Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/762,564

RAZOR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 22, 2022
Examiner
CORNETT, ROBERT D
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kai R&D Center Co. Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
39%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 39% of cases
39%
Career Allow Rate
17 granted / 44 resolved
-31.4% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+43.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
77
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 44 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 3. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (US 2005/0039338 A1), hereafter known as King, in view of Cowan (US 1,288,522 A), Caves (US 4,441,252 A), Gers-Barlag et al, (US 2016/0151924 A1), Murgida (US 2011/0017387 A1) and Wattam et al. (US 2018/0257249 A1). Regarding claim 1, King teaches a razor (King, Figs. 1-3) comprising: a grip portion (King, Figs. 1-3, 12) extending in a predetermined longitudinal direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) to be served for a gripping of a user, a head portion (King, Figs. 1-2, 14) having a blade body (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), and the head portion extending in a width direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) crossing the longitudinal direction, a connecting portion (King, Figs. 1 and 3, 20 and 22) connecting the grip portion and the head portion (King, Fig. 1, 12, 14, 20 and 22), wherein the connecting portion includes a first connecting element (King, Figs. 1 and 3, 20) and a second connecting element (King, Figs. 1 and 3, 22) respectively connecting both ends of the head portion (King, Figs. 1 and 2, 30 and 32) and ends of the grip portion (King, Figs. 1-3, 18) in the width direction and a penetrating opening portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) is formed between the first connecting element (King, Figs. 1 and 3, 20) and the second connecting element (King, Figs. 1 and 3, 22), with respect to a vertical direction crossing both the longitudinal direction and the width direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), the height of the connecting portion (King, Figs. 1 and 3, 20 and 22) is smaller than both the height of the head portion (King, Figs. 1-2, 14) and the height of the grip portion (King, Figs. 1-3, 12), as can be seen in Fig. 1 of King the connection portion in the vertical direction is both smaller than the head portion and the grip portion, wherein the longitudinal direction, the vertical direction, and the width direction are orthogonal to each other (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), while these directions are not specifically disclosed by King it is understood that these directions exist as it shown in the annotated image of Fig. 1 of King and for these directions to be orthogonal to each other the same as it would be for the x, y, and z directions on a standard axis, wherein of the longitudinal direction, the vertical direction, and the width direction, a longest dimension of the razor is in the longitudinal direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), the grip portion includes a top face portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), a pair of side wall portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), the second side wall can be seen in Fig. 3 of King and is opposite the side wall pointed to in the annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 of King, extending to cross a face direction of the top portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) from both the end portions of the top face portion in the width direction, and width direction ribs (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) connecting the pair of the side wall portions in the width direction and connecting the top face portion and the pair of side wall portions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), each of the top face portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), the pair of side wall portions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) and the width direction ribs (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) is provided with a finger placing face on which the fingers of the user can rest, all of these structure has faces on which a finger is capable of being placed, wherein at least two auxiliary ribs (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) are provided to connect the top face portion and adjacent width direction ribs to each other (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below), wherein each of the at least two auxiliary ribs (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) is provided with an auxiliary rib finger placing face such that the auxiliary finger placing face is flush with the finger placing face of the width direction ribs, as can be seen in the annotated image of Fig. 1 of King there are several auxiliary ribs disclosed by King with one auxiliary rib having a finger placing face that is not flush with the finger placing face width direction rib and a second and third auxiliary rib having a finger placing face that is flush with the finger placing face of the width direction rib, wherein the at least two auxiliary ribs (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) below) is provided obliquely to the longitudinal direction, obliquely to the width direction, and obliquely to the vertical direction, the auxiliary rib as shown in annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 of King is oblique to the longitudinal direction as it is not parallel, is oblique to the width direction as it is not orthogonal to the width, and is oblique to the vertical direction as it is inclined. King does not teach a comb portion provided adjacent to the blade body, wherein the width of the grip portion in the width direction is equal to or more than the width of the head portion in the width direction entirely in the longitudinal direction, and the width of the grip portion in the width direction gradually increases in the longitudinal direction as leaving away from the head portion, and wherein the width of the grip portion is larger than the width of the head portion in the width direction, and the width direction ribs are provided obliquely both to the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction, and wherein the at least two auxiliary ribs are formed symmetrically and mirrored (in pair) across the central line in the longitudinal direction so as to extend in the longitudinal direction in a zigzag-manner. Cowan teaches a head portion (Cowan, Fig. 1, A-D) with a comb portion (Cowan, Fig. 1, 3, and 5, A and C) adjacent to the blade body (Cowan, Fig. 1, D), wherein the comb portion (Cowan, Fig. 1, 3, and 5, A and C) includes a comb portion first component body (Cowan, Fig. 1 and 3, A) and a comb portion second component body (Cowan, Fig. 1 and 5, C) opposing to the comb portion first component body in the longitudinal direction (Cowan, Fig. 2, A and C) and the blade body is clamped between the comb portion first component body and the comb portion second component body (Cowan, Fig. 2, A, C and D). Such comb portions allow for the adjustment in hair trimming length and improved safety (Cowan, Pg. 2, lines 74-89). Caves teaches a head portion (Caves, Figs. 1-4, 12, 14, and 16) with a comb portion (Caves, Figs. 1-4, 14 and 16) adjacent to the blade body (Caves, Fig. 1, 12), wherein the comb portion includes a comb first component body (Caves, Figs. 1-4, 14) and a comb second component body (Caves, Figs. 1-4, 16) opposing the comb portion first component body in the longitudinal direction (Caves, Fig. 4, 14 and 16), wherein the blade body (Caves, Fig. 1, 12) is clamped between the comb portion first component body and the comb portion second component body (Caves, Col. 2, lines 46-52), and wherein the comb portion first component body and the comb portion second component body have substantially the same length (Caves, Figs. 2 and 4, 14 and 16). Gers-Barlag teaches a handle wherein the width of the grip portion (Gers-Barlag, Fig. 5a, 10) in the width direction is the equal or more than the width of the head portion (Gers-Barlag, Fig. 5a, 21) in the width direction entirely in the longitudinal direction and the width of the grip portion in the width direction gradually increases in the longitudinal direction as leaving away from the head portion (Gers-Barlag, Fig. 5a, 10 and 21), and wherein the width of the grip portion is larger than the width of the head portion in the width direction (Gers-Barlag, Fig. 5a, 10 and 21), the handle shown by Gers-Barlag is wider than the head portion in the width direction and is wider than the head portion along its entire length along the longitudinal direction and increases in width from the head portion to the rear face portion as described. Murgida teaches a handle (Murgida, Fig. 1, 12) featuring width direction ribs (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Murgida) below) which are provided obliquely both in the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction, as can be seen in the annotated image 1 Fig. 1 of Murgida the width direction ribs are oblique in both the longitudinal and vertical direction. Wattam teaches a handle (Wattam, Figs. 3a-3c and 6a-6c, 4) wherein at least two auxiliary ribs (Wattam, Figs. 3a-3c and 6a-6c, 6 and 14) formed symmetrically and mirrored across the central line in the longitudinal direction so as to extend in the longitudinal direction in a zigzag-manner (Wattam, Figs. 3a-3c and 6a-6c, 6 and 15). Such structure helps to provide rigidity while using less material and improving grip (Wattam, P. 0019). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the head portion of King to include a comb portion adjacent to the blade body comprised of a comb portion first component body and a comb portion second component body opposing the comb portion first component body in the longitudinal direction, wherein the blade body is clamped between the comb portion first component body and the comb portion second component body and wherein the comb portion first component body and the comb portion second component body have substantially the same length as taught by Caves as including such a comb portion improves safety and allows for adjustment in the length of hair trimmed as evidenced by Cowen. It would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the handle of King in view of Gers-Barlag to be at least as wide as the head portion in the width direction and to gradually increase until the rear face portion as it has been held that changes in shapes for elements like handles are within the general skill of a worker in the art. Gers-Barlag submits that a handle with such dimensions makes it easy to fit into the palm of a hand allowing for “ergonomic” handling of the device (Gers-Barlag, P. 0018). See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the width direction ribs of King such that they were oblique in both the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction as shown by Murgida as such changes of shape without altering function are routine for a worker in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Also see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the handle of King such that the auxiliary rib of King were instead a pair of auxiliary ribs formed symmetrically and mirrored across the central line in the longitudinal direction so as to extend in the longitudinal direction in a zigzag-manner as taught by Wattam as doing so improves the rigidity and the ease of gripping the handle while also requiring less material than a solid handle. PNG media_image1.png 817 590 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 915 735 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7, King in view of Cowan, Caves, Gers-Barlag, Murgida, and Wattam teaches the razor according to claim 1, wherein the connecting portion (King, Fig. 1 and 3, 18) is provided with a concave portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) above) at the region adjacent to the grip portion (King, Fig. 1, 12) and a connecting portion rib (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) above) is provided in the concave portion obliquely to the longitudinal direction, width direction and the vertical direction, respectively, the rib shown by King is oblique to the vertical, longitudinal, and width direction. Regarding claim 8, King in view of Cowan, Caves, Gers-Barlag, Murgida, and Wattam teaches the razor according to Claim 7, wherein the connecting portion rib is provided with a connecting portion rib finger placing face that is flush with the finger placing face of the width direction ribs (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (King) above), as can be seen in the annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 of King the surface of the connecting portion rib is flush with the other surfaces including the width direction ribs. Response to Arguments The applicant asserts that claim 1 has been amended such that it overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness type rejection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record for claim 1 and for claims 7 and 8 which depended from claim 1. The applicant asserts that the prior art of Wattam does not teach all of the claimed features of the auxiliary ribs and that as such a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Wattam, starting from King, to teach any modifications. The Examiner disagrees. First, Wattam does not need to teach all of the claimed features of the auxiliary rib. The fact that a component of a device differs structurally from another component does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not glean some knowledge from said component and then apply that knowledge to a device. So while there are some structural differences between King and Wattam, Wattam does teach the ribs being formed symmetrically and mirrored (in pair) across the central line in the longitudinal direction so as to extend in the longitudinal direction in a zigzag-manner which could be applied to the ribs of King. As such the applicant assertion is unpersuasive. The applicant asserts that the prior art of Cowan does not teach the comb portion as amended in claim 1. The Examiner agrees, however as the applicant has amended the claim an updated rejection for claim 1 is included above. King is now modified by Caves to show that the comb portion as claimed is obvious, however, Cowan still provides a motivation for modifying a razor to include a comb portion. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm. 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 at (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. /ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 22, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 18, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 17, 2024
Interview Requested
Oct 24, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 24, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 01, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 24, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583136
A MOUNTING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12564977
RAZOR BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557945
Systems and Methods for a Robot-adapted Cutting Board and Knife
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552063
CUTTING BLADE MOUNTING DEVICE, CUTTING DEVICE AS WELL AS MAGAZINE FOR A CUTTING BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552060
REFINED DEVICE FOR CUTTING TAPES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
39%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+43.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 44 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