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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
In view of the appeal brief filed on November 24, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
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 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cartridge container" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. a cartridge container was not previously recited in the previous claim (claim 2) from which claim 4 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
PNG
media_image1.png
426
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GAISMAN US 953,948.
With regards to claim 1, GAISMAN discloses a shaving razor package assembly comprising: a shaving razor package having a base 1 with a perimeter wall defining a cavity, the base having a first and second protrusions 4 defining a first opening 3; a handle 2a having a first end positioned within the first opening; an insert tray 6 having a body mounted to the base, the insert tray having a tab 6b extending from the body, wherein a bottom surface of the tab extends into the first opening and secures the first end of the handle; and a lid 1a mounted over the insert tray and sealed to the base, wherein the first end of the handle is positioned between a lower surface of the base and a bottom of the tab.
With regards to claim 2, GAISMAN discloses the body of the insert tray 6 defines a first aperture. (shown above)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-11 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 and 19-20 under Marcinkowski, Nicoll and MCGARRY have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of GAISMAN.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736