Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/449,246

BAR SOAP EXFOLIANT WRAPPING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Examiner
KARLS, SHAY LYNN
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 1308 resolved
-1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1361
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1308 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 22c. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22a” has been used to designate both transverse stitching and lateral stitching (paragraph 0023). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Duden (PGPub 20020025215). Duden teaches a method, comprising: (a) providing one or more sections of material (textured films) having sufficient area to fully encompass one or more volumes of soap (solid cleanser), (b) placing the one or more volumes of soap in operative connection with the one or more sections of material, and (c) non-removably securing (paragraph 0041) the one or more volumes of soap within the one or more sections of material, whereby the one or more volumes of soap are fully enveloped (paragraph 0044) within a volume formed by the one or more sections of material, wherein at least one of the one or more sections of material is formed from an exfoliant material. With regards to claim 2, the one or more volumes of soap are secured within the volume formed by the one or more sections of material by sewing, stitching (paragraph 0041), sonic welding, or heat sealing. With regards to claim 3, each of the one or more sections of material is formed from an exfoliant material (textured films). With regards to claim 4, Duden teaches one or more sections of material (textured films) fully encompassing (paragraph 0044) one or more volumes of soap (solid cleanser), the one or more sections of material being non-removably securing (stitching; paragraph 0041) so that one or more volumes of soap are fully encompassed within a volume formed by the one or more sections of material, wherein at least one of the one or more sections of material are formed from an exfoliant material (textured film). With regards to claim 5, the one or more volumes of soap are secured within the volume formed by the one or more sections of material by sewing, stitching (paragraph 0044), sonic welding, or heat sealing. With regards to claim 6, each of the one or more sections of material is formed from an exfoliant material (textured film). 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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duden (‘215) in view of Nyoca (GB 2606783). Duden teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention including that stitching is used in connection with the one or more section of material to secure the one or more volumes of soap within the volume formed by the one or more sections of material (paragraph 0041) (claim 9). Duden however fails to teach that the exfoliant material comprises a biopolymer (claim 7), such as a burlap or a jute (claim 8). Nyoca teaches a washing garment, wherein the garment is made from jute (page 5, 4th paragraph). The applicant describes jute as a biopolymer in paragraph 0023 in their specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duden so that it is made from jute as taught by Nyoca since jute is a biodegradable material that can be easily disposed of after the soap is gone. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use jute, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duden (‘215) and Nyoca (‘783) in view of Jiang (CN 202826600). Duden and Nyoca teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach that the material for the stitching comprises a biopolymer (claim 10) such as cotton (claim 11). Jiang teaches a cleaning cloth with stitching (15) that is a cotton thread (paragraph 0021). Cotton is described as a biopolymer in paragraph 0018 of the applicant’s specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duden and Nyoca so that the stitching is made from a cotton thread as taught by Jiang to further assist in creating a completely biodegradable cleaning device. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a cotton threading, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm). 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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. /SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594588
Sucker Rod Wiping Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583012
LOCKING ASSEMBLY AND ROLLER ASSEMBLY EMPLOYING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576318
TOWEL WITH INTEGRATED BRUSH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575662
TOOTHBRUSH WITH REPLACEABLE BRUSH HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569324
ORAL CARE SYSTEM, IMPLEMENT, AND/OR KIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+26.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1308 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month