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 .
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dry weight" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claim 5, the limitation “+40” is unclear as to what the “+40” refers to.
For claims 5-7, the limitation “-100” is unclear as to what the “-100” refers to.
For claims 8-9, the limitation “-200” is unclear as to what the “-200” refers to.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the dry weight" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, for claim 16, the limitation “and a clumping material” in line 3 is unclear if a fragrance and pheromone are also required as it was previously stated that only “one or more” of these features are required. For examination purpose, the examiner will interpret “and” as “or” and it is recommended that “and” be amended to –or--. For claim 17, the limitation “and grain chaff” in line 3 is unclear if the previous features are also required as line 1 states “one or more of”. For examination purpose, the examiner will interpret “and” as “or” and it is recommended that “and” be amended to –or--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the dry weight" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claim 19, the limitation “and grain chaff” in line 3 is unclear if the previous features are also required as line 1 states “one or more of”. For examination purpose, the examiner will interpret “and” as “or” and it is recommended that “and” be amended to –or--.
Claims 2-4, 10-15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 the dry weight of the inventive pellet ([0013]); and at least one of carrier granules or a binder component forming a matrix retaining the biochar granules ([0013]).
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 +40 mesh and more than 20 weight percent being -100 mesh ([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 -100 mesh weight percent ([0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein greater than 60 weight percent of the biochar granules are - 100 mesh weight percent ([0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein greater than 5 weight percent of the biochar granules are - 200 mesh weight percent ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Schumski discloses the pellet of claim 1 wherein greater than 30 weight percent of the biochar granules are - 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 the dry weight of the material ([0013]); one or more of a fragrance, a pheromone, and 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]), and the one or more of the fragrance, 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, and 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 the dry weight of the material ([0013]); one or more active ingredients ([0027]); and a binder component forming a matrix retaining the biochar granules, 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, and 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MacKay (US 11426350 B1) teaches biochar granules.
Peiffer (US 20220151196 A1) teaches biochar granules.
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