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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 20 recites the limitation “of to 60.” Examiner recommends revision to “of 60” or “up to 60.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4-15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huck (US 20190274274 A1) in view of Ellis et al. (US 20130112150 A1), hereinafter Ellis.
Regarding claim 1, Huck discloses organic material pellets comprising: a plurality of feedstock pieces of at least two of a paper material, a wood material, an agricultural waste material, and a cellulosic material combined together and formed into a plurality of the organic material pellets (¶ 0054, lines 1-9, “An aspect of the present disclosure is a method of making a non-clay based clumping pet litter. The method can comprise blending a natural material [e.g., one or more of recycled paper, corrugate or sawdust]; compressing the blended raw material into pellets; grinding the pellets into granules; screening the granules to obtain a predetermined size range; and then applying functional additives to the sized granules, for example a clumping agent, mineral oil, a surfactant and optionally a fragrance oil,” ¶ 0056, lines 1-6, “the pellets and/or the granules that become coated with the functional additives consist essentially of or consist of the natural materials. Non-limiting examples of suitable natural materials include woods, agricultural products [including agricultural by-products] and mixtures thereof,” ¶ 0058, “Non-limiting examples of suitable agricultural products include alfalfa, corn, corn stalk, corn flour, oat hull, oat stalk, oat flour, barley hull, barley meal, barley stalk, barley flour, wheat hull, wheat straw, wheat flour, soybean hull, soybean meal, soybean floor, rye hull, rye meal, rye straw, rye flour, rice straw, rice hull, sorghum straw, sorghum hull, sunflower seeds, and combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the agricultural products comprise plant material, such as bamboo, lemongrass, switchgrass, catnip, oregano, parsley, rosemary, sage, thyme, valerian root, alyssum, chrysanthemum, honeysuckle, hops, lavender, apples, berries, orange peels, orange pulp, sunflower hulls, coffee, tea, or combinations thereof. In other embodiments, the agricultural products comprise sawdust, paper, corrugate, cellulose, corncob, corn kernel, Distillers Dried Grain [DDG], corn pellet, oaf pellet, barley pellet, wheat middlings, soybean pellet, rye pellet, rice grain, rice pellet, sorghum grain, sorghum pellet, or combinations thereof. In still other embodiments, the agricultural products comprise sunflower seed, almond, pistachio, walnut, pecan, hazelnut, peanut, acorn, wheat middlings, wheat straws, or combinations thereof”).
Huck, however, fails to specifically disclose having a mean pellet domain size that ranges from 5 to 25 mm; and a clumping agent adhered to a surface of the organic material pellets.
Ellis is in the field of organic material pellets and teaches having a mean pellet domain size that ranges from 5 to 25 mm (¶ 0021, lines 1-5, “FIG. 5 schematically shows a pellet 60 manufactured as described above and having a length LL typically about 3 to 36 mm [1/8 inch to 11/2 inch] and a diameter [or other characteristic dimension] ranging from about 3 to 12 mm in diameter;” A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range, [MPEP 2131.03]); and a clumping agent adhered to a surface of the organic material pellets (¶ 0020, “As further shown in FIG. 1, the dried pellets 60 are cooled and optionally stored, blended, screened, and packaged. A clumping agent may be added in specific embodiments between the drying and cooling steps. Similarly, wetting agents, odor control agents, dust control agents, and binders may be added in the process before or after the material is fed into the pellet mill 20. Dry surface active agents may be dusted or tumbled onto the pellets while wet and prior to drying, or after partially dried. Wet surface active agents may be sprayed or misted onto the pellets at any time during production”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of organic material pellets before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huck to include a mean pellet domain size that ranges from 5 to 25 mm and a clumping agent adhered to a surface of the organic material pellets, as taught by the pellets of Ellis. The pellet dimensions would increase the amount of surface area and aid in absorption, with the clumping improving the handling of the litter after absorption. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein each of the plurality of pellets has a diameter of 5 to 25 mm and a length of 5 to 100 mm (¶ 0021, lines 1-5; A specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range, [MPEP 2131.03]).
Regarding claim 4, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the paper material is present and is a virgin, recycled, or waste paper material or a paper derivative (¶ 0054, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the paper material is present and is present in an amount of 0 to 99 total weight percent of the pellet (¶ 0059, lines 12-15, “the paper [if any] in the granules can be from about 25.00 wt. % to 95.00 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter or about 46.09 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter”).
Regarding claim 6, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the wood material is present and is saw dust, wood scraps, wood shaving, wood chips, or a combination thereof (¶ 0057, “Non-limiting examples of suitable woods include cedar, pine, oak, maple, eucalyptus, aspen, yucca, and combinations thereof. The woods can have any form suitable for functioning as an animal litter, e.g., chips, particles, pellets, crumbled pellets, sawdust, or crumbles”).
Regarding claim 7, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the wood material is present and is present in an amount of 0 to 99 total weight percent of the pellet (¶ 0059, lines 9-12, “the sawdust [if any] in the granules can be from about 25.00 wt. % to 95.00 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter or about 23.05 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter”).
Regarding claim 8, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the agricultural waste material is present and includes pulps, rinds, pits and seeds, wheat and corn mids and dust, cellulosic plant hulls, grain hulls, nut hulls, sunflower hulls, oat hulls, spelt hulls, soy hulls, and rice hulls, corncob, hemp, crushed hemp seed, bamboo, cellulosic plant stalks, plant stocks, cellulosic plant husks, beeswing wheat bran, tree bark, fronds, miscanthus, grasses, straw, kenaf, vegetable and fruit wastes, orange peels, or a combination thereof (¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 9, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the agricultural waste material is present and is present in an amount of 0 to 99 total weight percent of the pellet (¶ 0059, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 10, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the cellulosic material is present and includes a carboxymethylcellulose, ethylcellulose, hydroxyethylcellulose, hydroxy-methylethylcellulose, hydroxyethylpropylcellulose, methylhydroxyethyl-cellulose, methylcellulose, cellulosic plant hull, grain hull, nut hull, sunflower hull, oat hull, spelt hull, soy hull, rice hull, or a combination thereof (¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 11, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the cellulosic material is present and is present in an amount of 0 to 99 total weight percent of the pellet (¶ 0059, lines 1-9, “] In some embodiments, the sized granules can be from about 85.0 wt. % to about 96.0 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter. In other embodiments the sized granules are from about 90.0 wt. % to about 95.0 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter or about 92.20 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter. The corrugate [if any] in the granules can be from about 25.00 wt. % to 95.00 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter or about 23.05 wt. % of the non-clay based clumping litter”).
Regarding claim 12, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the pellets are adapted to be poured from a bag or flexible packaging, jug, pail or bucket, cannister (¶ 0069, lines 1-7, “Another aspect of the present disclosure is a sealed package at least partially enclosing any of the embodiments of the pet litter disclosed herein, for example a sealed box or a sealed bag containing such pet litter. A further aspect of the present disclosure is a method of using a pet litter, the method comprising positioning at least a portion of a pet litter contained by a package into a litter box”).
Regarding claim 13, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses wherein the feedstock pieces are granules and comprise a granule particulate that is 90% by weight or more able to pass -2 screen sieve (¶ 0059, ¶ 0066).
Regarding claim 14, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference, teaches wherein feedstock pieces are a majority by weight of recycled materials or waste materials (Ellis; ¶ 0006, lines 6-8, “For example, the cellulosic fiber may be provided from the waste stream of a paper product manufacturing facility;” ¶ 0007, lines 1-4, “a method for making absorbent cellulose pellets includes providing a mixture of cellulose fiber in water with the cellulose fiber comprising 20% to 60% by weight of the mixture”).
Regarding claim 15, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1.
Huck discloses further comprising a plurality of additive pieces including additional non-mineral feedstock, additional mineral feedstock, a binder, or a combination thereof (¶ 0060, lines 1-4, “In some embodiments, the clumping agent can be one or more of a hydrocolloid, for example one or more of a guar gum, xanthan gum, gum Arabic, gum acacia, carob gum, pectin, tara gum, a starch, or a modified starch”).
Regarding claim 16, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 15.
Huck discloses wherein the binder is starch (¶ 0060, lines 1-4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huck (US 20190274274 A1) in view of Ellis (US 20130112150 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Griswold et al. (US 20180359988 A1), hereinafter Griswold.
Regarding claim 3, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of pellets has a pellet durability index [PDI] of 30% to 100%.
Griswold is in the field organic material pellets and teaches wherein each of the plurality of pellets has a pellet durability index [PDI] of 30% to 100% (¶ 0022, lines 14-22, “the resulting pellets may have a durability in a range from 60 Pellet Durability Index [PDI] to 95 PDI. Durability may be determined according to the method set forth in Kansas State University—Mechanical Durability of Feed Pellets, Call Number: LD2668.T4 1962 Y68. The durability of the pellet may affect the absorbency and bulk density of the finished product and impact the economics of transporting the finished product”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of organic material pellets before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huck in view of Ellis such that each of the plurality of pellets has a pellet durability index [PDI] of 30% to 100%, as taught by the pellet durability of Griswold. The modified durability of the pellet would improve the absorbency and bulk density of the finished product, as well as improve the economics of transporting the finished product. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huck (US 20190274274 A1) in view of Ellis (US 20130112150 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of De Leij et al. (US 20110008317 A1), hereinafter De Leij.
Regarding claim 17, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1, however, Huck fails to specifically disclose biochar.
De Leij is in the field of charcoals for animal beddings and teaches further comprising a biochar (¶ 0100, lines 1-9, “A cheap ion-exchange material that releases hydrogen ions to lower the pH of the medium could be advantageous in media such as animal beddings, where a low pH would prevent the conversion of ammonium to ammonia. The advantage of using acidified charcoals is that these materials are long-lasting and are less reactive under moist conditions than acidic salts such as alum and hydrogen-bisulphate. We have surprisingly found that acidified non-activated charcoal lowers the pH, thus preventing the formation of ammonia”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal beddings before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huck in view of Ellis to include a biochar, as taught by the biochar of De Leij. The acidified biochar would prevent the formation of ammonia, which would be advantageous to animal bedding applications. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Huck in view of Ellis and De Leij discloses the device of claim 17, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the biochar has an acidic pH of less than 7 (De Leij; ¶ 0100, lines 1-9; ¶ 0101, lines 1-6, “The acidified charred material is preferably obtained by grinding charred material, most preferably from nettles or other materials described here, and treating this with an acid. The acid can be a weak acid or a strong acid, such as hydrochloric or nitric acid, provided that the acid is at least pH 3 or 4 or lower”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huck (US 20190274274 A1) in view of Ellis (US 20130112150 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pandya et al. (US 20250382239 A1), hereinafter Pandya.
Regarding claim 20, Huck in view of Ellis discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the pellets have a Uniformity Index rating of to 60.
Pandya is in the field of pellets for use in animal litter applications (¶ 0135, lines 5-7, “The affected area may be soil adjacent to a plant, a field, a pasture, a livestock or poultry confinement facility, pet litter”) and teaches wherein the pellets have a Uniformity Index rating of to 60 (¶ 0108, “In some embodiments, the granular/prill urea-containing fertilizer contains granules/prills having a uniformity index [UI] ranging between about 30-40, 30-50, 35-45, 40-60, 40-50, or 50-60 [indicating that the granules are uniform in size]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal beddings before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huck in view of Ellis the pellets have a Uniformity Index rating of to 60, as taught by Uniformity Index of the pellets of Pandya. The high uniformity index of the pellets would result in a product that has a more consistent pellet size, which would result in more uniform distribution of product and more consistent pellet effects. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Hähn et al., US 5450817 A, discusses a process for production of sorbents for uptake of liquids.
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