DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 07/15/2026, the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 5-9, 16-19 were amended. Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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)(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.
(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, 3-10, 12-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schumski (US 20210355044 A).
Regarding claim 1, Schumski discloses a pellet material formed of granules ([0046] and [0048]), the pellet comprising: biochar granules ([0013]) present from 5 to 100 percent by total weight of a dry weight of the inventive pellet ([0013]); a clumping material ([0013], [0033] and [0037] as biochar combined with guar gum is known to clump, also soy meal is known to clump when exposed to moisture); and at least one of carrier granules or a binder component forming a matrix retaining the biochar granules ([0013]) and the clumping material ([0013], [0033] and [0037] as the binder component forms a matrix retaining the clumping material biochar and guar gum).
Regarding claim 3, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein the biochar granules are sourced from one or more of rice hulls, wood chips ([0009] as wood chips are a form of waste wood), grasses, nut shells, corn stover, bagasse, peanut hull, vines, pulp, waste paper, cardboard, or grain chaff.
Regarding claim 4, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein the biochar granules are sourced from biosolids ([0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein the biochar granules are sized to have less than 5 weight percent being a mesh size of over 40 and more than 20 weight percent being a mesh size of under 100 ([0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein the biochar granules are sized greater than 40 weight percent of the biochar are a mesh size of under 100 weight percent ([0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein greater than 60 weight percent of the biochar granules are a mesh size of under 100 weight percent ([0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein greater than 5 weight percent of the biochar granules are a mesh size of under 200 weight percent ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein greater than 30 weight percent of the biochar granules are a mesh size of under 200 mesh weight percent ([0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein loading of the biochar ranges from 5 to 80 by total weight of the dry weight of the inventive pellet ([0031]).
Regarding claim 12, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein the carrier granules are present and composed of at least one of cob, sorghum, rice hulls, wheat, grain chaff, bagasse, clay, wood dust, Granlime, pine, wheat, starch, paper, pulp, soy ([0037]), nut shells, dolomite, granite, wood, sand, oat straws, cotton shields, agricultural waste, consumer waste, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein the binder is present ([0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 13 wherein the binder is guar gum ([0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 further comprising at least one of a pheromone, starch, a fragrance, or a dust control agent ([0040]).
Regarding claim 16, Schumski discloses a pelletized animal bedding and litter material (abstract [0046] and [0048] as the pellets are capable of functioning as animal bedding and litter material) formed of granules ([abstract [0046] and [0048]), the pellets comprising: biochar ([0013]) present from 5 to 85 percent by total weight of a dry weight of the material ([0013]); at least one of a fragrance or a pheromone; a clumping material ([0013], [0033] and [0037] as biochar combined with guar gum is known to clump, also soy meal is known to clump when exposed to moisture); and a binder component forming a matrix retaining the biochar ([0013]), the at least one of the fragrance or the pheromone, and the clumping material ([0013], [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, Schumski discloses the material of claim 16 wherein the biochar granules are sourced from one or more of cob, biosolids, rice hulls, wood chips ([0009] as wood chips are a form of waste wood), grasses, nut shells, corn stover, bagasse, peanut hull, vines, pulp, waste paper, cardboard, or grain chaff.
Regarding claim 18, Schumski discloses a pelletized carrier and soil amendment material formed of granules ([0010], [0037], [0046] and [0048]), the pellets comprising: biochar ([0046] and [0048]) present from 5 to 85 percent by total weight of a dry weight of the material ([0013]); a clumping material ([0013], [0033] and [0037] as biochar combined with guar gum is known to clump, also soy meal is known to clump when exposed to moisture); one or more active ingredients ([0027]); and a binder component forming a matrix retaining the biochar granules, the clumping material ([0013], [0033] and [0037] as the binder component forms a matrix retaining the clumping material biochar and guar gum), and the one or more active ingredients ([0013], [0033] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Schumski discloses the material of claim 18 wherein the biochar granules are sourced from one or more of cob, biosolids, rice hulls, wood chips ([0009] as wood chips are a form of waste wood), grasses, nut shells, corn stover, bagasse, peanut hull, vines, pulp, waste paper, cardboard, or grain chaff.
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(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZUBAIR (US 20240326009 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Schumski teaches the pellet of claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the biochar granules are sourced from cob.
ZUBAIR teaches wherein the biochar granules are sourced from cob ([0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biochar granules of Schumski to be sourced from cob as taught by ZUBAIR in order to provide a more sustainable material that is also highly porous and improve water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nadagouda (US 20210130251 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Schumski teaches the pellet of claim 1 wherein the pellet has a diameter that ranges from between 5mm to 10mm ([0041] as it is known that mean particle domain size refers to the diameter).
However, Schumski is silent wherein the pellet has a length that ranges from 5mm to 45mm.
Nadagouda teaches wherein the pellet has a length that ranges from 5mm to 45mm ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pellet of Schumski to have a length that ranges from 5mm to 45mm as taught by Nadagouda based on the user’s preference of absorbency of the pellet, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 16, and 18 have been currently amended to require a clumping material. In stark contrast, Schumski is wholly silent as to the clumping material required to be present in the instantly claimed invention. It is respectfully submitted that the instantly claimed clumping material is shown in at least FIG. 2 (reference numeral 26) of the instant application as filed. The instantly claimed clumping material is a separate element that is required to be present in addition to the recited carrier granules and/or binder component. As such, given that Schumski fails to teach the clumping material required to be present in the instant claims, Schumski is not identical to the instantly claimed invention and therefore cannot support an anticipation rejection.”.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
As stated above, Schumski teaches a clumping material as [0013], [0033] and [0037] of Schumski describes biochar combined with guar gum, which is known to clump, and soy meal is also known to clump when exposed to moisture.
Applicant further argues “Applicant also notes that Schumski teaches dispersible particles that are soil amendments to promote plant growth. In stark contrast, embodiments of the instantly claimed invention recite an inventive animal bedding and litter material having a clumping material. Given that Schumski is directed toward a fertilizer soil amendment and is wholly silent as to the clumping material recited in the instantly claimed invention, it is respectfully submitted that Schumski fails to suggest or motivate the clumping material of the instantly claimed invention and in particular its inclusion into the instantly claimed animal bedding and litter material. APHOSITA would not be motivated to extend the fertilizer particle of Schumski into the instantly claimed animal bedding and litter material having a clumping material because Schumski fails to disclose any suggestion whatsoever that the disclosed fertilizer granule has any application as an animal bedding and litter material. APHOSITA would further lack motivation because the dispersible particles of Schumski are meant to disintegrate into at least 100 pieces upon contact with water whereas the instantly claimed animal bedding and litter material provides enhanced waste absorption. Combining the particle of Schumski with the instantly claimed invention would destroy the intended function because the Schumski particle would disintegrate upon contact with animal waste such as urine and is thus not suitable as an animal bedding and litter material. As such, it is respectfully submitted that Schumski would also fail to support a prima facia case of obviousness.”.
The examiner respectively disagrees. The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. In re Heck, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039.
Also, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Applicant further agues “As noted above, Schumski fails to teach, suggest, or motivate the recited clumping material of the instantly claimed invention. Applicant respectfully submits that Zubair also fails to teach, suggest, or motivate the clumping material required to be present in the instantly claimed invention and therefore fails to bolster this deficiency of Schumski. As such, the combination of Schumski and Zubair fails to teach, suggest, or motivate all features of the instantly claimed invention and therefore cannot support a finding of prima facie obviousness.”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues “It is also respectfully submitted that APHOSITA would further lack motivation to combine Schumski and Zubair because Schumski relates to delivery of a soil amendment granule that breaks down in water so the disclosed biochar/humics can penetrate soil and reach target plant root systems. In stark contrast, Zubair teaches layered double hydroxide-cellulose nanocrystals composite for dye removal from contaminated wastewater. The cellulose nanocrystals of Zubair are disclosed to have excellent mechanical and colloidal stability (paragraph [0009]). The granule of Schumski is designed to disintegrate upon contact with water, whereas in stark contrast, the composition of Zubair is designed to remain intact over multiple uses/exposures to an aqueous dye solution. Furthermore, the combination of Schumski and Zubair would destroy the intended function of both references. The particle of Schumski is designed to break up into greater than 100 smaller pieces upon contact with water (paragraph [0026]). Combining the particle of Schumski with Zubair would cause the layered double hydroxide-cellulose nanocrystals composite to disintegrate when it contacts the aqueous dye solution it is meant to treat. This destroys the intended function of Zubair. Conversely, combining the composition of Zubair with Schumski would destroy the intended function of Schumski because the composition of Zubair has excellent mechanical and colloidal stability and is designed for reuse (paragraph [0116]). Based on the above differences between Schumski and Zubair APHOSITA would not be motivated to combine these two references with any expectation of success because these references teach opposing functions and thus their combination would destroy the intended function of either reference alone.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that ZUBAIR is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, ZUBAIR teaches biochar granules which are known to be highly absorbent, and so ZUBAIR is analogous art.
Applicant further argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the currently pending claims recite features that are not present nor suggested in the prior art of record as noted hereinabove. It is also submitted that Zubair fails to cure the above noted deficiencies of Schumski and that APHOSITA would find no motivation to combine the prior art of record to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Schumski either alone or in combination with Zubair wholly fails to teach or suggest all features recited in the instantly claimed invention. The above-described differences between the instantly claimed invention and the prior art of record represent novel departures that are respectfully submitted to be entitled to patentable weight.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as both Schumski and ZUBAIR teaches biochar granules, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biochar granules of Schumski to be sourced from cob as taught by ZUBAIR in order to provide a more sustainable material that is also highly porous and improve water retention as it is well known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Applicant further argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the currently pending claims recite features that are not present nor suggested in the prior art of record as noted hereinabove. It is also submitted that Nadagouda fails to cure the above noted deficiencies of Schumski. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Schumski either alone or in combination with Nadagouda wholly fails to teach or suggest all features recited in the instantly claimed invention. The above-described differences between the instantly claimed invention and the prior art of record represent novel departures that are respectfully submitted to be entitled to patentable weight.”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claims 1, 16 and 18 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1, 16 and 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
