DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 2/9/2026 wherein claims 1 and 12 have been amended and claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/9/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11-13 and 15-18 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Yoo et al. (KR 20140141013). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/9/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 12-18 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Somerville et al. (US 2020/0038308). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/9/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Stephens et al. (US 2011/0197447) in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2007/0254947). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/9/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 5, 11, 15 and 18 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Stephens et al. (US 2011/0197447) in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2007/0254947), further in view of Blasko-Begoihn et al. (EP 1731197). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 2/9/2026 cancelling claim 6 renders moot the rejection of made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Stephens et al. (US 2011/0197447) in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2007/0254947) further in view of Liu et al. (CN 109280204), evidenced by Mesh Conversion Chart. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 19 all independently recite “… and wherein the lubricating material exhibits a Storage Modulus greater than 1 at an angular frequency of 10 (rad/sec).” This quoted limitation is unclear for two reasons: 1) the numerical value of the storage modulus has no units so there is no way to understand the value being claimed; and 2) the (rad/sec) in parenthesis after “10” is confusing as it’s unclear if it is a unit of the angular frequency value or something else. Clarification is required. Claims dependent from these indefinite claims are rejected by their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 2011/0197447; of record) in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2007/0254947; of record), Liu et al. (CN 109280204, translation provided; of record), evidenced by Mesh Conversion Chart, and Zhang et al. (US 2021/0015969).
Stephens is directed to a hair removal device comprising moisturizing components.
The hair removal device is a razor (i.e. blade) wherein the solid moisturizing composition may be provided on the razor cartridge (‘housing’), such as a strip located before/after the blade (see [0013]) (see instant claims 1 and 10).
The moisturizing composition is to be formed from a butadiene-styrene copolymer (see [0013]) (see instant claims 2 and 3).
The moisturizing composition may comprise fatty acids and fatty alcohols (see [0017]) (see instant claims 2, 3, 12-14 and 19) in addition to polyalkylene glycol (polyethylene oxide) (see [0002, 003, 0013]) (see instant claims 9 and 17).
Methods of making the moisturizing strip include melt formation by heating a mixture of the moisturizing ingredients and then cooling the mixture in a container/mould to produce the final product (see [0028]) (see instant claims 4, 19 and 20).
Stephens fails to teach the moisturizing strip of the hair removal device as comprising polyglutamic acid.
Takiguchi is directed to compositions for use on the skin. Like Stephens, Takiguchi’s composition is to include a moisturizing agent. Exemplified moisturizing agents include polyethylene oxide and polyglutamic acid (see [0067]) which are to be present in the composition in an amount up to 30% by weight (see [0068]) (see instant claims 7, 8, 12 and 16). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Stephen’s moisturizing strip with polyglutamic acid as it was a known moisturizing agent. The selection of a known material based on its intended use (i.e. moisturizing active) is indicative of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding instant claim 8, it is noted that 30% taught by Takiguchi is less than the minimum 40% being claimed. However, the proportions are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar results. See MPEP 2144.05(I). It is also important to note that the amount of moisturizer used in the final product would have been an obvious parameter to adjust/optimize. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Stephens and Takiguchi fail to teach the PGA as being in the form of a discrete particle wherein 90% or more of the particles pass through a 20 mesh screen.
Liu is directed to cosmetic compositions comprising microspheres wherein the microspheres are to contain polyglutamic acid and have a size of between 0.02 mm (20 microns) and 1 mm (1000 microns) (see claim 1). A particle sizing of 0.02 would meet the requirement that at least 90% of the microspheres would pass through a 20 mesh screen (20 micron particle <840 micron mesh). Additionally, it is taught by Liu that such particles are useful as they possess good stability and are excellent at removing toxic materials from the surface of the skin which would be a desirable addition to the moisturizing combination of Stephens and Takiguchi.
Stephens, Takiguchi and Liu fail to teach the PGA containing composition as having a storage modulus greater than 1 at an angular frequency of 10 (rad/sec).
Zhang is directed to medical devices that have a shape memory effect. It is taught that PGA is by its nature a rigid and brittle material (see [0002]) and that its inclusion into flexible materials imparts such properties (see [0063, 0066]). [0066] teaches that inclusion of PGA particles into flexible polymeric materials (e.g. PDO) improved the storage modulus of the resulting material. The compositions with more PGA particles showed a higher storage modulus such that the flexible polymeric material comprising 20% PGA particles resulted in a doubling of the storage modulus (840 MPa) compared to polymer free of PGA. Thus, the presence of PGA in the material contributed a net 420 MPa to the storage modulus of the material. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that adding PGA particles generally serves to increase the storage modulus of a material where said material has a lower initial storage modulus properties relative to the composition comprising PGA. As such, assuming Stephen’s moisturizing strip has a lower storage modulus than the same strip but comprising PGA, the increase in storage modulus observed by Zhang would be expected to carry over and would be dependent on the amount of PGA added. Thus, the storage modulus of the resulting composition would be tunable to ones’ desires. Regarding the value of the storage modulus of the PGA containing composition, the instant claims do not recite any units. However, given that the prior art indicates that 20% PGA added 420 MPa to the resulting composition, it would be reasonable to expect the modification of Stephens to encompass a similar value dynamic.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 5, 11, 15 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 2011/0197447; of record) in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2007/0254947; of record) and Liu et al. (CN 109280204, translation provided; of record), evidenced by Mesh Conversion Chart, and Zhang et al. (US 2021/0015969) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Blasko-Begoihn et al. (EP 1731197, translation provided; of record).
Stephens, Takiguchi Liu and Zhang fail to teach the polyglutamic acid as having a molecular weight over 100,000 Daltons.
Blasko is directed to skin compositions for providing moisture.
Blasko teaches that polyamino acids such as polyglutamic acid are used to provide moisturizing benefit to the skin of users thereof. Blasko teaches that the polyglutamic acid may have a molecular weight of up to 2,000,000 (see page 5 and claim 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to use a polyglutamic acid of such a molecular weight with a reasonable expectation for success as it was known that they were used in skin compositions for providing moisturizing benefit.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 18, these are claims to an exact chemical formula of polyglutamic acid where the polyglutamic acid has at least 700 repeating glutamic acid residues. This roughly equates to 100,000 Daltons as set forth in instant claims 5 and 15. However, as noted before such molecular weights would have been obvious.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights