The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11 and 13-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (WO 01/50843) in view of De Nisi ((ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2021, newly cited and applied) and Chang (CN 111587797) or Bi (CN 118140822). In the patent publication Hughes teaches a litter composition comprises a particulate material, and a dust-reducing agent comprising vegetable oil. The invention also provides a method for reducing dusting tendency in a litter composition including selecting a particulate material and adding a dust reducing agent to the particulate material, the dust reducing agent being a vegetable oil. The last paragraph on page 3 of the disclosure teaches that the dust reducing agent can be used with virtually any particulate material in litter compositions. In one embodiment, a litter is composed of a particulate material that comprises a ground grain. Preferably, the ground grain is derived from wheat varieties including white wheat, spring wheat, winter wheat, durum and combinations thereof. The paragraph bridging pages 4-5 teaches that the phrase "particulate material" means a major sorbent material that is a base material. The particulate material includes grain and non-grain materials. Particulate materials can be used with or without binders and other additives which cause a clump to form from litter soiled by liquids, e.g., urine and fecal liquids. Preferred litter contains a majority, for example, at least about 50% by weight, more preferably about 70% by weight, and most preferably about 75% by weight, of particulate materials that are in a size range between about 250 and about 25,000 microns. The third paragraph on page 6 teaches that suitable vegetable oils are grain oils. Suitable grain oils include soybean oil, corn oil, canola, sunflower oil, and the like. A preferred grain oil is soybean oil, and in a particularly preferred embodiment, the soybean oil is provided as a commercially available extruded soybean oil. The fourth paragraph on page 6 teaches that the dust reducing agent can be added to the litter in any suitable manner, for example by spraying, coating, rinsing, and the like. In a particularly preferred embodiment, the dust reducing agent is applied to the litter composition as a fog under air pressure and oil pressure. The air and oil pressures applied during application of the dust reducing agent vary depending upon such variables as the moisture content of the material being processed. The final paragraph of page 6 teaches a preferred method of applying the dust reducing agent. The first two paragraphs of page teach that the amount of dust reducing agent included in the litter product can be adapted for particular applications. For example, the amount of dust reducing agent included in the litter composition can vary depending upon moisture content of the particulate material comprising the litter. For particulate materials such as wheat or corn, which have a variable moisture content that is relatively high, less dust reducing agent may be required. Preferably, when the particulate material comprises a wheat material, the dust reducing agent content of the litter composition is approximately 0.1% to approximately 2% by weight. More preferably, the dust reducing agent content is approximately 0.25% to approximately 1.5% by weight. Most preferably, the dust reducing agent content is approximately 0.25% to approximately 1% by weight. The last two full paragraphs of page 8 teach that a "ground grain litter" is a litter composition containing ground grain. The ground grain is provided in the litter at greater than 30% by weight ground grain, preferably greater than 80% by weight ground grain. If the ground grain litter is made up of less than 100% of ground grain, the nonground grain portion of the litter may be composed of any other known or later discovered litter material. The nonground grain litter component may also contain compounds which function to mask or neutralize waste odors, provide an attractant for the animal, inhibit bacterial growth, or other similar nonsorbent function. As used herein, the phrase "ground grain" means whole raw grain which is prepared using a process which is described in detail below. As used herein, the phrase "whole raw grain" refers to a whole grain kernel as it comes out of a harvesting device typically used in harvesting agricultural products, for example, combines and threshers. Often the whole grain kernel coming out of a harvesting device will have associated with it chaff and stalk remnants. These remnant materials may or may not become part of the ground grain litter. The paragraph bridging pages 12-13 teaches that an alternative embodiment comprises a nongrain material. As used herein, "non-grain material" is a material containing compounds that are not grain based compounds. Examples of non-grain materials include sand, clay, gravel, natural grass compositions, sawdust, woodchips, or cellulosic products. Examples of suitable natural grass compositions include alfalfa and other chlorophyll-containing compositions. Examples of suitable cellulosic products include cereal grain kernels, such as oat, rice, wheat, rye or corn hulls; peanut hulls; soybean; rapeseed; sunflower; cottonseed hulls; corn cobs; corn kernels; corn stover; and the like. The paragraph bridging pages 8-9 teaches that the whole raw grains which may be selected for use as a ground grain include, for example, cereal grains such as wheat, sorghum, barley, rice, oats, rye, triticale, millet, corn and other grains for which "cereal grain" is a generic term. The ground grain may be prepared from a single whole raw grain or combinations of one or more whole raw grains which may be combined before or after the grinding process. P referred cereal grains of the invention may be selected from the group of wheat varieties including white wheat, spring wheat, winter wheat and durum. A particularly preferred wheat variety is hard red spring wheat. Page 9, line 6 to page 10, line 8 gives a more detailed preparation of the ground grain including putting the whole raw grain is put through a cleaning device to remove foreign materials including stones, rocks, metal, dirt, dust, weed seed and other nongrain material prior to grinding, subjecting the cleaned grain to a single or dual head roller or a hammer mill to crush the whole grain into a smaller particle size range between 250 - 2,500 microns and sieving the crushed ground product to remove larger particles. The last paragraph on page 10 teaches that upon contact with aqueous liquids, the ground grain tends to form a low attrition clump. As used herein, the phrase "low attrition clump" means a clump which, after drying, loses less than about 15% of its weight, 30 preferably less than about 10% of its weight, when subjected to attrition testing (see example 6). The second paragraph on page 12 teaches that the inventors believe that many of the properties of the described litter are, in part, a result of the milling process used to prepare the litter. Unlike some milling processes which may impregnate the particulate material with gas and moisture prior to grinding, the preferred process used to prepare the litter composition is, relatively speaking, a drier process which causes an increased amount of damaged starch post grinding. It was believed that the high quantities of fractured starch provide, in part, the advantageous properties. Examples 1-2 on pages 13-14 describe the grinding of whole red spring wheat and the resulting size distribution. Example 6 on pages 16-17 describes the method of determining the attrition resistance of the clumps of ground grain formed on wetting the grain in the following manner. Clumps of hydrated ground grain were formed by wetting the litter with 6 grams of water and allowing the sorbed water to set for five minutes. Thereafter the clumps formed were carefully removed from the nonwetted litter and dried. The dried clumps were weighed. The attrition was then determined by carefully removing the bonded but poorly adhering particles on the surface of the clumps by gently rubbing a finger across the surface and weighing the particles removed. Example 7 on pages 17-18 describes the addition of the oil to the litter in varying amounts after which different tests on the mixture and the oil were described. From the results, it was determined that for optimal results using the hard red spring and hard red winter wheat ground grain litters, 0.25% by weight soybean oil be included with the particulate material. This percentage of oil sprayed on the product appears to suppress the dust without adversely affecting the appearance, odor, and clumping ability of the litter composition.
Based on the above description, with respect to claim 1, Hughes teaches an absorbent biogenic composition comprising a mixture of: a base material and a plant-based oil but does not teach a plant-based pH indicator as part of the composition.
In the paper De Nisi teaches that this work reports a biorefinery approach to recover anthocyanins by setting up a quick and cheap extraction method, starting from dried purple corn cobs, to obtain pigments used to dye natural fibers. The residues of the cobs were extracted, recovering anthocyanins for nutraceutical purposes. The exhausted residue was proposed as animal bedding, closing the loop with zero waste produced, that is, residual animal bedding is collected with food waste, producing compost and/or biogas and fertilizers. Water extraction allowed the recovery of 36.3% of anthocyanins, mainly composed of cyanidin derivatives (glycosylated and mainly monoacylated). The use of the first extract to dye fabrics gave good results in terms of color strength and fastness. The subsequent extraction with ethanol allowed the recovery of additional 33.2% of residual anthocyanins. The anthocyanin-rich extract exhibited very good anti-inflammatory activity with high nutraceutical potential. Residual exhausted ground-up cobs are recommended to be used as animal bedding since the fiber content and water retention ability were very similar to those of a homologous commercial product. Moreover, the residual anthocyanins (183 ± 15 mg 100 g–1), recalcitrant to extraction, conferred interesting properties to the proposed animal bedding. Figure 1 shows a process flow leading to the three products. The last full paragraph of the left column on page 3782 teaches that the ears, harvested and dried, were shelled (using an electric sheller); kernels were collected separately and preserved. Corn cobs obtained were ground using a grinder (electric chipper) and reduced to particle sizes of 1–3 mm. The dried and milled corn cobs had a moisture content of about 4% fresh weight. After the water and ethanol extractions, the second full paragraph on page 3783 teaches that the dried residual exhausted cob (REC in Figure 1), retained after the anthocyanin extraction process, was subsequently characterized and analyzed to determine its suitability to be used as animal bedding. The characterization of the REC fraction is described on page 3784 and included characterizing its water-holding capacity (WHC) and by fiber detergent analysis in order to assess its ability to act as animal bedding in comparison to the commercial corn cob product litter (CCL). The WHC was characterized following EN methodology (EN 13041, 2012). The neutral detergent fiber (NDF), cellulose, and lignin contents in the corn cob dry matter were estimated using the fiber detergent method, determined according to protocols developed by Ankom Technology (ANKOM Technology Corporation, Fairpoint, NY), based on the work of Goering and Van Soest. For pH measurement, both the raw material and REC (20 g) were mixed with 40 mL of deionized water with 30 min of stirring, filtered, and used for direct pH measurement. Table 1 shows that after extraction the REC still contained 183 ± 15 mg 100 g–1 of residual anthocyanins. Table 2 gives a distribution of the respective anthocyanins in each of the three products. Table 4 provides a comparison between the REC and homologous commercial cob litter. Of note is the increased water holding capacity described in the paragraph following Table 4 on page 3788. The paragraph additionally teaches that commercial corn cob litter for pets (Table 1) shows a minor antioxidant activity due to low TP concentration and a total absence of anthocyanins. Despite the extractions, REC still contains anthocyanins, which could not be removed (see the purple color in Figure 4, i.e., control), and their positive effect might be exploited. The rest of that section on page 3788 teaches that a previous study reported a strong antimicrobial activity (against Salmonella enteritidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans) exerted by extracts of a purple corn hybrid. Thus, thanks to the inhibition of bacterial activity, the presence of residual anthocyanins in the REC may be useful, for example, to limit the release of unpleasant odors from the litter. The color change property of the anthocyanin extract because of pH variations has been already exploited as potential natural pH indicators in film-packaging applications. Similarly, they tested the halochromic properties of the REC, soaking it with pH buffers at units 5 and 8, to simulate the limits of the pH range of animal urine (Figure 4). The result showed a perceptible REC color change between the two treatments (pH 5.0 vs pH 8.0 in Figure 4B). The prevalence of the colorless chalcone form of the anthocyanin pigment at these pH associate to that the lignocellulosic matrix confers a brownish color (background color), which slightly mask the color change. This is evident in the test with distilled water (Figure 4A) in which the corn cob before and after extraction did not show differences in pH (4.2) and therefore in color. Nevertheless, at pH 8.0, the change in color was more marked since the quinone-base form of anthocyanins became the main molecular form, shifting the REC color toward green and blue shades. The use of the REC as a pH indicator could be useful to pet owners to evaluate when to replace the litter box or even can give, in some cases, indications on the state of the animal’s health.
In the patent publication, Chang teaches a natural indicator cat litter prepared from anthocyanin plant extraction waste, includes 60-80 pts. wt. of anthocyanin plant extract waste, 10-25 pts. wt. of corn starch, 1-5 pts. wt. of xanthan gum, 1-5 pts. wt. of salty green gum, 5-10 pts. wt. of sodium benzoate, 1-2 pts. wt. of tea residue, 1-2 pts. wt. of sodium citrate and 0.5-1 pts. wt. of catnip extract. The anthocyanin plant extraction waste is selected from purple potato waste residue, roselle waste residue, and black potato waste residue. The translation teaches that known pH-indicating cat litters are realized by adding pH-indicating materials. A patented cat urine pH-indicating material, pH-indicating cat litter and its preparation method is made of methyl red and thyme bromide. It is composed of pH indicator materials such as phenol blue and basic tofu cat litter. However, at present, there is no report on cat litter that utilizes anthocyanin-containing anthocyanin plant extraction waste as a natural pH indicator at home and abroad. Anthocyanins, also known as anthocyanins, are widely found in plants. Fruits, vegetables, flowers, and grains are rich in anthocyanins, such as purple sweet potatoes, black potatoes, purple cabbage, black beans, black rice, roselle, etc. The color of anthocyanins changes with the pH value, and is an excellent natural pH indicator. When the pH value is 3, it is dark purple red to light purple blue when the pH value is 6, and the color changes obviously. Under normal circumstances, the pH value of cat urine is in the range of 5.5 to 7.5. Urine with a high pH can easily lead to the formation of magnesium crystals. The color change of cat litter can be used to indirectly test the pH value of cat urine to predict the health of cats. situation. The plant residue from which anthocyanin has been extracted is still rich in substances such as cellulose, pectin, starch, etc. In the present invention, the anthocyanin plant extraction waste from which anthocyanin has been extracted is used to produce cat litter, without adding colorants and use the characteristics of anthocyanins to develop different colors under different pH conditions, as a natural indicator, it is convenient for the owner to eradicate the contaminated cat litter in time, and at the same time, through the color change of the cat litter, it indirectly reflects the cat's health. Health status, so that owners can predict the cat's disease early. The translation sums up by teaching that the natural indicator cat litter prepared from the anthocyanin plant extraction waste of the present invention has good water absorption and agglomeration, rapid water absorption, fast agglomeration, and remarkable sterilization and deodorization effect. The key of the present invention is to make full use of anthocyanin-containing plant extraction waste to turn waste into treasure, which is applied to improve the comprehensive utilization benefit of raw materials, and the plant extraction waste after anthocyanin has been extracted contains cellulose, pectin and starch. It can reduce the addition of binders in the cat litter preparation process and significantly reduce the production cost. At the same time, the anthocyanin in the plant waste is used as a natural pH indicator, and there is no need to add additional cat litter colorants and pH indicator materials. The distribution in the sand is more uniform, the indicated discoloration effect is good, and the product quality is more stable. After the cat excretes, the color of the cat litter changes, which is convenient for the owner to eradicate the contaminated cat litter in a timely and accurate manner. The cat litter is prepared from natural raw materials, is non-toxic and harmless, and can be directly flushed into the sewer, incinerated or filled for disposal after cat litter is used, and can be used as organic fertilizer to improve soil, save resources, and be environmentally friendly and pollution-free.
In the patent publication Bi teaches an antibacterial and color-indicating mixed cat litter comprises mixed anthocyanin, sodium bentonite, taro residue, honeysuckle in the mass ratio of 0.5-1.5: 4: 4: 0.5-1.5. The mixed anthocyanin is a mixture of black carrot anthocyanin and camphor fruit anthocyanin in a mass ratio of 1:1. Also taught is a method for preparing mixed cat litter with antibacterial and color indication, which involves (S1) cleaning the black carrot and cinnamomum camphora, drying, cutting into blocks, drying, crushing and sieving to obtain black carrot powder and cinnamomum camphora powder; drying, crushing and sieving the honeysuckle to obtain honeysuckle powder, (S2) adding ethanol solution to the black carrot powder and cinnamomum camphora powder, leaching in water bath, centrifuging, concentrating, freezing and drying to obtain mixed anthocyanin, (S3) adding proper amount of water to the sodium-based bentonite, the taro residue, the mixed anthocyanin and the honeysuckle powder according to the proportion, uniformly mixing, adjusting the pH value to 3-5, drying to obtain the mixture, (S4) granulating the mixture, sterilizing, sieving the crushed powder less than 0.5 mm to obtain the mixed cat litter. The translation teaches that mixed anthocyanins are a class of compounds formed by the combination of anthocyanins and sugars with glycosidic bonds. The mixed anthocyanins presently used are extracts of black carrots and camphor fruit (ratio 1:1). The color of the mixed anthocyanins changes with the pH value. It is a natural pH indicator. When the pH value is 2.5, it is dark purple-red. When the pH value is 7, it is light purple-blue. The color change is obvious. Under normal circumstances, the pH value of cat urine ranges from 5.5 to 7.5. Urine with a high pH value is prone to the formation of magnesium crystals. The health of the cat can be predicted by indirectly testing the pH value of cat urine through the color change of cat litter. In the prepared cat litter, the mixed anthocyanin has different color development under different pH conditions, and will change color obviously when encountering cat excrement, which is convenient for the owner to timely and accurately remove the contaminated cat litter. The change of the cat litter color indirectly reflects the health of the cat, so that the owner can have a foreknowledge of the health status of the cat. In addition, the mixed anthocyanin has certain antibacterial and bactericidal effects, providing a healthy life for pets. The mixed anthocyanin (black carrot powder: camphor powder ratio 1:1) is strictly in accordance with this ratio, and the ratio of the mixed anthocyanin is continuously adjusted through experiments, so that the ratio of the mixed anthocyanin was finally determined to be 1:1, and the color development range of the mixed anthocyanin will be clearer. The original color development range of the two individual anthocyanins is small and cannot cover a relatively small range. Mixing them greatly improves the color development range and makes the color development effect more obvious. The addition of the mixed anthocyanin greatly improves the color development function, which will better enable the owner to understand the health status of the cat. The camphor fruit not only plays a color development effect, but also plays an antibacterial role, which increases the antibacterial property of the cat litter itself. The cat litter is made of natural raw materials, which are non-toxic, harmless and odorless. At the same time, the honeysuckle and taro in the raw materials play a deodorizing role in the cat litter. Cats also like the taste of honeysuckle itself, so the addition of honeysuckle will make cats fonder of it, reduce the cat's rejection of cat litter, and help relieve cat anxiety and other negative emotions. In the process of preparing cat litter, the raw materials are mixed evenly, and it has been verified that the adsorption and agglomeration antibacterial effect of cat litter is better. The taro residue in the cat litter can increase the viscosity after hydration, so that the cat litter will not stick to the wall of the cat basin. Anthocyanins are extracted from plants rich in anthocyanins. In addition, there is no need to add cat litter colorants and PH indicator materials. At the same time, the uneven distribution of PH indicator materials can be avoided to affect the discoloration effect, and the product quality is more stable. After use, the cat litter is easy to handle and can be directly flushed into the sewer, incinerated or landfilled. It is environmentally friendly, green and pollution-free.
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include a natural pH indicator such as the indicators taught by De Nisi, Chang or Bi into the Hughes composition because Hughes teaches that additional components may be added to provide other functions, De Nisi teaches that the anthocyanin containing cob waste has antimicrobial activity as well as pH sensitivity usable in cat litters to limit release of unpleasant odors and/or provide indications of the state of an animal’s health and Chang and Bi teach that the natural pH indicators perform one or more useful functions in a cat litter. The fact that the anthocyanin of De Nisi is present in the extracted cob at 183 ± 15 mg 100 g–1 (0.183 wt % of pH indicator) of the extracted cob material and the fact that most of the remaining cob material is cellulose and lignin shows it would take a substantial amount of the REC before the anthocyanin wt % exceeded the upper maximum of the claimed range. The fact that at least Chang uses a similar anthocyanin plant extraction waste product would point to a similar low anthocyanin concentration when using that product as well. Finally, the fact that the plant-based oil is preferred to be less than 1 wt% shows that additional components needed for additional functions would also be present at the smallest amount needed to adequately perform their function. Thus addition of the plant-based indicators of Chang or Bi would have been expected to follow a similar principle. Thus the absorbent biogenic composition would have been expected to comprise at least about 98 wt% of the base material based on the presence of cellulose and/or lignin in the De Nisi material and an expectation of a similar type of composition for at least the Chang waste material. With respect to claim 2, the clump attrition tests of Hughes and the teachings that the composition of Chang and Bi will form clumps in the presence of a fluid show that the absorbent biogenic composition is a clumping litter. With respect to claims 5-6, the fact that the ground cereal grains of Hughes include wheat, sorghum, barley, rice, oats, rye, triticale, millet, corn and other grains show that the starch comprises corn starch, potato starch, rice starch, pea starch, soybean starch, or cassava starch and the flour comprises corn flour, cassava flour, or soybean flour. Additionally, examiner notes that these claims the type of starch or flour so that the claims would still be obvious even if the applied references taught gum, fiber, polysaccharide, protein, cellulose, lignin, or any combination thereof as the base material. With respect to claim 9, since the claim does not limit the plant-based oil to sunflower oil, even though Hughes does not teach high-oleic sunflower oil, the claim is still taught due to the other oils, corn oil, canola oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, that are taught by Hughes. With respect to claim 11, the plant-based pH indicator(s) of De Nisi, Chang or Bi are an extract, a pigment, or any combination thereof so that modification of Hughes by De Nisi, Bi or Chang would meet the requirement of claim 11. with respect to claims 13-15, the plant-based pH indicator(s) of De Nisi, Chang or Bi are one or more flavonoids comprising flavones, isoflavonoids, neoflavonoids, anthocyanins, or a combination thereof derived from red, brown, orange, yellow, blue, purple, and black fruits and vegetables, wherein red, brown, orange, yellow, blue, purple, and black fruits and vegetables comprise black carrots, purple carrots, cabbage, red cabbages, berries, red onions, kidney beans, pomegranates, grapes, tomatoes, acai, or any combination thereof so that modification of Hughes by De Nisi, Bi or Chang would meet the requirement of claims 13-15. With respect to claim 16, since the claim does not limit the plant-based indicator to being derived from berries, even though De Nisi, Bi or Chang do not teach that the indicator is derived from berries, the claim is still taught due to the other vegetable based indicators that are taught by Bi or Chang so that modification of Hughes by Bi or Chang would meet the requirement of claim 16. With respect to claims 17-21 because Hughes teaches a composition that is only crushed/ground cereal grains in combination with plant based oils and De Nisi, Bi or Chang teach plant based indicators, modification of Hughes by De Nisi, Bi or Chang would meet the requirements of a absorbent biogenic composition consists of the base material, the plant-based oil, and the plant-based pH indicator. This also meet the requirements that the absorbent biogenic composition free of any non-plant-based compounds or components including non-plant-based pH indicators such as phenolphthalein and bromothymol blue. This also meets the requirement that the absorbent biogenic composition consists of ingredients that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). With respect to claims 22-25, The attrition test of Hughes shows that clumps form in 5 minutes. Since several of the plant-based indicators are anthocyanins derived from red, brown, orange, yellow, blue, purple, and black fruits and vegetables and in particular the anthocyanin derived from black carrots taught by Bi is a specific, instantly claimed source of the plant-based pH indicator, the color range requirements of claims 22-25 are met by the combination of Bi or Chang with Hughes. With respect to claims 27-33 and 36-38, Hughes teaches several possibilities for producing the litter composition including mixing multiple grains prior to grinding and applying the oil as a coating on the base material. Additionally, the Bi and Chang references teach different methods of combining the indicators with the other components of their respective litters. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that mixing the three ingredients together in any order to be an obvious method of modifying the teachings of Hughes with Bi or Chang since there does not appear to be any advantage taught by Hughes and Chang or Bi to the order or manner in which the components are combined/mixed to reach a final cat litter composition. With respect to claims 34 and 35, the fact that the claims do not limit the base material to comprising a starch or flour means that their presence in the base material is not required and a base material that comprises any of a gum, fiber, polysaccharide, protein, cellulose, lignin, or any combination thereof is still within the scope of these claims. In other words, a nongrain base material such as taught by De Nisi could replace the grain based base material of Hughes and it would be within the scope of these claims.
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim changes resulted in the withdrawal of the clarity and anticipation rejections by examiner. The response also resulted in the obviousness rejection being modified.
The modification of the obviousness rejection by the addition of the De Nisi paper shows that a anthocyanin plant extraction waste such as used by Chang as the pH indicator would have included other components from the plant in addition to the remaining anthocyanin residue. Those additional components would have been things such as cellulose and/or lignin such as taught by De Nisi. While examiner does not have wt% of the anthocyanin plant extraction waste of Chang, the amounts residue anthocyanin per gram of anthocyanin plant extraction waste would probably be at a similar level. With respect to the Hughes optimization of the amount of oil needed, that process shows that for components added to provide other properties such as antimicrobial properties one of skill in the art would have conducted a similar optimization to determine an appropriate amount. The fact that Hushes teaches nongrain components for the additional properties on page 8 lines 15-22 of the specification points to a willingness to look at adding some nongrain components to provide the additional properties. The fact that De Nisi, Chang and Bi show that these properties can be provided by materials such as anthocyanin plant extraction waste or anthocyanin extracted corn cobs as part of a litter product is clearly what Hughes anticipated and/or taught with that particular teaching. There are clear reasons for the combination of Hughes with De Nisi and Chang or Bi. The fact that Hughes in the section states that, “if the ground grain litter is made up of less than 100 % of ground grain” points to a desire for the amount of ground grain to be as close to 100 wt % as possible. Thus there is at least one teaching that would point to the amount of any nongrain component being the minimum possible amount to perform the intended function. This in combination with the teaching related to the amount of vegetable oil clearly points to a minimal amount of pH indicator being added to the composition. Thus examiner believes there is ample evidence to show an optimization would have taken place and that the optimization would have shown the obviousness of the claimed range for the pH indicator. For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited art relates to compositions utilizing natural plant-based ingredients to formulate animal litters. Of particular note is the Huck patent publication (US 2019/0274274) teaching a that could also have been used as the primary reference in a rejection of one or more of the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arlen Soderquist whose telephone number is (571)272-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 1st week Monday-Thursday, 2nd week Monday-Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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.
/ARLEN SODERQUIST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights