The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on October 2, 2025.
Claims 1-9 are pending. There are no amended claims.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pak (US 2007/0270322) and the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pak as applied to claims 1-6 above are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Abstract of the Disclosure
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure stands objected to because it is not limited to a single paragraph. Please note that the abstract has multiple indents. In addition, the TITLE of the invention should not be part of the paragraph, and should avoid “Present invention relates to.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng (US 2009/0192070) for the reasons set forth in the previous office action which is repeated below for Applicant’s convenience.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6, Feng teaches a cleansing bar, comprising: a surfactant-containing cleansing body that includes: a top surface; a bottom surface, substantially opposite to the top surface (see claim 1); wherein the top surface comprises a center region, and a first groove extending between the center region and the first end (see claim 2); wherein the top surface further comprises a second groove extending between the center region and the first end, the first and second grooves together forming a first pair of substantially parallel grooves (see claim 3); wherein the top surface further comprises a third and fourth groove extending between the center region and the second end, the third and fourth grooves together forming a second pair of substantially parallel grooves (see claim 5). See also FIG. 1 and FIG. 3C below:
PNG
media_image1.png
670
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
248
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As evidenced from the Figures above, the area ratio recited in claim 3 and the angle between the top plane and the bottom plane recited in claim 5 are within those recited. Feng teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Feng anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above for the reasons set forth in the previous office action which is repeated below for Applicant’s convenience.
Regarding claims 4 and 7-9, Feng teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Feng teaches that the top surface of the cleansing bar comprises a center region, and a first groove and a second groove extending between the center region and the first end, and a third and fourth groove extending between the center region and the second end (see claim 5). Feng, however, fails to disclose the difference between the height of the first end and the height of the second end of the groove which is greater than or equal to 1 mm, greater than or equal to 2 mm, greater than or equal to 3 mm, or greater than or equal to 5 mm as recited in claims 4, 7-9, respectively.
Even though Feng does not specifically disclose the difference between the height of the first end and the height of the second end of the groove, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the differences between the height of the first end and the height of the second end of the grooves through routine experimentation for best results, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng, Applicant argues that although Feng discloses a soap or detergent bar (10) including a top surface (12) and; a bottom surface (14), and a groove running across its top surface, Feng fails to disclose the height difference on the top surface from the first end to the other end, as recited by Independent Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because it is evident in Fig. 1 that the height of the first end is greater than the height of the second end, as seen in the top surface (12) and the end (16). In addition, in paragraph [0022], Feng teaches that the top surface (12) may be substantially flat, or may be irregular, which means that the top surface is not even or balanced in shape or arrangement.
With respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, Applicant argues that Feng fails to disclose the difference between the height of the first end and the height of the second end as recited in claims 4 and 7-9.
The response in Feng above, apply here as well. And as previously recited, even though Feng does not specifically disclose the difference between the height of the first end and the height of the second end of the groove, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the differences between the height of the first end and the height of the second end of the grooves through routine experimentation for best results, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Please also note that a difference in 1 mm as recited in claim 4, or 2 mm, 3 mm or 5mm, as recited in claims 7-9, respectively, would fall within the bounds of the “substantially flat” or “irregular top surface” taught by Feng in paragraph [0022]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights