Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/563,178

SOLID SHAVING AID COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 21, 2023
Examiner
SONG, JIANFENG
Art Unit
1613
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
BIC Violex Single Member S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
468 granted / 834 resolved
-3.9% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
77 currently pending
Career history
911
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
48.2%
+8.2% vs TC avg
§102
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 834 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of invention group I, claims 1-2, 17, 19-20, 22-30 and 34-40 in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The non-elected invention (claims 31-33) has been cancelled. Applicants further elected hydroxylated hydrocarbon-based wax such as cetearyl alcohol as specific wax; quaternary ammonium salt having general formula (I) in claim 19 such as behentrimonium methosulfate as specific cationic surfactant; castor oil derivative such as castoryl maleate as specific oil. It appears that applicants elected grouping of patentably indistinct species hydroxylated hydrocarbon-based wax, quaternary ammonium salt having general formula (I) in claim 19, and castor oil derivative. Any species belongs to those applicants elected grouping of patentably indistinct species are obvious variant from each other; cetearyl alcohol, behentrimonium methosulfate and castoryl maleate are only one of examples. Claims 1-2, 19-20, 22-30, 34 and 40 read on the elected species and are under examination; Claims 17 and 35-39 do not read on the elected species and are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-2, 17, 19-20, 22-30 and 34-40 are pending; Claims 1-2, 19-20, 22-30, 34 and 40 are under examination. Priority Acknowledge is made that this application is national stag of international patent application PCT/EP2022/064520, filed on 05/30/2022; which claims priority from European patent application EP21176933.6, filed on 05/31/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 is being considered by the examiner. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1-2, 19-20, 22-25, 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppe-Epstein et al. (US20090223057) in view of Federle et al. (US20110171155). Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Coppe-Epstein et al. teaches razor assembly including cartridge comprising a housing with front and rear edge and shaving blades between front and rear edge. A shaving aid strip (read on shaving aid bar) disposed around the periphery of blades (Fig. 1-6, [0012-0018]). A shaving aid material, comprising: a water-soluble shaving aid; and a water-insoluble erodable medium that has a melting point above about 45° C., and has a molecular weight below about 25,000; and wherein the water-soluble shaving aid is at least partially soluble or miscible with the water-insoluble erodable medium; wherein the water-insoluble erodable medium comprises an amphipathic material; the amphipathic material includes a fatty alcohol including at least one of stearic acid, palmitic acid, 12-hydroxystearic acid, stearyl alcohol, cetyl alcohol, behenyl alcohol, cetearyl alcohol, arachidyl alcohol, C20-40 and C30-50 linear alcohols, paraffin wax, beeswax, carnauba wax, candelilla, soy wax, silicone wax, wax esters, hydrogenated castor oil, and polyethyle wax (claims 1-13). The shaving aid material is a composite that includes a water-soluble lubricious shaving aid in combination with a water-insoluble erodable medium. In some embodiments, the shaving aid material further includes a water-soluble thermoplastic polymer, and may also include a plasticizer. Optional additional ingredients include emulsifiers, surfactants, skin conditioners, fragrances, depilatory agents, cleaning agents, medicinal agents, etc., as will be described below. In addition to PEO, or in some instances in place of PEO, the water-soluble shaving aid may include one or more of the following constituents: (A) a lubricating agent for reducing the frictional forces between the razor and the skin, e.g., a micro-encapsulated silicone oil; (B) an agent that reduces the drag between the razor parts and the shaver's face, e.g., a natural polysaccharide derived from plant materials such as guar gum; (C) an agent which modifies the chemical structure of the hair to allow the razor blade to pass through the whiskers very easily, e.g., a depilatory agent; (D) a cleaning agent which allows the whiskers and skin debris to be washed more easily from the razor parts during shaving, e.g., a silicone polyethylene oxide block copolymer and detergent such as sodium lauryl sulphate; (E) a medicinal agent for killing bacteria, or repairing skin damage and abrasions; (F) a cosmetic agent for softening, smoothing, conditioning or improving the skin; (G) a blood coagulant for the suppression of bleeding that may occur from nicks and cuts; and (H) an astringent for constricting blood vessels thereby stemming the flow of bodily fluids such as lymph, which may exude from skin which has been irritated during shaving. The water-soluble shaving aid may include constituents that by themselves are partially or completely water-insoluble, but in combination with other shaving aid constituents are water-soluble to an acceptable degree ([0019-0020]). Fatty alcohol behaves as nonionic surfactant ([0023]). Group 5 examples include at least a fatty alcohol, a cationic surfactant, and PEO ([0029]). The amount of fatty alcohol is from 40% to 65% by weight ([0032, 0034]). Federle et al. teaches personal care composition including shaving aid ([0024, 0259], claims 19 and 23). If present, the cationic surfactant system is included in the composition at a level by weight of from about 0.1% to about 10%. A variety of cationic surfactants including mono- and di-alkyl chain cationic surfactants can be used in the compositions of the present invention. Among them, preferred are mono-alkyl chain cationic surfactants in view of providing desired gel matrix and wet conditioning benefits. Examples of preferred mono-long alkyl quaternized ammonium salt cationic surfactants include: behenyl trimethyl ammonium salt; stearyl trimethyl ammonium salt; cetyl trimethyl ammonium salt; and hydrogenated tallow alkyl trimethyl ammonium salt. Mono-alkyl amines, and primary, secondary, and tertiary fatty amines are useful as cationic surfactants. Nonlimiting examples of cationic surfactants are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,275,055, incorporated herein by reference ([0288-0289]). Nonlimiting examples of such counterions include halides (e.g., chloride, fluoride, bromide, iodide), sulfate and methylsulfate ([0295]). Appropriate cationic compound includes, for example, cetyltrimonium chloride (CTAC), stearyltrimonium chloride (STAC), stearoylamidopropyldimethyl amine (SAPDMA), and distearyldimethylammonium chloride ([0373]). Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) The difference between the instant application and Coppe-Epstein et al. is that Coppe-Epstein et al. do not expressly teach quaternary ammonium salt having general formula (I). This deficiency in Coppe-Epstein et al. is cured by the teachings of Federle et al. Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) 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 invention of Coppe-Epstein et al., as suggested by Federle et al., and produce the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include quaternary ammonium salt having general formula (I) as cationic surfactant in shaving aid strip because quaternary ammonium salt having general formula (I) such as behenyl trimethyl ammonium salt is a suitable cationic surfactant in shaving aid composition. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Coppe-Epstein et al. teaching cationic surfactant in shaving aid strip, Federle et al. teaching shaving aid comprising in the composition at a level by weight of from about 0.1% to about 10% of cationic surfactants such as behenyl trimethyl ammonium salt (with common counterions such as halides, sulfate and methylsulfate), it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include about 0.1% to about 10% of cationic surfactants such as behenyl trimethyl ammonium salt (with common counterions such as halides, sulfate and methylsulfate) and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding elected species, prior art teaches behenyl trimethyl ammonium salt (with common counterions such as halides, sulfate and methylsulfate), and thus, behenyl trimethyl ammonium chloride or behenyl trimethyl ammonium methylsulfate is obvious. Behenyl trimethyl ammonium methylsulfate is synonyms of behentrimonium methosulfate. Regarding claims 1-2, 19-20, 22 and 34, prior art teaches razor assembly including cartridge comprising a housing with front and rear edge and shaving blades between front and rear edge. A shaving aid strip (read on shaving aid bar) disposed around the periphery of blades (Fig. 1-6, [0012-0018]). A shaving aid strip comprising 40-65% of fatty alcohol such as cetearyl alcohol, 1-10% of cationic surfactant behentrimonium methosulfate. Regarding claims 23-24, no fatty acid or silicone compound is required since each of them is listed as alternative to other ingredients. Regarding claim 25, prior art teaches PEO, which is regarded as nonionic surfactant. Regarding claim 40, no water is required in the shaving aid strip. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppe-Epstein et al. (US20090223057) in view of Federle et al. (US20110171155), as applied for the above 103 rejections for claims 1-2, 19-20, 22-25, 34 and 40, further in view of O’Grady et al. (US20070110703), Pesikov (US20120102741) and Harris et al. (US20170156999). Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Coppe-Epstein et al. and Federle et al. teaching have already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and are incorporated herein by reference. O’Grady et al. teaches Razors and components (abstract). The shaving aid includes about 0.5% to 7% of butter as emollient and or moisturizer ([0050]). In on example, the shaving aide includes 5% of butter or Castoryl maleate ([0109]). Pesikov teaches Shaving Aid Elements On A Razor Cartridge (title). Shaving aid portions of the present invention may generally include shave preparation ingredients such as lubricants, or skin soothing and conditioning ingredients such as emollients and moisturizers. These compositions may be modified to increase their hardness, wear resistance, lubricity and/or skin moisturizing and conditioning properties. The present invention contemplates any feasible desired formulation may be used to provide these skin care/skin improvement and/or enhanced shaving benefits ([0041]). Harris et al. teaches personal care composition (abstract). Examples of oils that may be used as a moisturizer include castoryl maleate ([0028]). Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) The difference between the instant application and Coppe-Epstein et al. is that Coppe-Epstein et al. do not expressly teach castoryl maleate and about 0.1% to 5% of butter. This deficiency in Coppe-Epstein et al. is cured by the teachings of O’Grady et al., Pesikov and Harris et al. Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) 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 invention of Coppe-Epstein et al., as suggested by O’Grady et al., Pesikov and Harris et al., and produce the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include castoryl maleate and or 0.1% -5% of butter in shaving aid strip because they suitable ingredients in shaving aid. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from O’Grady et al. teaching castoryl maleate and or 0.5% -7% of butter (as emollient) in shaving aid, Harris et al. teaching a moisturizer include castoryl maleate, Pesikov teaching Shaving Aid Elements skin soothing and conditioning ingredients such as emollients and moisturizers to provide these skin care/skin improvement and/or enhanced shaving benefits, thus, its advantage and obvious to include emollients and moisturizers such as castoryl maleate and or 0.1% -5% of butter in shaving aid strip and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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. /JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599562
NANOCRYSTAL MICROPARTICLES OF POORLY SOLUBLE DRUGS AND METHODS OF PRODUCTION AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599564
ANTIDIABETIC PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599569
ENCAPSULATED RESVERATROL (RSV) NANOPARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594238
LOW HYGROSCOPICITY ACTIVE POWDER COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582589
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR EYELASHES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
56%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+33.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 834 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month