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 .
Support for the amendments is within the instant application specification.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 4/16/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 37-38, 40-56 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 1-36, 39 are cancelled.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 4/16/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 12/16/2025 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 39-41, 43-44, 50-54 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claims 40-41, 43-44, 50-54 to remove the recitation ‘about’ and cancel claim 39.
claims 37, 42, 44, 46-49, 56 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jollez et al (US 20190094211A1, Publication Date: Mar 28, 2019, cited on IDS dated 5/15/2025) {herein Jollez} as evidenced by Debey et al (2018, scientificreports, cited on PTO-892 dated 12/16/2025) {herein Debey} and Sigma (2025, Milipore Sigma, cited on PTO-892 dated 12/16/2025) {herein Sigma) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 37 to recite ‘from 25 wt% to 70 wt% pregelatinized starch (PGS); from 0 wt% to 20 wt% guar gum; from 10 wt% to 25 wt% methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC); from 0 wt% to 15 wt% hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC); from 0 wt% to 10 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)’ in claim 37 and cancellation of claim 39.
.
Maintained 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 37-38, 40-56 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jollez et al (US 20190094211A1, Publication Date: Mar 28, 2019, cited on IDS dated 5/15/2025) {herein Jollez} in view of McHugh et al (US 3703772, Date of Patent: Nov. 28, 1972, cited on PTO-892 dated 12/16/2025) {herein McHugh} and Bülichen et al (2012, Cement and Concrete Research, cited on PTO-892 dated 12/16/2025) {herein Bülichen} as evidenced by ThermoScientific (2025, ThermoFischer Scientific, cited on PTO-892 dated 12/16/2025) {herein Thermo}, Debey et al (2018, scientificreports, cited on PTO-892 dated 12/16/2025) {herein Debey} and Sigma (2025, Millipore Sigma, Examiner cited) {herein Sigma) is maintained. The rejection has been modified in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 37 to recite ‘from 25 wt% to 70 wt% pregelatinized starch (PGS); from 0 wt% to 20 wt% guar gum; from 10 wt% to 25 wt% methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC); from 0 wt% to 15 wt% hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC); from 0 wt% to 10 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)’ in claim 37 and cancellation of claim 39.
Claims 37-38, 40-54 are drawn to a chromogenic absorbent material for hemoglobin and/or glucose detection in an animal excretion, the chromogenic absorbent material comprising: a benzidine-type compound; at least one of: an organic hydroperoxide, for catalyzing the oxidation of the benzidine-type compound in the presence of hemoglobin; and a catalytic system comprising: a first enzyme which is an oxidoreductase, for in situ generation of hydrogen peroxide in the presence of glucose; and a second enzyme which is a peroxidase, a pseudoperoxidase, or a combination thereof, for catalyzing the oxidation of the benzidine-type compound upon in situ generation of the hydrogen peroxide; a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate; and a polysaccharide matrix, comprising: from 10 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 25 wt% to 70 wt% pregelatinized starch (PGS); from 0 wt% to 20 wt% guar gum; from 10 wt% to 25 wt% methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC); from 0 wt% to 15 wt% hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC); from 0 wt% to 10 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC).
With respect to claim 37, 40, 42, 44, 46-48, 56, Jollez teaches a chromogenic absorbent material for the detection of glucose and blood (hemoglobin) in animal excretions (para 0160 and 0161). Said chromogenic absorbent material is comprised of a benzidine-type compound (para 0202) such as 3,3',5,5'-Tramethylbenzidine (para 0016), hydroperoxide (para 0208), such as cumene hydroxyperoxode (para 0079), a first catalytic compound (such as glucose oxidase) to generate hydrogen peroxide in situ (para 0247). The catalytic system can also includes oxidoreductase or pseudoperoxidase (para 0227). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the oxidoreductase is the same as the recited ‘first enzyme’ within claim 37 of the instant application. Said system can also include horseradish peroxidase (para 0227). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the horseradish peroxidase and pseudoperoxidase are the same as the recited ‘second enzyme’ within claim 37 of the instant application. The peroxidatively active substances are enzyme-like in that they catalyze the redox reaction between peroxides and benzidine-type indicator substances for the production of hydrogen peroxide, thereby producing a detectable response such as a color change (para 0009). The chromogenic absorbent material may include a porous polysaccharide matrix having a low density (para 0246). The polysaccharide matrix is comprised of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), pregelatinized starch (PGS), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (para 0273) and cellulose (para 0273). Said cellulose can be comprised of fibrous material (para 0008). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that said cellulase is non-functionalized cellulose as Examiner is interpreting the cellulose taught by Jollez to be naturally occurring, which is known by those of ordinary skill in the art to constitute non-functionalized cellulose. The particles of the chromogenic absorbent materials may also be made from guar gum (para 0286).
Additionally, with respect to claim 44, the evidentiary reference of Dubey is cited to demonstrate that the average particle size of non-functionalized cellulose by laser diffraction is within the range of 0.04 - 2000µm (page 8, para 6). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that ‘the chemically or mechanically processed non-functionalized cellulose’ taught by Jollez and recited in the instant application claims 44 is a mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose and said cellulose would inherently have an average particle size by laser diffraction between 50 µm and 80 µm. Furthermore, the evidentiary reference of Sigma is cited to demonstrate that cellulose has a bulk density of 0.5 g/ml. As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the recited non-functional cellulose would inherently have a bulk density between 0.20 g/mL and 0.35 g/mL as recited in claim 44 of the instant application since Applicant has not recited any modifications to the cellulose that would substantially modify said properties.
With respect to claim 49, Jollez teaches the chromogenic absorbent material further comprises a buffering agent, a stabilizer, a metal scavenger agent or a color enhancer or a combination thereof (para 0083).
However Jollez does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material for hemoglobin and/or glucose detection in an animal excretion, wherein the chromogenic absorbent material comprises: a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate, and a polysaccharide matrix, comprising: from 10 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 25 wt% to 70 wt% pregelatinized starch (PGS); from 0 wt% to 20 wt% guar gum; from 10 wt% to 25 wt% methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC); from 0 wt% to 15 wt% hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC); from 0 wt% to 10 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (claim 37). Jollez does not teach wherein the polysaccharide matrix comprises: from 2.5 wt% to 7.5 wt% CMC (claim 40). Jollez does not teach wherein the polysaccharide matrix comprises: 25 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 40 wt% to 60 wt% PGS; from 10 wt% to 20 wt% MHEC; and from 2.5 wt% to 7.5 wt% CMC (claim 41). Jollez does not teach wherein the microcrystalline cellulose has an average particle size by laser diffraction between 25 pm and 200 µm, and wherein the fibrous cellulose has an average fiber length of up to 220 µm (claim 43). Jollez does not teach wherein the salt of dodecylbenzene sulfonate is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, ammonium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, triethylamine dodecylbenzene sulfonate, potassium dodecylbenzene sulfonate or a combination thereof (claim 45). Jollez does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material having a density of 0.20 g/cm3 to 0.39 g/cm3 (claim 50). Jollez does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material having an effective porosity of 0.5 mL/g to 2.0 mL/g (claim 51). Jollez does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material which has pores having an equivalent diameter greater than 20 µm (claim 52). Jollez does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material having a free swelling capacity greater than 900% (claim 53). Jollez does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material having a pore density greater than 20% (claim 54). Jollez does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material of the salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, ammonium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, triethylamine dodecylbenzene sulfonate, potassium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, or a combination thereof (claim 55).
With respect to claims 37-38, 45, 55, McHugh teaches the combination of sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with very finely divided sorbent material to speed drying and prevent hot spots (abstract). It is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates are the same as a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate. As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates taught by McHugh is the same as the salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate recited in the instant application and the sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate recited in the instant application claims 45, 55.
However McHugh does not teach a chromogenic absorbent material for hemoglobin and/or glucose detection in an animal excretion, the chromogenic absorbent material comprising: from 10 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 25 wt% to 70 wt% pregelatinized starch (PGS); from 0 wt% to 20 wt% guar gum; from 10 wt% to 25 wt% methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC); from 0 wt% to 15 wt% hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC); from 0 wt% to 10 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (claim 37). McHugh does not also teach wherein the polysaccharide matrix comprises: from 10 wt% to 20 wt% MHEC (claim 41).
With respect to claims 37, 41, Bülichen teaches hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) and methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC) are effective materials for water retention (abstract and page 954, column 1, para 5).
Although the references of Jollez in view of McHugh and Bülichen do not explicitly teach the limitations of claims 37, 40-41 wherein the polysaccharide matrix comprises: from 10 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 25 wt% to 70 wt% PGS; from 0 wt% to 20 wt% guar gum; from 0 wt% to 25 wt% methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC); from 0 wt% to 15 wt% hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC); and from 0 wt% to 10 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (claim 37), wherein the polysaccharide matrix comprises: from 10 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 25 wt% to 70 wt% PGS; from 10 wt% to 20 wt% MHEC; and from 2.5 wt% to 7.5 wt% CMC (claim 40), wherein the polysaccharide matrix comprises: from 25 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 40 wt% to 60 wt% PGS; from 10 wt% to 20 wt% MHEC; and from 2.5 wt% to 7.5 wt% CMC (claim 41), MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the concentration of PGS, guar gum, MHEC, HEC, CMC depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the concentration of said components of the polysaccharide matrix for the application they intend on using the chromogenic absorbent material. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
With respect to claims 50-54, since Jollez, in view of McHugh and Bülichen teaches the structure of the chromogenic absorbent material of the instant application, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that it would be obvious that the chromogenic absorbent material taught by Jollez, in view of McHugh and Bülichen would have a density of 0.20 g/cm3 to 0.39 g/cm3 (claim 50), have an effective porosity of 0.5 mL/g to 2.0 mL/g (claim 51), have pores having an equivalent diameter greater than 20 µm (claim 52), have a free swelling capacity greater than 900% (claim 53) and have a pore density greater than 20% as recited in the instant application claims 50-54.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Jollez et al of a chromogenic absorbent material for the detection of glucose and blood in animal excretions (para 0160 and 0161) or combine the teachings of McHugh et al and Bülichen teaches hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) and methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC) are effective materials for water retention (abstract and page 954, column 1, para 5). Whereas McHugh teaches a combination of sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with very finely divided sorbent materials to speed drying and prevent hot spots (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Jollez et al. by itself or combine the teachings of McHugh and Bülichen because Bülichen provides the motivation for Jollez, in view of McHugh to try MHEC and HEC within a chromogenic absorbent material as Bülichen teaches both MHEC and HEC achieve water retention by intramolecular sorption of water and concomitant swelling even at higher dosages (abstract) of which is the objective of Jollez (Jollez: abstract) with the teaching of the absorptive material includes a water - absorbing polysaccharide providing absorptive properties to the chromogenic absorbent material (Jollez: abstract). Furthermore, Bülichen teaches that said molecules agglomerate into large hydrocolloidal microgel particles (d>1 μm) which effectively plug the pores (Bülichen: abstract). Whereas, McHugh provides the motivation for Jollez to try utilizing a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate such as sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate because when sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate is mixed with sorbent material, it distributes aqueous solutions over a greatly increased area, which speeds drying (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of chromogenic absorbent material based on the teachings of Jollez, McHugh and Bülichen would have a reasonable expectation of success to combine MHEC and HEC with a chromogenic absorbent material as it would result in a strong increase in the hydrodynamic diameter of solved MHEC molecules, and a noticeable reduction of surface tension (abstract and page 954, column 1, para 4). As such, utilizing MHEC and HEC within a chromogenic absorbent material for the detection of glucose and blood in animal excretion would result in a reduced probability of animal waste containing toxins being invertedly removed from the absorbent material after it has been utilized by the animal. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to combine sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with chromogenic absorbent material as doing so would help to improve the storage stability of the chromogenic absorbent material, thereby permitting it to be utilized for the detection of blood and glucose in animal excrement over an extended period of time. Furthermore, it would allow for easier cleanup of said animal excrement, as its absorption would be facilitation by the addition of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed chromogenic absorbent material for the detection of blood and glucose in animal excrement containing MHEC, HEC and sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates because Jollez provides the teaching of a chromogenic absorbent material for the detection of glucose and blood in animal excretions (para 0160 and 0161). McHugh teaches the combination of sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with very finely divided sorbent material speeds drying and prevents hot spots (abstract). Whereas, Bülichen teaches hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) and methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC) are effective materials for water retention (abstract and page 954, column 1, para 5). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning on p. 7 of Applicants’ remarks, Applicants in summary contends that claim 37 further specifies a composition of the polysaccharide matrix which is not taught by the cited art, either alone or in combination. Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, there is no reasonable motivation to combine the cited references as suggested by the examiner to arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant contends that a person skilled in the art seeking to develop chromogenic absorbent materials for detecting hemoglobin and/or glucose in animal excretions would not reasonably consult literature relating to cement compositions.
These arguments are found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that cement and cat litter are not as different as Applicant states. Examiner contends that cement and cat litter share identical core chemical compositions in that they are clay-based minerals, react to moisture and have similar physical behaviors. Additionally, both cement and cat litter are highly porous materials, granular and clump when wet. As such, it would be obvious for Jollez to try using MHEC and HEC within the cat litter as Bülichen teaches both MHEC and HEC achieve water retention by intramolecular sorption of water and concomitant swelling.
Applicant contends that Jollez, in view of McHugh and Bulichen, does not explicitly disclose a polysaccharide matrix comprising 10 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non-functionalized cellulose. Applicant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of Jollez would not have been motivated to reduce the cellulose concentration into the presently claimed range, since doing so would run counter to the direction suggested by Jollez and could compromise the advantages described therein. Applicant contends that In contrast, the present application explains that using less than 35 wt% (preferably less than 32.5 wt%) of chemically or mechanically processed non-functionalized cellulose reduces the occurrence of false positive results.
These arguments are found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in that art would be motivated to optimize the concentration of absorbent material based on the intended use. Applicant is reminded that the MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)."
Applicant contends that even if Bulichen were to be considered, there is no motivation to introduce an additional water-retention agent, since Jollez already describes microcrystalline cellulose as a water-absorbing polysaccharide.
These arguments are found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Jollez would be motivated to try MHEC and HEC as Bulichen teaches they are as highly effective water-binding hydrocolloids rather than mere bulk absorbents such as microcrystalline cellulose (Bulichen: abstract). Therefore, Jollez would have a reasonable expectation to achieve a greater degree of absorption, than utilizing microcrystalline cellulose alone.
Maintained Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The provisional rejection of claims 37-38, 40-56 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 16/202,225 in view of McHugh et al (US Patent 3,703,772, Date of Patent Nov. 28, 1972, Examiner cited) {herein McHugh}. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 37-38, 40-56 recite ‘A chromogenic absorbent material for hemoglobin and/or glucose detection in an animal excretion, the chromogenic absorbent material comprising: a benzidine-type compound; at least one of: an organic hydroperoxide, for catalyzing the oxidation of the benzidine-type compound in the presence of hemoglobin; and a catalytic system comprising: a first enzyme which is an oxidoreductase, for in situ generation of hydrogen peroxide in the presence of glucose; and a second enzyme which is a peroxidase, a pseudoperoxidase, or a combination thereof, for catalyzing the oxidation of the benzidine-type compound upon in situ generation of the hydrogen peroxide; a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate; and a polysaccharide matrix, comprising: from 10 wt% to 32.5 wt% chemically or mechanically processed non- functionalized cellulose; from 25 wt% to 70 wt% pregelatinized starch (PGS); from 0 wt% to 20 wt% guar gum; from 10 wt% to 25 wt% methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC); from 0 wt% to 15 wt% hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC); from 0 wt% to 10 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC).’ The dependent claims (claims 38, 40-54) further define the chromogenic absorbent material.
However, the claims of ‘225 do not recite ‘a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate’ (claim 37), wherein the salt of dodecylbenzene sulfonate is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, ammonium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, triethylamine dodecylbenzene sulfonate, potassium dodecylbenzene sulfonate or a combination thereof (claim 45).
McHugh teaches the combination of sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with very finely divided sorbent materials to speed drying and prevent hot spots (abstract). It is known by those of ordinary skill in the art that sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates are the same as a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate. As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that the sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates taught by McHugh is the same as the salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate recited in the instant application and the sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate recited in the instant application claims 45, 55 of the instant application claims.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Jollez et al of a chromogenic absorbent material for the detection of glucose and blood in animal excretions (para 0160 and 0161) or McHugh et al because McHugh teaches a combination of sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with very finely divided sorbent material speeds drying and prevents hot spots (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Jollez et al. by itself or combine the teachings of McHugh because McHugh provides the motivation for Jollez to utilize a salt of alkylbenzene sulfonate such as sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate because when sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate is mixed with sorbent material, it distributes aqueous solutions over a greatly increased area, which speeds drying (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of chromogenic absorbent material based on the teachings of Jollez and McHugh would have a reasonable expectation of success to combine sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with chromogenic absorbent material as doing so would help to improve the storage stability of the chromogenic absorbent material, thereby permitting it to be utilized for the detection of blood and glucose in animal excrement over an extended period of time. Furthermore, it would allow for easier cleanup of said animal excrement, as its absorption would be facilitation by the addition of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed chromogenic absorbent material because Jollez provides the teaching of a chromogenic absorbent material for the detection of glucose and blood in animal excretions (para 0160 and 0161). Whereas, McHugh teaches the combination of sodium higher alkyl benzene sulfonates with very finely divided sorbent material speeds drying and prevents hot spots (abstract). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning on p. 9 of Applicants’ remarks, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be held in abeyance. Applicant will file a terminal disclaimer, if necessary, when the claims in the instant application are determined to be otherwise allowable. As such, Examiner maintains the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Status of the claims
Claims 37-38, 40-56 are pending.
Claims 1-36, 38 are cancelled.
Claims 37-38, 40-56 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights