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
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-144959, filed on 09/13/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartwig (DE 19900196 A1).
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 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”).
Regarding claim 2, Hartwig 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 discloses the device of claim 1.
Hartwig discloses wherein the moisturizing component is a natural component (glycerin; ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 4, Hartwig 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 6, Hartwig 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 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 discloses the device of claim 7.
Hartwig discloses wherein the outermost layer is provided partially (¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 9, Hartwig 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 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 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”).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartwig (DE 19900196 A1), as applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Hartwig 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, Hartwig 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 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartwig (DE 19900196 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Lipscomb (WO 2016081953 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hartwig discloses the device of claim 10, however, Hartwig 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Nam, KR 101923215 B1, discusses a method for manufacturing dust free cat sand.
Lau, US 20170000079 A1, discusses animal litter and method for manufacturing the same.
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