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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The office notes that claims 13-20 remain withdrawn and must be labelled accordingly.
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 1-10, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartwig (DE 19900196 A1) in view of Li (WO 2014146287 A1) and Ochi et al. (US 20020007800 A1), hereinafter Ochi.
Regarding claim 1, Hartwig discloses an excrement treatment material comprising:
a grain for treating excrement of an animal (¶ 0010, lines 1-3, “Essentially, the granules according to the invention are produced by using cellulose-containing materials, preferably waste paper, as the basic component, which is swollen with potato juice“),
wherein the grain includes a coating portion and the coating portion and contains a moisturizing component that moisturizes a skin of the animal (¶ 0015, lines 3 and 4 “The glycerin solution provides protection against drying out [has a moisturizing effect], so that the entire material according to the invention remains stable”).
Hartwig, however, fails to specifically disclose a core portion, wherein the core portion contains a moisturizing component that moisturizes a skin of the animal, and a weight ratio of the moisturizing component with respect to the grain is between 3% and 15%, inclusive.
Ochi is in the field of animal litter and teaches a core portion, wherein the core portion contains a moisturizing component that moisturizes a skin of the animal (¶ 0023, “The core layer 2 may contain natural coagulants such as starch, cellulosic polysaccharides, collagen and other proteins”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cat litter before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hartwig to include a core portion such that the core portion contains a moisturizing component that moisturizes a skin of the animal, as taught by the collagen of Ochi. The collagen being present in the core would expand the presence of the moisturizer to be present in all layers of the grain, which would improve overall moisturizing performance. Additionally, the coagulating properties of the collagen would provide clumping capabilities, which would improve overall litter performance. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Li is in the field of cat litter and teaches a weight ratio of the moisturizing component with respect to the grain is between 3% and 15%, inclusive (¶ 0037, lines 5-7, “After soaking for 8 hours, the solution was dried at 85°C to a moisture content of less than 4 wt%. This pH indicator material contains 0.5 wt% of the mixed indicator and 5 wt% of glycerol;” a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range (MPEP 2131.03)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of cat litter before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hartwig in view of Ochi to include a weight ratio of the moisturizing component with respect to the grain is between 3% and 15%, inclusive, as taught by the moisturizer weight ratio of Li. The moisturizer weight ratio would optimize the overall moisture content for the material, which would improve overall performance. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 1.
Hartwig discloses wherein the moisturizing component is exposed on a surface of the grain (¶ 0015, lines 1 and 2, “For use as cat litter, the mass is cut into small pieces [less than 1 cc] and additionally sprayed with a 25% aqueous glycerin solution and dried”).
Regarding claim 3, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 1.
Hartwig discloses wherein the moisturizing component is a natural component (glycerin; ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 4, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 1.
Hartwig discloses wherein the grain is composed of a plurality of layers (¶ 0015, spraying forms a layer).
Regarding claim 5, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 4 including a second layer that is provided outside the first layer and contains the moisturizing component, and a weight ratio of the moisturizing component with respect to the second layer is larger than a weight ratio of the moisturizing component with respect to the first layer (¶ 0015, spraying forms a layer of glycerin around core), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of layers include a first layer that contains the moisturizing component.
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 Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li such that the plurality of layers includes a first layer that contains the moisturizing component, in order to expand the distribution of the moisturizer throughout the grain. 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 6, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 4.
Hartwig discloses wherein the moisturizing component is contained only in an outermost layer out of the plurality of layers (¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 7, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 4.
Hartwig discloses wherein the moisturizing component is contained only in an outermost layer out of the plurality of layers (¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 8, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 7.
Hartwig discloses wherein the outermost layer is provided partially (¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 9, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 1.
Hartwig discloses wherein the grain has a hydrophobic property (vegetable oil; ¶ 0009, lines 9-11, “According to the invention, it is provided that the material is preferably a] 40-80 wt.% cellulose-containing material, b] 1-10% by weight vegetable oil,”).
Regarding claim 10, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 1.
Hartwig discloses wherein the grain contains an organic substance as a main material (¶ 0009, lines 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 1.
Hartwig discloses wherein the animal is a cat (¶ 0001, “The invention relates to a non-dusting, cellulose-based material which can be used as a liquid-absorbing litter, e.g. It can be used, for example, in cat hygiene or as a material, especially insulation material”).
Regarding claim 21, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the core portion is formed by granulating the core portion material containing the moisturizing component (Ochi; ¶ 0023, ¶ 0033, “Next, one example of producing the particle 1 of the invention will be described. Fibers for the core layer 2 are firstly dispersed in water, and then dewatered to have a water content of up to about 50%. Then, using a disc pelletizer, the resulting fiber is pelletized into circular pellets having a diameter of from 2 to 4 mm or so, or into oval pellets having a minor axis of from 2 to 4 mm or so and a major axis of from 7 to 9 mm or so, to form the core layers 2;” Additionally, it is noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 [Fed. Cir. 1985]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartwig (DE 19900196 A1) in view of Li (WO 2014146287 A1) and Ochi (US 20020007800 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Lipscomb (WO 2016081953 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li discloses the device of claim 10, however, the modified reference 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 Hartwig in view of Ochi and Li 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 more biodegradable, which would provide environmental benefits. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/07/2026 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.
Clements, Jr. et al., US 5085175 A, discusses an animal litter.
Steckel et al., US 6382132 B1, discusses animal litter having the property of detecting urinary infection in felines.
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
Prosecution Insights