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
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9, 16, and 18 recite “gm/cc” which should be amended to “g/cc”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-20 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.
The term “about” in claims 3, 6, 7, 13-15, 17, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. In each instance, the term “about” precedes a range or a value. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 12 recites the term “jelly-like slurry” which is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what is considered “jelly-like” is unclear. Dependent claims 13-16 are likewise rejected.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb.
Regarding Claim 1
Lipscomb teaches an animal litter (Abstract) comprising sodium bentonite granules (Para. [0007]) and particulated compressed cellulose sponge (Para. [0007], Examiner notes the cellulose material can be considered a sponge since it can absorb liquid).
Regarding Claim 2
Lipscomb teaches the animal litter of claim 1, wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is not treated with clumping agents, gelling agents or wetting agents (Examiner notes that the litter of Para. [0007] does not disclose use of any clumping, gelling, or wetting agents used with the cellulose sponge); and wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is not agglomerated with other components (Examiner notes that the litter of Para. [0007] does not disclose any other components agglomerated with the cellulose sponge).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb.
Regarding Claim 3
Lipscomb teaches the animal litter of claim 2, but is silent on:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge particles are present in the litter from about 1 to 10 wt. %, and the sodium bentonite granules are present from about 99 to 90 wt. %.
Lipscomb discloses the invention except for the ranges of weight percentage of each 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 had the compressed cellulose sponge particles form between 1 and 10 wt. % and the sodium bentonite granules form about 99 to 90 wt. %, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner further notes that sodium bentonite is known to be very heavy (Lipscomb: Para. [0006]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sodium bentonite, even when offset with a lighter material such as cellulose sponge, would make up the vast majority of the weight percentage of the animal litter.
Claims 4, 5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Yoder et al. (US 9301492 B1), hereinafter Yoder.
Regarding Claim 4
Lipscomb teaches the animal litter of claim 3, but is silent on:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge are cut in an approximate cubic shape with a length by width by depth dimension of from 10 mm3 to 0.1 mm3.
Yoder teaches:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge have a length by width by depth dimension of from 10 mm3 to 0.1 mm3 (Col. 2 Lines 38-46 “In all cases, the granules should be no greater than about 4 mesh and preferably will be in the range of about 4 to 60 mesh. Granules in the range of about 12-20 mesh are particularly preferred when the absorbents are to be used with small animals such as cats, since granules in this size range reduce tracking from the litter box. The lengths of the cellulose fibers preferably will be less than about 10 mm, more preferably will be less than about 1 mm and most preferably will be less than about 0.3 mm”, Examiner notes that the preferable 12-20 mesh translates to 1.4-0.85 mm, and therefore, given the preferred length of less than 0.3 mm, the preferred volume would range from about 0.2-0.6 mm3 which is within the range claimed).
Examiner notes that although the size and shape of the cellulose sponge of Lipscomb is not disclosed, it is known in the art, as evidenced by Yoder, to use cellulose particles having a range of volumes as claimed. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the different portions of the cellulose sponge of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, that is, an approximate cubic shape as claimed. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding Claim 5
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, teaches the animal litter of claim 4, wherein the sodium bentonite is granulated in the range of from 10 to 15 screen mesh (Lipscomb: Para. [0073] states that sodium bentonite substrate particles can have a particle size distribution range of, for example, 10-24 screen mesh or 10-20 screen mesh, which includes the claimed range).
Examiner further notes that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 17
Lipscomb teaches an animal litter (Abstract) comprising sodium bentonite granules (Para. [0007]) and particulated compressed cellulose sponge (Para. [0007], Examiner notes the cellulose material can be considered a sponge since it can absorb liquid), and wherein the sodium bentonite is granulated in the range of from 10 to 15 screen mesh (Para. [0073] states that sodium bentonite substrate particles can have a particle size distribution range of, for example, 10-24 screen mesh or 10-20 screen mesh, which includes the claimed range), but is silent on:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge particles are present in the litter from about 1 to 10 wt. %, and the sodium bentonite granules are present from about 99 to 90 wt. %; wherein the compressed cellulose sponge are cut in an approximate cubic shape with a length by width by depth dimension of from 10 mm3 to 0.1 mm3.
Yoder teaches:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge have a length by width by depth dimension of from 10 mm3 to 0.1 mm3 (Col. 2 Lines 38-46 “In all cases, the granules should be no greater than about 4 mesh and preferably will be in the range of about 4 to 60 mesh. Granules in the range of about 12-20 mesh are particularly preferred when the absorbents are to be used with small animals such as cats, since granules in this size range reduce tracking from the litter box. The lengths of the cellulose fibers preferably will be less than about 10 mm, more preferably will be less than about 1 mm and most preferably will be less than about 0.3 mm”, Examiner notes that the preferable 12-20 mesh translates to 1.4-0.85 mm, and therefore, given the preferred length of less than 0.3 mm, the preferred volume would range from about 0.2-0.6 mm3 which is within the range claimed).
Examiner notes that although the size and shape of the cellulose sponge of Lipscomb is not disclosed, it is known in the art, as evidenced by Yoder, to use cellulose particles having a range of volumes as claimed. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the different portions of the cellulose sponge of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, that is, an approximate cubic shape as claimed. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, discloses the invention except for the ranges of weight percentage of each 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 had the compressed cellulose sponge particles form between 1 and 10 wt. % and the sodium bentonite granules form about 99 to 90 wt. %, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner further notes that sodium bentonite is known to be very heavy (Lipscomb: Para. [0006]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sodium bentonite, even when offset with a lighter material such as cellulose sponge, would make up the vast majority of the weight percentage of the animal litter.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Yoder et al. (US 9301492 B1), hereinafter Yoder, as applied to claims 4, 5, and 17 above, and further in view of House (US 5188064 A).
Regarding Claim 6
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, teaches the animal litter of claim 5, but is silent on:
wherein the bulk density of the animal litter is less than about 1 g/cc.
House teaches:
wherein the bulk density of the animal litter is less than about 1 g/cc (Abstract “the cat litter having a bulk density in the range from about 0.54 to about 0.96 g/cc”).
Examiner notes that Lipscomb does give an example of the particles (42a-42e) having a bulk density between 30-45 pounds per cubic foot (which is about 0.48-0.72 g/cc), but these particles are comprised of calcium bentonite. Lipscomb does not disclose a range of densities from the cat litter comprising sodium bentonite and cellulose sponge. House, however, teaches a cat litter comprised of cellulosic material and clay. The clay is disclosed as being preferably Wyoming bentonite (Col. 4 Lines 20-28), which has a high sodium content. It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a similar composition cat litter having a bulk density as claimed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bulk density of the animal litter less than about 1 g/cc, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Yoder et al. (US 9301492 B1), hereinafter Yoder and House (US 5188064 A), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of JOHOKAKITI (Kitchen Sponges, Product page on Amazon.com).
Regarding Claim 7
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder and House, teaches the animal litter of claim 6, but is silent on:
wherein the expansion ratio of the particulated compressed cellulose is from about 10:1 to 5:1.
JOHOKAKITI teaches:
wherein the expansion ratio of the particulated compressed cellulose is from about 10:1 to 5:1 (Figure on Page 1, compressed volume of product is 2.3x3.8x0.11 inches cubed while the expanded volume is 2.4x4.1x0.8 inches cubed (~8.2:1 expansion ratio))
Examiner notes that although the expansion ratio of the cellulose sponge of Lipscomb is not disclosed, it is known in the art, as evidenced by JOHOKAKITI, to use cellulose sponge with an expansion ratio as claimed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the compressed cellulose sponge have an expansion ratio of about 10:1 to 5:1, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 8
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, House, and JOHOKAKITI, teaches the animal litter of claim 7, but is silent on:
wherein the volume ratio of particulated compressed cellulose sponge to granulated sodium bentonite is in the range of from 50:50 v/v to 10:90 v/v.
Modified Lipscomb discloses the invention except for the ranges of the volume ratio of compressed cellulose sponge to sodium bentonite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the volume ratio of particulated compressed cellulose sponge to granulated sodium bentonite is in the range of from 50:50 v/v to 10:90 v/v, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, House, and JOHOKAKITI, teaches the animal litter of claim 8, wherein the particulated compressed cellulose has a density of from 0.1 to 0.5 gm/cc (JOHOKAKITI: Examiner notes the item weight is listed at 2.08 ounces with 12 sponges each having compressed dimensions of 2.3x3.8x0.11 inches, therefore the density is approximately 0.31 g/cc).
Regarding Claim 10
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, House, and JOHOKAKITI, teaches the animal litter of claim 9, but is silent on:
wherein the animal litter provides at least a 200% increase in aqueous absorptivity over that of granulated sodium bentonite alone.
Examiner notes that the increase in aqueous absorptivity is a result that depends on the ratio of compressed cellulose sponge to sodium bentonite, as well as the properties of the compressed cellulose sponge. High aqueous absorptivity is known to be desirable in cat litter and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an amount of compressed cellulose sponge to the sodium bentonite granules that would increase its absorptivity value to a desired amount. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the animal litter provide at least a 200% increase in aqueous absorptivity over that of granulated sodium bentonite alone, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Dong (WO 2016197931 A1).
Regarding Claim 11
Lipscomb teaches an animal litter (Abstract) comprising sodium bentonite granules (Para. [0007]) and particulated compressed cellulose sponge (Para. [0007], Examiner notes the cellulose material can be considered a sponge since it can absorb liquid); wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is not treated with clumping agents, gelling agents or wetting agents (Examiner notes that the litter of Para. [0007] does not disclose use of any clumping, gelling, or wetting agents used with the cellulose sponge); and wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is not agglomerated with other components (Examiner notes that the litter of Para. [0007] does not disclose any other components agglomerated with the cellulose sponge), but is silent on:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is formed from dry cellulose sponge which is compressed under high pressure and heat to form the compressed cellulose sponge.
Dong teaches:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is formed from dry cellulose sponge which is compressed under high pressure and heat to form the compressed cellulose sponge (Para. [0008] “after being dried at a low temperature, it is placed in a cavity of a hot press, and pressed at a temperature lower than 80 ° C under a pressure of 10 -15 MPa for at least 5 minutes to form the thin sponge product”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the compressed cellulose sponge of Lipscomb formed from dry cellulose compressed under high pressure and heat as taught by Dong with a reasonable expectation of success. Although Lipscomb is silent to how the cellulose pellets are formed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this is a known method of forming compressed cellulose sponge as evidenced by Dong. Examiner further notes that this limitation may be considered a product-by-process limitation, since it is unclear whether or not the product itself changes based on its method of forming.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Dong (WO 2016197931 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Baroux et al. (WO 2011113134 A1), hereinafter Baroux.
Regarding Claim 12
Lipscomb, in view of Dong, teaches the animal litter of claim 11, but is silent on:
wherein the dry cellulose sponge is made by mixing rigid cellulose with softeners to create a jelly-like slurry; wherein sodium sulfate crystals are added to the mixture; wherein the cellulose mixture is heated; and wherein the sodium sulfate crystals melt to form pores in the dry cellulose sponge.
Baroux teaches:
wherein the dry cellulose sponge is made by mixing rigid cellulose with softeners to create a jelly-like slurry (Page 2 Para. 1 “Cellulose sponges are well-known in the art. An exemplary manufacturing process for a synthetic cellulose sponge may be as described in the following steps. In some instances, the cellulose material used to form the sponges is in the form of large, stiff sheets. The sheets are soaked in a vat of water mixed with certain chemical softeners, wherein the cellulose material then becomes soft and jelly-like.”); wherein sodium sulfate crystals are added to the mixture (Page 2 Para. 1 “The cellulose material is then directed into a mixer and has sodium sulphate crystals”); wherein the cellulose mixture is heated (Page 2 Para. 2 “From the mixer, the cellulose mixture is directed into a mold, and the mold then heated to heat the cellulose mixture”); and wherein the sodium sulfate crystals melt to form pores in the dry cellulose sponge (Page 2 Para. 2 “The melting of the sodium sulphate crystals leaves the characteristic pores in the end product, thus forming, in some instances, a sponge or other porous structure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the cellulose sponge of Lipscomb using the method of Baroux with a reasonable expectation of success. Although Lipscomb is silent to how the cellulose pellets are formed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this is a known method of forming compressed cellulose sponge as evidenced by Baroux. Examiner further notes that this limitation may be considered a product-by-process limitation, since it is unclear whether or not the product itself changes based on its method of forming.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Dong (WO 2016197931 A1) and Baroux et al. (WO 2011113134 A1), hereinafter Baroux, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoder et al. (US 9301492 B1), hereinafter Yoder.
Regarding Claim 13
Lipscomb, in view of Dong and Baroux, teaches the animal litter of claim 12, but is silent on:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge particles are present in the litter from about 1 to 10 wt. %, and the sodium bentonite granules are present from about 99 to 90 wt. %
and wherein the compressed cellulose sponge are cut in an approximate cubic shape with a length by width by depth dimension of from 10 mm3 to 0.1 mm3.
Yoder teaches:
wherein the compressed cellulose sponge have a length by width by depth dimension of from 10 mm3 to 0.1 mm3 (Col. 2 Lines 38-46 “In all cases, the granules should be no greater than about 4 mesh and preferably will be in the range of about 4 to 60 mesh. Granules in the range of about 12-20 mesh are particularly preferred when the absorbents are to be used with small animals such as cats, since granules in this size range reduce tracking from the litter box. The lengths of the cellulose fibers preferably will be less than about 10 mm, more preferably will be less than about 1 mm and most preferably will be less than about 0.3 mm”, Examiner notes that the preferable 12-20 mesh translates to 1.4-0.85 mm, and therefore, given the preferred length of less than 0.3 mm, the preferred volume would range from about 0.2-0.6 mm3 which is within the range claimed).
Examiner notes that although the size and shape of the cellulose sponge of Lipscomb is not disclosed, it is known in the art, as evidenced by Yoder, to use cellulose particles having a range of volumes as claimed. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the different portions of the cellulose sponge of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, that is, an approximate cubic shape as claimed. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Lipscomb discloses the invention except for the ranges of weight percentage of each 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 had the compressed cellulose sponge particles form between 1 and 10 wt. % and the sodium bentonite granules form about 99 to 90 wt. %, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner further notes that sodium bentonite is known to be very heavy (Lipscomb: Para. [0006]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sodium bentonite, even when offset with a lighter material such as cellulose sponge, would make up the vast majority of the weight percentage of the animal litter.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Dong (WO 2016197931 A1), Baroux et al. (WO 2011113134 A1), hereinafter Baroux, and Yoder et al. (US 9301492 B1), hereinafter Yoder, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of House (US 5188064 A).
Regarding Claim 14
Lipscomb, in view of Dong, Baroux, and Yoder, teaches the animal litter of claim 13, wherein the sodium bentonite is granulated in the range of from 10 to 15 screen mesh (Lipscomb: Para. [0073] states that sodium bentonite substrate particles can have a particle size distribution range of, for example, 10-24 screen mesh or 10-20 screen mesh, which includes the claimed range), but is silent on:
wherein the bulk density of the animal litter is less than about lg/cc.
House teaches:
wherein the bulk density of the animal litter is less than about 1 g/cc (Abstract “the cat litter having a bulk density in the range from about 0.54 to about 0.96 g/cc”).
Examiner notes that Lipscomb does give an example of the particles (42a-42e) having a bulk density between 30-45 pounds per cubic foot (which is about 0.48-0.72 g/cc), but these particles are comprised of calcium bentonite. Lipscomb does not disclose a range of densities from the cat litter comprising sodium bentonite and cellulose sponge. House, however, teaches a cat litter comprised of cellulosic material and clay. The clay is disclosed as being preferably Wyoming bentonite (Col. 4 Lines 20-28), which has a high sodium content. It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a similar composition cat litter having a bulk density as claimed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bulk density of the animal litter less than about 1 g/cc, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Dong (WO 2016197931 A1), Baroux et al. (WO 2011113134 A1), hereinafter Baroux, Yoder et al. (US 9301492 B1), hereinafter Yoder, and House (US 5188064 A), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of JOHOKAKITI (Kitchen Sponges, Product page on Amazon.com).
Regarding Claim 15
Lipscomb, in view of Dong, Baroux, Yoder, and House, teaches the animal litter of claim 14, but is silent on:
wherein the expansion ratio of the particulated compressed cellulose is from about 10:1 to 5:1
and wherein the volume ratio of particulated compressed cellulose sponge to granulated sodium bentonite is in the range of from 50:50 v/v to 10:90 v/v.
JOHOKAKITI teaches:
wherein the expansion ratio of the particulated compressed cellulose is from about 10:1 to 5:1 (Figure on Page 1, compressed volume of product is 2.3x3.8x0.11 inches cubed while the expanded volume is 2.4x4.1x0.8 inches cubed (~8.2:1 expansion ratio))
Examiner notes that although the expansion ratio of the cellulose sponge of Lipscomb is not disclosed, it is known in the art, as evidenced by JOHOKAKITI, to use cellulose sponge with an expansion ratio as claimed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the compressed cellulose sponge have an expansion ratio of about 10:1 to 5:1, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Modified Lipscomb discloses the invention except for the ranges of the volume ratio of compressed cellulose sponge to sodium bentonite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the volume ratio of particulated compressed cellulose sponge to granulated sodium bentonite is in the range of from 50:50 v/v to 10:90 v/v, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16
Lipscomb, in view of Dong, Baroux, Yoder, House, and JOHOKAKITI, teaches the animal litter of claim 15, wherein the particulated compressed cellulose has a density of from 0.1 to 0.5 gm/cc (JOHOKAKITI: Examiner notes the item weight is listed at 2.08 ounces with 12 sponges each having compressed dimensions of 2.3x3.8x0.11 inches, therefore the density is approximately 0.31 g/cc), but is silent on:
wherein the animal litter provides at least a 200% increase in aqueous absorptivity over that of granulated sodium bentonite alone.
Examiner notes that the increase in aqueous absorptivity is a result that depends on the ratio of compressed cellulose sponge to sodium bentonite, as well as the properties of the compressed cellulose sponge. High aqueous absorptivity is known to be desirable in cat litter and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an amount of compressed cellulose sponge to the sodium bentonite granules that would increase its absorptivity value to a desired amount. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the animal litter provide at least a 200% increase in aqueous absorptivity over that of granulated sodium bentonite alone, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipscomb et al. (US 20240099261 A1), hereinafter Lipscomb, in view of Yoder et al. (US 9301492 B1), hereinafter Yoder, as applied to claims 4, 5, and 17 above, and further in view of House (US 5188064 A) and JOHOKAKITI (Kitchen Sponges, Product page on Amazon.com).
Regarding Claim 18
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, teaches the animal litter of claim 17, but is silent on:
wherein the bulk density of the animal litter is less than about 1 g/cc
wherein the expansion ratio of the particulated compressed cellulose is from about 10:1 to 5:1
wherein the volume ratio of particulated compressed cellulose sponge to granulated sodium bentonite is in the range of from 50:50 v/v to 10:90 v/v
and wherein the particulated compressed cellulose has a density of from 0.1 to 0.5 gm/cc.
House teaches:
wherein the bulk density of the animal litter is less than about 1 g/cc (Abstract “the cat litter having a bulk density in the range from about 0.54 to about 0.96 g/cc”).
Examiner notes that Lipscomb does give an example of the particles (42a-42e) having a bulk density between 30-45 pounds per cubic foot (which is about 0.48-0.72 g/cc), but these particles are comprised of calcium bentonite. Lipscomb does not disclose a range of densities from the cat litter comprising sodium bentonite and cellulose sponge. House, however, teaches a cat litter comprised of cellulosic material and clay. The clay is disclosed as being preferably Wyoming bentonite (Col. 4 Lines 20-28), which has a high sodium content. It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a similar composition cat litter having a bulk density as claimed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bulk density of the animal litter less than about 1 g/cc, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, JOHOKAKITI teaches:
wherein the expansion ratio of the particulated compressed cellulose is from about 10:1 to 5:1 (Figure on Page 1, compressed volume of product is 2.3x3.8x0.11 inches cubed while the expanded volume is 2.4x4.1x0.8 inches cubed (~8.2:1 expansion ratio))
and wherein the particulated compressed cellulose has a density of from 0.1 to 0.5 gm/cc (Examiner notes the item weight is listed at 2.08 ounces with 12 sponges each having compressed dimensions of 2.3x3.8x0.11 inches, therefore the density is approximately 0.31 g/cc).
Examiner notes that although the expansion ratio of the cellulose sponge of Lipscomb is not disclosed, it is known in the art, as evidenced by JOHOKAKITI, to use cellulose sponge with an expansion ratio as claimed. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the compressed cellulose sponge have an expansion ratio of about 10:1 to 5:1, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Modified Lipscomb discloses the invention except for the ranges of the volume ratio of compressed cellulose sponge to sodium bentonite. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the volume ratio of particulated compressed cellulose sponge to granulated sodium bentonite is in the range of from 50:50 v/v to 10:90 v/v, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, House, and JOHOKAKITI, teaches the animal litter of claim 18, but is silent on:
wherein the animal litter provides at least a 200% increase in aqueous absorptivity over that of granulated sodium bentonite alone.
Examiner notes that the increase in aqueous absorptivity is a result that depends on the ratio of compressed cellulose sponge to sodium bentonite, as well as the properties of the compressed cellulose sponge. High aqueous absorptivity is known to be desirable in cat litter and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an amount of compressed cellulose sponge to the sodium bentonite granules that would increase its absorptivity value to a desired amount. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the animal litter provide at least a 200% increase in aqueous absorptivity over that of granulated sodium bentonite alone, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 20
Lipscomb, in view of Yoder, House, and JOHOKAKITI, teaches the animal litter of claim 19, wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is not treated with clumping agents, gelling agents or wetting agents (Lipscomb: Examiner notes that the litter of Para. [0007] does not disclose use of any clumping, gelling, or wetting agents used with the cellulose sponge); and wherein the compressed cellulose sponge is not agglomerated with other components (Lipscomb: Examiner notes that the litter of Para. [0007] does not disclose any other components agglomerated with the cellulose sponge).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647