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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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 1-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raper et al. (US 20150208606 A1), hereinafter Raper.
Regarding claim 1, Raper discloses an excrement treatment material that absorbs cat urine comprising:
a grain that has a water absorbing property (¶ 0043, lines 1-3, “As noted above, it is envisaged that the odour control animal litter of the present invention may be formed as pellets and/or agglomerates”),
wherein the grain contains an inhibitor that inhibits cauxin in the urine (¶ 0037, “In addition to microorganisms, purified enzymes may be included in the animal litter of the present invention. In certain embodiments of the present invention, the enzymes may be included in the probiotic formulation. Enzymes are substrate-specific and fast-acting. In enzymatic reactions, the malodourous compounds are converted into non-odourous compounds. Examples of potentially beneficial enzymes include uricases, ureases and proteases;” ¶ 0038, “Metal ions may also be included in the animal litter of the present invention, to inhibit odour formation. For example, gold, silver and/or copper ions may be added, these can bind to and neutralise pheromones, such as felinine, which generate malodours. Again, these metal ions may be included in the probiotic formulation to simplify its incorporation into the animal litter”).
Regarding claim 2, Raper discloses the device of claim 1.
Raper discloses wherein the inhibitor inhibits cauxin by decomposing cauxin (¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 3, Raper discloses the device of claim 1.
Raper discloses wherein the inhibitor inhibits cauxin by denaturing cauxin (¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 4, Raper discloses the device of claim 1.
Raper discloses wherein the inhibitor inhibits cauxin by binding to cauxin (¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 5, Raper discloses the device of claim 1.
Raper discloses wherein the grain contains a water-absorbent polymer in which the inhibitor is carried (¶ 0020, “Animal litters typically include absorbent materials, for example, clays such as bentonite and calcined clays, which are safe and non-irritating to the animals. Clays generally absorb relatively substantial amounts of liquids. Other litter-suitable, porous, absorbent materials, that may be used alone or in combination, include straw, sawdust, wood chips, wood shavings, porous polymeric beads, shredded paper, bark, cloth, ground corn husks, cellulose, water-insoluble inorganic salts, such as calcium sulphate, and sand. All of the above-mentioned absorbent materials are capable of absorbing and retaining liquid within their porous matrices, or, in the case of sand, absorbing liquid onto its surface. It is within the scope of the present invention to include additional absorbent materials such as those described above in order to provide additional absorptive properties to the animal litter of the present invention. Accordingly, it is to be understood that an animal litter of the present invention is to be predominantly composed of exfoliated vermiculite and/or expanded perlite, but may include additional absorbent materials such as those described above”).
Regarding claim 10, Raper discloses the device of claim 1.
Raper discloses wherein the grain contains an organic substance as a main material (¶ 0020).
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raper (US 20150208606 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 112005894 A), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 6, Raper discloses the device of claim 1 including wherein the grain includes a granular core portion (¶ 0043, lines 1-3), however, Raper fails to specifically disclose a coating portion that covers the granular core portion.
Chen is in the field of absorptive cat litter and teaches a coating portion that covers the granular core portion (¶ 0020, lines 4-6, “spray the capsule slurry onto the environmentally friendly composite bio-enzyme deodorizing granules until the environmentally friendly composite bio-enzyme deodorizing granules are completely coated, and dry to obtain the bio-enzyme deodorizer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of absorptive cat litter before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Raper to include a coating portion that covers the granular core portion, as taught by the coating portion of Chen. The coating would improve the biological enzyme release when meeting the feline urine, which would improve the effectiveness of the biological enzyme. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Raper in view of Chen discloses the device of claim 6, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the inhibitor is contained only in the granular core portion, out of the granular core portion and the coating portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Raper in view of Chen such that the inhibitor is contained only in the granular core portion, out of the granular core portion and the coating portion, in order to provide a protective layer around the enzyme. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, Raper in view of Chen discloses the device of claim 6, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the inhibitor is contained only in the coating portion, out of the granular core portion and the coating portion (Chen; ¶ 0020, lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 9, Raper in view of Chen discloses the device of claim 6, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the inhibitor is contained in both the granular core portion and the coating portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Raper in view of Chen such that the inhibitor is contained in both the granular core portion and the coating portion, in order to expand the distribution of the enzyme throughout the pellet. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raper (US 20150208606 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lipscomb (WO 2016081953 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Raper discloses the device of claim 1, however, Raper fails to specifically disclose wherein the grain is made only of an organic substance.
Lipscomb is in the field of absorptive cat litter and teaches wherein the grain is made only of an organic substance (¶ 0040, lines 17-20, “As discussed in more detail below, dust-suppressing blend component 78 is composed of at least a plurality of pairs of dust-adhering absorbent granules 46 each made substantially completely of a starch-containing organic material preferably composed or otherwise formed of or from a starch-containing extrudate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of absorptive cat litter before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Raper such that the grain is made only of an organic substance, as taught by the organic composition of Lipscomb. The organic composition would make the litter biodegradable, which provide environmental benefits. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 6 that “Raper fails to disclose inhibiting cauxin as a way of preventing the malodor from cat urine. Thus, Raper fails to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with motivation to modify the teaching of Raper and arrive at an excrement treatment material containing a cauxin inhibitor,” the Examiner submits that Raper discloses in ¶ 0037 that proteases are used as inhibitors, which is listed as an example inhibitor that inhibits cauxin in cat urine in the specification of the present application in ¶ 0017. Therefore, Raper discloses an inhibitor that inhibits cauxin in the urine as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Ito, US 20120288955 A1, discusses a water absorbing material.
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
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights