and chemically adsorbing water. "Diatomaceous earth" has silicic acid as the main component, and is from several .mu.m to several dozen .mu.m in diameter, has formed therein numerous pores of 0.1 .mu.m to 10 .mu.m that lead from the interior to the exterior, and has excellent water absorbing and adsorbing property (para 0026).
With respect to the silica gel and diatomaceous earth being main material, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization like forming a composition comprising silica gel as main material or diatomaceous earth as main material motivated by the desire to have desired water absorbing and adsorbing property, 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 8-9, Ikegami discloses granular materials contain aromatic granular materials each of which has base material (water absorption material of present invention) which generates heat by absorbing water and an aromatic component adsorbed onto the base material (abstract). The base material is at least one material selected from the group of bentonite, acid clay, silica gel, and diatomaceous earth (claim 8). Ikegami does not mention anything about granular material containing an adhesive material and or has any covering on it, thus it meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Ikegami in view of DeLeeuw discloses granular material comprising paper, silica gel and diatomaceous earth. While it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that the additional ingredients in the prior art, i.e. additional component, would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the applicant’s invention, See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (US 2006/0054096) in view of DeLeeuw et al. (US 7343874) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Fung et al. (US 2005/0145186).
Regarding claim 7, Ikegami discloses silica gel, but fails to disclose that it is A-type silica gel.
Whereas, Fung discloses an animal litter composition comprising a substantially particulate silica gel material with a particle size distribution of about 0.15 to about 4 mm (abstract). The silica gel is Type A silica gel (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include Type A silica gel as taught by Fung in the granular materials of Ikegami motivated by the desire to have high moisture absorption capacity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights