DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 have been canceled, Claims 22, 34, and 36 have been amended, and Claims 23-33 and 35 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 01/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 22-24 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yananton et al. (US 4800841 A) in view of Grace Note Forge (“Sculpting With Soft Wax | Orchid Flower.” YouTube, 23 July 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN8jps_hjwY).
Regarding Claim 22, Yananton teaches a method of providing a pet training pad system (shown in Figs. 1-3 and described in Column 6 Lines 60-67 as well as Column 7 Lines 1-10) comprising:
Providing a wax sheet (Fig. 2 shows and Column 6 Lines 60-65 states that an unfolded paperboard sheet becomes the container 10. Column 6 Lines 25-30 further state that the paperboard sheet is coated with wax, which makes the sheet a wax sheet,) having wax sheet corner locations (28,32; Figs. 1-2 show that flaps 28 and 32 form the corner locations of the paperboard sheet that becomes container 10.);
Adhering the wax sheet directly to itself at the wax sheet corner locations to form wax tray corner locations (Shown in Figs. 2-3 and Figs. 7-8; Flaps 28 and 32 of the paperboard wax sheet are adhered directly to each other to form wax tray corner locations, shown in Figs. 1 and 12.);
Forming a generally vertical wall (See Figs. 1-3; After the paperboard wax sheet is adhered to itself, it forms a generally vertical wall 12, 14, 16, and 18.), which includes the wax tray corner locations (See Figs. 1-3; The generally vertical walls 12, 14, 16, and 18 includes the corner locations 28, 32.), with the wax sheet such that the wax sheet is formed into a wax tray (See Figs. 1-3; The paperboard wax sheet is such that the sheet is formed into a wax tray 10.); and
Disposing an absorbent pad in the wax tray (Column 7 Lines 5-15 states that an absorbent pad comprising layers 42, 44, and 46 is disposed into tray 10.).
However, the system of Yananton fails to explicitly state that the generally vertical wall of the wax tray is formed of vertically self-supporting wax without additional support.
Grace Note Forge teaches a vertically self-supporting wax without additional support (see Screenshot below; The soft sprue wax material can be folded to form a generally vertical wall that’s vertically self-supporting without additional support.).
PNG
media_image1.png
884
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Grace Note Forge
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the generally vertical wall of the wax tray of the system of Yananton be formed of vertically self-supporting wax without additional support as taught by Grace Note Forge with reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a more flexible and versatile material, 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 obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding Claim 23, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that the absorbent pad releasably engages with the wax tray (Column 10 Lines 1-10 states that the absorbent pad comprising layers 42, 44, and 46 may releasably engage with the wax tray 10.).
Regarding Claim 24, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that the absorbent pad releasably engages with the wax tray via a releasable adhesive bond (Column 7 Lines 25-30 states that the absorbent pad comprising layers 42, 44, and 46 may releasably engage with the wax tray 10 via adhesive tapes.).
Regarding Claim 29, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
The method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the generally vertical wall has a height in a range of 0.2 inches to 3 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the height of the generally vertical wall of the m method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge be in a range of 0.2 inches to 3 inches, in order to provide a self-supporting structure, 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.
Regarding Claim 30, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
The method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the wax sheet has a thickness in a range of 0.1 inches to 0.25 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the thickness of the wax sheet of the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge be in a range of 0.1 inches to 0.25 inches, in order to provide a self-supporting structure, 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.
Regarding Claim 31, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that the wax sheet includes a visual mark (22, 24) that informs a user as to where the generally vertical wall is to intersect with an inner surface region (20) of the wax tray (Shown in Figs. 1-3; Fold lines 22 and 24 inform a user as to where the generally vertical wall 12, 14, 16, and 18 is to intersect with the inner surface region 20 of the wax tray 10.).
Regarding Claim 32, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that the absorbent pad comprises super absorbent polymer and/or pulp (Column 4 Lines 10-20 states that the absorbent material may be a super sorbent.).
Regarding Claim 33, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that the absorbent pad comprises a plurality of layers (42, 44, 46; shown in Fig. 4) including fluid impermeable layer (Stated in Column 2 Lines 40-55; The absorbent pad comprises a moisture impermeable liner.).
Regarding Claim 34, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that the wax sheet corner locations comprises four corner locations (Figs. 1-2 show that flaps 28 and 32 form four corner locations of the paperboard sheet that becomes container 10.).
Regarding Claim 35, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that the generally vertical wall is formed of an edge region of the wax sheet (Shown in Figs. 1-3; The generally vertical wall 12, 14, 16, and 18 of wax tray 10 are formed of the corresponding edge regions 12, 14, 16, and 18 of the paperboard wax sheet.).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yananton et al. (US 4800841 A) in view of Grace Note Forge (“Sculpting With Soft Wax | Orchid Flower.” YouTube, 23 July 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN8jps_hjwY) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Pahimanolis et al. (US 20250197673 A1).
Regarding Claim 25, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
The method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the wax sheet is formed of at least one of a plant-based wax, beeswax, or a hydrocarbon-based wax. Pahimanolis teaches that plant-based wax can be used as an equivalent structure to conventional petroleum and synthetic waxes (Stated in ¶12). Therefore, because the conventional petroleum and synthetic waxes as well as the plant-based wax were art-recognized equivalents in the art before the claimed invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wax of the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge for plant-based wax as taught by Pahimanolis with reasonable expectation of success to provide wax that can be obtained from a renewable source (Pahimanolis, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 26, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge and Pahimanolis, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 25.
The method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge further teaches (references to Pahimanolis) that the plant-based wax comprises at least one of carnauba wax, soy wax, jojoba wax, candelilla wax or rice-bran wax (Stated in ¶102; The plant-based wax may comprise carnauba wax, soy wax, candelilla wax, or a combination thereof.).
Regarding Claim 27, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
The method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the wax sheet has a melting point in a range of 35 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees Celsius. Pahimanolis teaches a plant-based wax that has a melting point between 50 degrees Celsius to 90 degrees Celsius (Stated in ¶101) and teaches that plant-based wax can be used as an equivalent structure to conventional petroleum and synthetic waxes (Stated in ¶12). Therefore, because the conventional petroleum and synthetic waxes as well as the plant-based wax were art-recognized equivalents in the art before the claimed invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wax of the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge for plant-based wax which has a melting point in a range of 35 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees Celsius as taught by Pahimanolis with reasonable expectation of success to provide a wax sheet that is essentially solid in room temperature (Pahimanolis, ¶101).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yananton et al. (US 4800841 A) in view of Grace Note Forge (“Sculpting With Soft Wax | Orchid Flower.” YouTube, 23 July 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN8jps_hjwY) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Takagi et al. (US 20140338607 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
However, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge fails to explicitly state that the wax sheet includes one or more tackifier additives.
Takagi teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (¶1 states that the invention is related to an absorbent sheet for pets.), the system of Takagi teaches a pet absorbent sheet (100) that includes one or more tackifier additives (Fig. 3 shows that sheet 100 comprises adhesive portions 210 and 220. ¶61-62 state that regions 210, 220 comprises an adhesive having a tackifier additive.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge to have the wax sheet include one or more tackifier additives as taught by Takagi with reasonable expectation of success to enhance the sheet’s adhesive performance.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yananton et al. (US 4800841 A) in view of Grace Note Forge (“Sculpting With Soft Wax | Orchid Flower.” YouTube, 23 July 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN8jps_hjwY) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Straubinger (DE 102017004977 A1).
Regarding Claim 36, the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 22.
Yananton further teaches that surfaces (31; shown in Figs. 7-8) of the wax sheet are adhesively bondable to one another to form the wax tray corner locations (Figs. 1-3 and 7-8 show that surfaces 31 of the paperboard wax sheet are adhesively bondable to one another to form the wax tray corner locations.).
The method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the surfaces of the wax sheet that are adhesively bondable to one another to form the corner locations are wax surfaces. Straubinger teaches adhesively bondable wax surfaces (10; Stated in Pg. 3 and Shown in Fig. 1). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the adhesive surfaces of the method of Yananton as modified by Grace Note Forge with adhesively bondable wax surfaces as taught by Straubinger with reasonable expectation of success to provide a strong adhesive bond with a very small amount of material (Straubinger, Pg. 1), since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Johnson et al. (US 20200229910 A1) teaches wax-based compositions.
Evteev (RU 2365530 C2) teaches a wax package.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, 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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights