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 .
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.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 19 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 recite the limitation “preferably” and it is not clear if these limitations are required or not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “cured” and does not state what the limitation refers to or requires. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 2008/0191120) in view of Conery (US 875,985).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Wright (hereafter “D1”) discloses a bar of soap (20/21) having a substantially cuboid shape (disclosed in figure 2) having a length, a thickness and a width and having a clear hole ([0020] discloses a cylindrical stick 30 through the soap bar) of at least 5mm diameter running centrally through the length of the bar of soap from a first end having a top surface to a second end having a bottom surface (D1 discloses diameter between ¼ and 3/8 inches – [0020]), the clear hole arranged to receive a spindle (stick 30) or nipple at each end to define an axis of rotation. D1 does not disclose wherein at least one end of the first and second ends of the bar of soap has a surface feature including a plurality of lines at least 0.5mm deep that provide discontinuity in the surface to promote fragmentation of the soap on rotation of the bar about the axis of rotation over a grating element.
Conery teaches a soap cake or bar (1) comprising a grooved surface (at 4), the grooves or lines being formed to extend away from a top center area and for the purpose of better lathering (pg. 1, lines 57-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add lines or grooves as taught by D2 to any/all of the surfaces of the soap bar of D1 for the purpose of enhanced lathering ability.
Regarding claim 2, D1 as modified discloses wherein the hole (at stick 30) has a volume which is at least about 1% of the volume of the bar of soap, preferably at least about 5% (based on figure 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, D1 as modified discloses wherein the hole has a volume of at most 15% of the volume of the bar of soap (disclosed based on figures and dimensions given in [0020]).
Regarding claim 5, D1 as modified discloses wherein the hole has a diameter of at most about 20mm, preferably at most about 15mm (.25 to .375 inch diameter range taught – [0020]).
Regarding claim 6, D1 as modified discloses wherein the substantially cuboid shape (figure 2) has a length in the range of 55 to 85mm (length range from 3 to 5 inch disclosed – [0020]), a width in the range of 50 to 75mm and a thickness in the range of 20 to 45mm (proportions of figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, D1 as modified discloses wherein the diameter of the hole is at least about 8mm, preferably approximately 10 mm ([0020]).
Regarding claim 10, D1 as modified discloses wherein the plurality of lines extend across the at least one end of the bar of soap on at least one of the top and bottom surfaces (lines added from teaching of D2).
Regarding claim 11, D1 as modified discloses wherein the edges of the bar of soap are rounded or chamfered (figures 1-3 – D1).
Regarding claim 12, D1 as modified discloses wherein the bar of soap has indented sides (added grooves from D2 meet the limitation of indentions on the sides).
Regarding claim 14, D1 as modified discloses wherein the hole has a surface area on the top and bottom surfaces which is between 2 and 10% of the area of the respective surface (based on figures and hole diameter disclosed in [0020]).
Regarding claim 16, D1 as modified discloses a logo on the side surface (figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to alternatively or additionally place a logo on the end surfaces as already suggested in D1.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 2008/0191120) in view of Conery (US 875,985) and Gadgil et al. (US 11,938,202).
Regarding claims 18-19, D1 as modified by Conery does not state having a final water content of less than 15% and glycerin content below 10%. Gadgil et al. (hereafter “D4”) is referenced to teach that it is well known to have a soap bar composition comprising a water content of 8-15 percent and a glycerin content of 0.75 to 1.25 percent by weight (col. 1, lines 11-17; col. 7, lines 15-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a water content of 8-15 percent and a glycerin content of 0.75 to 1.25 percent by weight for the device of D1 in view of D2, as taught by D3, as an obvious selection of optimal known material for the intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights