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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 04/15/2025 and 07/16/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Sub-Species B and Sub-Species C in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the species outlined in the Requirement for Restriction do not encompass all the species shown in the Applicant’s figures. This is found to be persuasive, and the Applicant’s alternate election of the channel shape of Fig. 4 is understood to be proper.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Ikegami et al. (U.S. Pub. 20010042517).
In regard to claim 1, Ikegami et al. discloses an animal training pad comprising: a top layer; a urine-impermeable base layer; at least one internal layer disposed between the top layer and the urine-impermeable base layer, wherein the at least one internal layer comprises an absorbent layer (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0054-0056], where there is an animal training pad 10 having a top layer 16/18/32/34, a urine-impermeable base layer 20, at least one internal layer 12/14 disposed between the top layer 16/18/32/34 and the urine-impermeable base layer 20, and the at least one internal layer comprises an absorbent layer 12); wherein the top layer has at least one urine-repellant area bordered by at least one urine-collection channel; and wherein the at least one urine-collection channel comprises an opening formed in the top layer which exposes the at least one internal layer to urine when disposed on the at least one urine-repellant area of the top layer (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0035] and [0054-0056], where the top layer 16/18/32/34 has at least one urine-repellant area (“flaps 16 and 18 are made of a water repellent material”) bordered by at least one urine-collection channel 52/54/62/64 which comprises an opening formed in the top layer 16/18/32/34 which exposes the at least one internal layer 12/14 to urine when disposed on the at least one urine-repellant area of the top layer 16/18/32/34).
In regard to claim 2, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1, wherein the top layer having the at least one urine-repellant area bordered by the at least one urine-collection channel further comprises the top layer having a plurality of urine-repellant areas bordered by a plurality of urine-collection channels (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0054-0056], where the top layer has the at least one urine-repellant area bordered by the at least one urine-collection channel further includes the top layer having a plurality of urine-repellant areas (“flaps 16 and 18 are made of a water repellent material”) bordered by a plurality of urine-collection channels 52/54/62/64).
In regard to claim 4, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 2, wherein the plurality of urine-repellant areas are completely isolated from one another by the plurality of urine-collection channels (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0054-0056], where the plurality of urine-repellant areas are isolated from one another (at least separated) by the plurality of urine-collection channels 52/54/62/64).
In regard to claim 5, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 2, wherein the plurality of urine-collection channels comprise a plurality of substantially parallel urine-collection channels and/or a plurality of substantially perpendicular urine-collection channels (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0054-0056], where there is a plurality of substantially parallel urine-collection channels 52/54/62/64).
In regard to claim 8, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1, wherein the at least one urine-collection channel has a depth which extends into the at least one internal layer (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0054-0056], where the at least one urine-collection channel 52/54/62/64 has a depth which extends into the at least one internal layer 12/14).
In regard to claim 12, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1, wherein the at least one urine-collection channel has an arcuate bottom, planar bottom or pointed bottom (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0054-0056], where the at least one urine-collection channel 52/54/62/64 has a planar bottom).
In regard to claim 17, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1, wherein the absorbent layer is formed of a superabsorbent polymer (Figs. 9-10 and Paragraphs [0032] and [0054-0056], where the absorbent layer is formed of a superabsorbent polymer (“material in which a super-absorbing polymer (SAP) is mixed with pulp or cotton and is then wrapped in a tissue or a non-woven fabric can be used as the absorbing material 12”)).
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.
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (U.S. Pub. 20010042517) in view of Axelrod et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200281155).
In regard to claim 3, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 2. Ikegami et al. is silent on the plurality of urine-collection channels completely surround the plurality of urine-repellant areas. Axelrod et al. discloses the plurality of urine-collection channels completely surround the urine collection areas (Fig. 10 and Paragraphs [0058-0061], where there is a plurality of urine-collection channels (“a channel is defined between adjacent ridges”) which completely surrounds the urine collection areas). Ikegami et al. and Axelrod et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pet care devices. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the plurality of urine-collection channels completely surround the plurality of urine-repellant areas in view of Axelrod et al. The motivation would have been to better enable urine collection along all four sides of the pad.
In regard to claim 6, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 5. Ikegami et al. is silent on the plurality of urine-collection channels comprise the plurality of substantially parallel urine-collection channels and the plurality of substantially perpendicular urine-collection channels. Axelrod et al. discloses the plurality of urine-collection channels comprise the plurality of substantially parallel urine-collection channels and the plurality of substantially perpendicular urine-collection channels (Fig. 10 and Paragraphs [0058-0061], where the plurality of urine-collection channels (“a channel is defined between adjacent ridges”) comprise the plurality of substantially parallel urine-collection channels and the plurality of substantially perpendicular urine-collection channels (such that the channels at least completely surround the urine collection areas)). Ikegami et al. and Axelrod et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pet care devices. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the plurality of urine-collection channels comprise the plurality of substantially parallel urine-collection channels and the plurality of substantially perpendicular urine-collection channels in view of Axelrod et al. The motivation would have been to better enable urine collection along all four sides of the pad.
In regard to claim 7, Ikegami et al. as modified by Axelrod et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 6, wherein the plurality of substantially parallel urine-collection channels and the plurality of substantially perpendicular urine-collection channels intersect (Axelrod et al., Fig. 10, where the plurality of urine-collection channels (“a channel is defined between adjacent ridges”) at least intersect at the corners).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (U.S. Pub. 20010042517).
In regard to claim 9, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 8. Ikegami et al. is silent on the at least one internal layer has a thickness and the at least one urine-collection channel extends into the thickness of the at least one internal layer in a range of 25% to 95% of the thickness of the at least one internal layer. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Ikegami et al. to have the at least one internal layer have a thickness and the at least one urine-collection channel extend into the thickness of the at least one internal layer in a range of 25% to 95% of the thickness of the at least one internal layer, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the at least one internal layer and the at least one urine-collection channel of Ikegami et al. The motivation would have been to allow the channels to have enough size and volume to collect and hold a large portion of the expelled urine, at any point in time.
In regard to claim 10, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1. Ikegami et al. is silent on the at least one urine-collection channel has a width in a range of 0.5 inch to 3 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Ikegami et al. to have the at least one urine-collection channel have a width in a range of 0.5 inch to 3 inches, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the at least one urine-collection channel of Ikegami et al. The motivation would have been to allow the channels to have enough size and volume to collect and hold a large portion of the expelled urine, at any point in time.
Claims 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (U.S. Pub. 20010042517) in view of Takahashi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20090000561).
In regard to claim 11, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1. Ikegami et al. is silent on the at least one urine-collection channel is U-shaped, V-shaped or semi-circular shaped. Takahashi et al. discloses the at least one urine-collection channel is U-shaped, V-shaped or semi-circular shaped (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0038], where the at least one urine-collection channel is U-shaped or semi-circular shaped (“a plurality of convex portions 27”)). Ikegami et al. and Takahashi et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the at least one urine-collection channel is U-shaped, V-shaped or semi-circular shaped in view of Takahashi et al. The motivation would have been to provide a sloping surface for the urine to flow into the channels relatively easily via gravity.
In regard to claim 13, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1. Ikegami et al. is silent on the top layer, inclusive of the at least one urine-repellant area, slopes towards the at least one urine-collection channel. Takahashi et al. discloses the top layer, inclusive of the at least one urine-repellant area, slopes towards the at least one urine-collection channel (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0038], where the top layer slopes towards the at least one urine-collection channel (“a plurality of convex portions 27”)). Ikegami et al. and Takahashi et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the top layer, inclusive of the at least one urine-repellant area, slopes towards the at least one urine-collection channel in view of Takahashi et al. The motivation would have been to provide a sloping surface for the urine to flow into the channels relatively easily via gravity.
In regard to claim 14, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1. Ikegami et al. is silent on the top layer, inclusive of the at least one urine-repellant area, is convex. Takahashi et al. discloses the top layer, inclusive of the at least one urine-repellant area, is convex (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0038], where the top layer is convex (“a plurality of convex portions 27”)). Ikegami et al. and Takahashi et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the top layer, inclusive of the at least one urine-repellant area, is convex in view of Takahashi et al. The motivation would have been to provide a sloping surface for the urine to flow into the channels relatively easily via gravity.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (U.S. Pub. 20010042517) in view of McLane et al. (U.S. Pub. 20160158969).
In regard to claim 15, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1. Ikegami et al. is silent on the at least one urine-repellant area repels at least 75% of urine disposed thereon from being absorbed by the top layer. McLane et al. discloses the at least one urine-repellant area repels at least 75% of urine disposed thereon from being absorbed by the top layer (Paragraphs [0058-0060], where most of the fluid disposed on the area is repelled by the superhydrophobic surface). Ikegami et al. and McLane et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fluid repellant materials. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the at least one urine-repellant area repels at least 75% of urine disposed thereon from being absorbed by the top layer in view of McLane et al. The motivation would have been to encourage a majority of the urine to flow into the channels and away from the top surface of the device.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegami et al. (U.S. Pub. 20010042517) in view of Calimano et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140261208).
In regard to claim 16, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1. Ikegami et al. is silent on the at least one urine-repellant area is formed of a hydrophobic polymer. Calimano et al. discloses the at least one urine-repellant area is formed of a hydrophobic polymer (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0030], where the at least one urine-repellant area (top layer 16) is formed of a hydrophobic polymer). Ikegami et al. and Calimano et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pet care devices. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the at least one urine-repellant area is formed of a hydrophobic polymer in view of Calimano et al. The motivation would have been to encourage a majority of the urine to flow into the channels and absorb into the internal layer of the pad.
In regard to claim 18, Ikegami et al. discloses the animal training pad of claim 1. Ikegami et al. is silent on the at least one internal layer further comprises at least one of an attractant layer, a scented layer, or scent masking layer. Calimano et al. discloses the at least one internal layer further comprises at least one of an attractant layer, a scented layer, or scent masking layer (Paragraph [32] and Fig. 2, where the at least one internal layer 17 further comprises a scented layer (“fragrance additive”)). Ikegami et al. and Calimano et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pet care devices. 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 device body of Ikegami et al. such that the at least one internal layer further comprises at least one of an attractant layer, a scented layer, or scent masking layer in view of Calimano et al. The motivation would have been to encourage the animal to use the pad and to relatively reduce the undesired odors associated with urine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of animal care devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
