Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/721,439

FRAME MEMBER FOR USE WITH TREATMENT SHEET

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 15, 2022
Examiner
AYALA, FERNANDO A
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Gillette Company LLC
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
250 granted / 469 resolved
-16.7% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
63 currently pending
Career history
532
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 469 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1-2-26 has been entered. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein the housing windows” (in line 8) should read: “wherein the one or more housing windows”. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “an upper ledge” (in line 8) should read: “the [[an]] upper ledge”. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein one or more tabs extends into said at least one notch” should read “wherein the one or more tabs extends into said at least one notch”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 20 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. The limitation of Claim 20, reading: “an upper surface of said housing” is indefinite. It is not clear if applicant intends this housing wall to be the same as or different than the already claimed housing wall, of claim 17. 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 1-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20160332313, to O’Connor. Regarding Claim 1, O’Connor discloses a: personal care product (abstract) comprising: an upper product end (See annotated fig 4 below) and a lower product end (See annotated fig 4); a housing 12 at the upper product end, said housing comprising a housing wall (wall portions of 12) and one or more windows (portions 25 which lead to through holes 46 and 48) in said housing wall, each of the one or more windows comprising an upper ledge (See annotated fig 4); a frame member (42) comprising one or more tabs each of said one or more tabs comprising a bent portion, said one or more tabs coupled to said one or more windows (fig 4); wherein the housing windows are open areas that aid in rinsing debris produced during use of the personal care product (e.g. since the windows are open to a top of the product, thus, if a user pours water in the opening and then hits the whole product against a surface these windows will aid in rinsing debris produced during use of the personal care product) and wherein the bent portion of the tab wraps around the upper ledge of the window (fig 4) and wherein a portion of each of the one or more tabs forms a part of the outer surface of the personal care product (fig 4). PNG media_image1.png 697 999 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, in O’Connor said one or more tabs extend from an outer wall of said frame member (See annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 7, in O’Connor said one or more tabs wrap around an exterior of said housing wall (See annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 8, in O’Connor said each of said one or more tabs comprises a bent portion (See annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 9, in O’Connor said a quantity of said one or more tabs equals a quantity of said one or more windows (See annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 12, in O’Connor said wherein said housing wall is an exterior wall on said housing (see annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 13, in O’Connor said frame member comprises straight sections and corner sections (see annotated fig 4, below). Regarding Claim 14, in O’Connor said one or more tabs extend from said straight sections (see annotated fig 4, below). PNG media_image2.png 927 763 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 1, is also rejected (below) under an alternative interpretation of O’Connor, as follows: Regarding Claim 1, O’Connor (as interpreted herein) discloses a: personal care product (abstract) comprising: an upper product end (See annotated fig 4 below) and a lower product end (See annotated fig 4); a housing 12 at the upper product end, said housing comprising a housing wall (walls of part 12) and one or more windows (combination of surface portions 25 that lead to through openings 46 and 48, which accept arms/tabs of frame 42) in said housing wall, each of the one or more windows comprising an upper ledge (See annotated fig 4); a frame member (42) comprising one or more tabs each of said one or more tabs comprising a bent portion, said one or more tabs coupled to said one or more windows (fig 4); wherein the housing windows are open areas that aid in rinsing debris produced during use of the personal care product (e.g. since the windows are open to a top of the product, thus, if a user pours water in the opening and then hits the whole product against a surface these windows will aid in rinsing debris produced during use of the personal care product) and wherein the bent portion of the tab wraps around the upper ledge of the window (fig 4) and wherein a portion of each of the one or more tabs forms a part of the outer surface of the personal care product (fig 4, e.g. at the lower product portion). Regarding Claim 3, in O’Connor said housing wall comprises at least one notch (see annotated fig 4 below). Regarding Claim 4, in O’Connor said at least one notch is formed in an upper ledge of said one or more windows (see annotated fig 4 below). Regarding Claim 5, in O’Connor the one or more tabs extends into said at least one notch (see annotated fig 4 below). Regarding Claim 6, in O’Connor said one or more tabs is bent into said at least one notch (see annotated fig 4 below). PNG media_image3.png 635 959 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 7, in O’Connor said one or more tabs wrap around an exterior of said housing wall (see annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 8, in O’Connor said each of said one or more tabs comprises a bent portion (portion which wraps around the notches in annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 9, in O’Connor a quantity of said one or more tabs equals a quantity of said one or more windows (see annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 10, in O’Connor a quantity of said one or more tabs equals a quantity of said at least one notch (see annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 12, in O’Connor said housing wall is an exterior wall on said housing (see annotated fig 4 above). Regarding Claim 13, in O’Connor said frame member comprises straight sections and corner sections (see annotated fig 4 below). Regarding Claim 14, in O’Connor said one or more tabs extend from said straight sections (see annotated fig 4 below). PNG media_image4.png 927 763 media_image4.png Greyscale Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 2167833, to Gold. Regarding Claim 17, Gold discloses a method for assembling a personal care product (pg. 2, col. 2, 1-20), comprising the steps of: providing a housing (30) at an upper product end (top, fig 1), said housing comprising, an upper surface (top of housing 33), a housing top opening (opening of housing 33 which accepts plate 20, fig. 3), a housing wall (peripheral wall of housing 30, which is above windows 36h) and one or more windows (windows formed by openings 36h and ledges surrounding the openings 36h) in said housing wall (fig 3); providing a planar treatment sheet (20) over said housing top opening (fig 1) and on said upper surface of said housing (at top of parts 51/50 of the housing 30), said planar treatment sheet having a perimeter area (outer edges); providing a frame member (31) comprising one or more tabs (combination of parts 32 and 33), disposing said frame member (31) on said perimeter area of said treatment sheet (fig 3); joining said one or more tabs to said one or more windows (fig 3, at 40s, threaded part); and bending the one or more tabs to form one or more bent portion (at bent portion 33), wherein each of the one or more bent portion wraps-around the outer housing wall and an upper ledge of a window of the one or more windows (at 40s, threaded portion, see fig 3) and wherein a portion of each of the one or more tabs forms a part of the outer surface of the personal care product (at the parts 33). Regarding Claim 18, in Gold, said step of joining further comprises channeling said one or more tabs into one or more notches in said one or more windows of said housing, or both (since threading involves channeling into). Regarding Claim 19, in Gold, said frame member 31, is disposed over both an upper perimeter area of said treatment sheet (at 33) and an upper surface of said housing (at 32/40s). Regarding Claim 20, in Gold, wherein said step of joining further comprises providing a gap between an outer perimeter of said treatment sheet and a housing wall (see annotated fig 3 below). PNG media_image5.png 428 634 media_image5.png Greyscale 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. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20210354320, Kanakaris. O’Connor lacks the apparatus having wherein said housing of said upper product end is releasable from said lower product end. Kanakaris discloses a shaving cartridge assembly, in the same field of endeavor as the shaving cartridge assembly tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes an upper product end 10 and a lower product and 12, which are releasable from one another in order to allow the blade holding lower end to be used on different head parts of different types of heads, par 0021 and 0011. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Connor by having the said housing of said upper product end being releasable from said lower product end in order to allow the blade holding lower end to be used on different head parts of different types of heads as taught by Kanakaris. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US4984365, Leonard. Regarding Claim 15, in O’Connor said frame member 42 has a top inner perimeter, said top inner perimeter comprising an inner fillet with a radius (see annotated fig 4 below). PNG media_image6.png 834 698 media_image6.png Greyscale O’Connor lacks the radius ranging from about 0.05mm to about 0.3 mm. Leonard discloses a safety razor with a detachable cap 14 which has a skin engaging top surface thereon, in the same field of endeavor as the removable cap skin engaging tool of the present invention, and discloses that in such an assembly such a skin engaging surface is rounded to a particular radius in order to provide a smooth skin engaging surface (col 2 lines 35-51). Thus, Leonard discloses that the radius of a skin engaging surface of a cap is a result effective variable. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the radius of the filet in O’Connor being in the range of 0.05mm to 0.3mm because discovering an optimum radius in said range would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the skin engaged surface is smooth, as taught in Leonard. Indeed, Leonard is evidence that a rounded radiused surface is known in the art as a suitable skin engaging surface for an cutting device. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement of providing a smooth surface, since the modification merely requires the selection of a particular radius range. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a radius of a filet of the cover in the range of 0.05mm to 0.3mm in order to ensure that the skin engaging portion is smooth. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 9539734, Bozikis. Regarding Claim 16, O’Connor discloses said one or more tabs have a length (fig 12). Welsh lacks the length ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm and a width ranging from about 2 mm to about 5 mm. Bozikis discloses a blade support housing, in the same field of endeavor as the blade support of the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes tabs 200 which connect a frame 201 to a housing member 111 and to squeeze a treatment sheet 117 therebetween and discloses that the tabs have a length ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm (col 6 lines 25-35) and a width ranging from about 2 mm to about 5 mm (col. 5 lines 15-20) (see also col 4 lines 35-45, where it is noted that “the term “about” or “approximately” as used in the description and the appended claims should be understood to include the recited values or a value that is three times greater or one third of the recited values. For example, about 3 mm includes all values from 1 mm to 9 mm, and approximately 50 degrees includes all values from 16.6 degrees to 150 degrees.”) Thus, Bozikis discloses that the length and width of connecting tabs in such an assembly are result effective variables. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the tab length and width in O’Connor to be in the above cited ranges because discovering an optimum with and length in said range would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the parts secured by the tabs in the blade housing are secured therein (col 4 lines 35-45) as taught in Bozikis. Indeed, Bozikis is evidence that a such heights and widths are known in the art as a suitable blades securing means in a cutting device. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement of providing a blade securing means, since the modification merely requires the selection of a particular width and length. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a tab length ranging from about 2 mm to about 6 mm and a width ranging from about 2 mm to about 5 mm in order to ensure that the parts within the tabs and cover are secured therein. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 1/2/26, with respect to prior art rejections (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. None of the prior art comprises the features of a portion of each of the one or more tabs forms a part of the outer surface of the personal care product in addition to the rest of the features of Claim 1, nor a portion of each of the one or more tabs forms a part of the outer surface of the personal care product in addition to the rest of the features of claim 17. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of O’Connor. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 9009978 20110192032 8677628 4807360 5301425 7500312 10194942 4977670 5031317 2614321 4977670 20250296260 2167833 9009978 20210154870 11235485 20180361604 20220168912, and DE3623404A disclose state of the art shaving or personal care assembly’s with rinsing features. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard. 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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. /FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Nov 26, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 25, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583142
PUNCHING STATION AND METHOD FOR A RELIEF PLATE PRECURSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12533737
Method for Manufacturing a Rotatable Tool Body to Minimize Cutting Insert Runout, a Tool Body Produced Therefrom, and a Method of Using Such a Tool Body
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12527262
Hedge Trimmer
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12521804
MOBILE HANDHELD SAWING MACHINE HAVING A SCORING TOOL ON A LONGITUDINAL SIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12521807
Sawing Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+26.3%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 469 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