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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Invention of Group I, claims 1-17, drawn to a shaving aid composition, and to the species of a. agar and b. an extruded soap base in the reply filed on 1/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim 9 is withdrawn as not being directed to the elected species of polysaccharide.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are under consideration to the extent that the shaving aid composition comprises the elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/29/23, 1/3/24, and 7/28/25. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the polysaccharide” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1 “one or more polysaccharides" encompasses multiple polysaccharides. It is unclear whether just one, more than one, or all of the polysaccharides must meet the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alexander et al. (US 2004/0185011).
Alexander et al. teach mixing a controlled amount of agar with regular oral, dental or skin hygiene compositions allows manufacture of homogenous, semi-solid single-use lumps or beads. Agar confers sufficient rigidity and a sufficiently high melting point for storage, yet allow disruption of the bead on the skin or in the mouth without residues (e.g. abstract).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 6, Alexander et al. exemplify a shaving composition comprising:
-a soap composition comprising, myristic acid, lauric acid, and stearic acid (i.e. a soap base), and
- agar (i.e. a natural wear agent polysaccharide) (e.g. Example 8 in [0133]).
Regarding Claim 4, Example 8 comprises 87 wt% soap base, which is within the claimed range (sum of myristic acid, lauric acid, glycerine, sodium borate, sodium lauryl sulfate, cocamide, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, mineral oil, stearic acid, and oleyl alcohol).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, Example 8 is extruded (e.g. paragraph 0141).
Regarding Claim 8, Example 8 does not comprise guar gum, gummi arabicum, locust bean gum, or xanthan gum.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Example 8 comprises 1 wt% agar, which is within the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 12, Example 8 does not comprise a synthetic lubricant polymer.
Regarding Claim 13, the instant Specification defines “substantially anhydrous” as containing less than 20 wt% water (e.g. paragraph 0011), and Example 8 of Anderson et al. comprises about 12 wt% water.
Regarding Claim 15, Example 8 comprises surfactants (sodium lauryl sulphate) and humectant/emollient (i.e. glycerine).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US 2004/0185011) in view of Coffin et al. (US 2004/0181949).
Regarding Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15, the teachings of Alexander et al. are described supra. Alexander et al. teach that the composition is a shaving composition and may be provided in a shaving kit comprising a razor (e.g. paragraph 0133), but do not teach that the composition is provided as a shaving aid body or strip. This is made up for by the teachings of Coffin et al.
Coffin et al. teach a razor cartridge having first and second razor blade assemblies and at least one solid shaving aid (e.g. abstract, paragraph 0017). Coffin et al. teach that the shaving aid may comprise polysaccharides (e.g. paragraph 0020) and sodium lauryl sulphate (e.g. paragraph 0022). Coffin et al. teach the benefit of the ability to apply a shaving aid, during a shaving operation, to increase lubricity would reduce or perhaps eliminate any discomfort (e.g. paragraph 0002) and the shaving aid provides the advantage of aiding the skin after a forward cutting stroke, while simultaneously preparing the skin for the return stroke (e.g. paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claims 14, 16 and 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the composition of Alexander et al. for use as the shaving aid of the razor of Coffin et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of the references teach solid shaving aids and razors comprising overlapping ingredients and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated in order to provide the benefits of increased lubricity and reduced discomfort, as taught by Coffin et al.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE PLOURDE BABSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3055. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4:30; F 8-12:30.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619