Response to Amendment
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Small et al (481253) are withdrawn.
As this reference teach all of the instantly required it is considered anticipatory.
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-14, 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small et al (481253) in view of Kemp (4251383) and further in view of EP (2189080) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 15-22 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 15, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (8324142) in view of Perkins (20160089325).
Snyder disclose soap bar comprises a frame having spaced side walls (2) and spaced end walls interconnected to form a hollow core (1), where the hollow core has at least one void, a top cover (4) overlying the hollow core, and a bottom cover (5) underlying the hollow core, each of the top and bottom covers has an outer edge, and the top and bottom covers being at least partially secured to the frame around the outer edges (abstract).
In FIG. 1, hollow core 1 is shown attached to bottom cover 5 and top cover 4. A portion of top cover 4 has been removed in the foreground for purpose of clarity. Hollow core 1 includes opposed parallel side walls 2 and opposed parallel end walls 6 which are interconnected to form a frame. Top cover 4 is attached to the top edge of every partition wall 3 and the top edge of every side wall 2 and end wall 6. This creates a structural diaphragm system to provide lateral stability for the thin partition wall 3 elements. Hollow core 1 is constructed with the hollow cells in a variety of two-dimensional or three-dimension shapes. In FIG. 1, rectangular-shaped hollow cells are shown. The interior of the hollow core 1 shown includes a series of partition walls 3 which, along with side wall 2 and end wall 6, create the rectangular hollow cells 7. The thickness of side walls 2 and end walls 6 may be the same, greater than, or less than the thickness of partition walls 3. The various partition walls 3 may vary in thickness. Side walls 2 and end walls 6 having thicker dimensions than the partition wall 3 may be preferred for structural strength in the completed soap bar.
The soap bar of the present invention is constructed from a top cover, a hollow cell soap core and a bottom cover. Two or more adjoining elements may be used in construction each cover. The top cover and bottom covers may also be wrapped around to cover the side walls and end walls of the soap bar. The bar of soap is assembled by attaching the top cover to the top edge of the hollow soap core and by attaching the bottom cover to the bottom edge of the hollow soap core. The interconnection is completed by a variety of methods such as lamination, casting (mold), dipping, spraying or pressure (col. 3, lines 33-43).
Snyder teaches soap core for the container that is a hollow soap with a core, however, the specific volume and ingredients such as coconut oil, olive oil, sunflower oil, sodium hydroxide and water.
Perkins disclose soap bar comprising A soap composition for the treatment of skin conditions and irritations, comprising 40-50 wt. % soy oil, 15-25 wt. % coconut oil, 1-10 wt. % olive oil, 0.5-5 wt. % cocoa butter, 15-25 wt. % water, and 5-15 wt. % sodium hydroxide (claim 1) and sunflower oil (0024 and claim 6).
It would have been obvious to the skill artisan to include the ingredients as specified in Perkins to the bar compositions of Snyder given that Perkins teaches that said ingredients are known in bars for medicinal and skin purposes and one skilled in the absent of a showing to the contrary, would have been motivated to include for additional benefits of the bars of Snyder which is open to the inclusion of a variety of bar soap ingredients.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to the container as claimed, EP ‘080 disclose a container comprising sides and top with solid applicator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761