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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 and 6 have been rejoined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The plurality of inter-element openings, of claim 1
The lower portions (third surface), of claim 1
The lower portions widths (third surface widths), of claim 1
The recessed portions, of claim 26
The recessed portions defining a portion of the receiving hole and accommodate the edge portion, of claims 26 and 27
It is noted that these items may be shown in the Figure but are not labeled. Labeling these items and discussing them in the Detailed Description overcomes these objections, the specification objections, and some of the 112 rejections.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification needs to be amended to include support for all of the limitations. For example, the inter-element openings and their front-facing open ends, the structures defining the lower portions (third surfaces), the different widths, the recessed portions, and the recessed portions defining a portion of the receiving hole and accommodate the edge portion.
It is noted that the Figures appear to provide support for these limitations so there are no issues with new matter. However, the detailed description needs to provide support as well.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 19, and 24-27 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.
With regards to claim 1 lines 4-6, the cap-facing surface is what is configured to receive the base portion of the at least one blade. Line 4 should be amended to disclose “a receiving base comprising a cap-facing surface”. Line 4 should also be amended to disclose “the cap-facing surface configured to receive the base portion of the at least one shaving blade”.
With regards to claim 1 line 15, the third surface does not appear to be part of the comb elements. The third surface appears to be part of the cap in the same manner as the comb elements. Line 8 should be amended to disclose “the cap comprising a third surface and a plurality of comb elements each defining a longitudinal axis that collectively define a second direction that is non-orthogonal to the first direction”. (It is noted that the “longitudinal axis” disclosure corresponds with the proposal for lines 23-26 below.) All areas that disclose “the third surface of the comb elements” should be amended to remove “of the comb elements”. Claim 19 has this issue.
With regards to claim 1 line 21, the phrase “between neighboring comb elements” introduces new comb elements and should be replaced with “between neighboring ones of the comb elements”. On line 22, the phrase should be replaced with “the neighboring ones of the comb elements”.
With regards to claim 1 line 22, the phrase “end at the forward portions” should be replaced with “end at least partially defined by the forward portions”. The term “at” does not required engagement.
With regards to claim 1 lines 23-25, it is unclear what structures define the lower portions. It is unclear what structure defines the width dimension of the lower portions. What structure defines the shaving direction and the extension direction. The term “lower” is unclear because it is based on an unclaimed indefinite orientation of the cartridge. Using the Figure below, it is believed that the lower portions correspond to surfaces L. Lines 23-26 should be replaced with “wherein each of the forward portions include a third surface facing the same direction as the first surfaces, each of the third surfaces incorporate a width measured in the second direction, and each of the third surface widths are different from each other”.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, the second direction, the shaving direction, and the extension direction are the same direction. Claim 1 now discloses that the first direction is non-orthogonal to the second direction. It is unclear what Applicant’s intentions are for claim 2 as it does not appear to further limit claim 1.
The body of claim 5 needs to be replaced with “the receiving base has a longitudinal axis in the first direction”.
Claims 6 and 24-27 need to be amended to correspond with the proposed amendments of claim 1.
Claim 11’s dependency should not be off of claim 9 as claim 11 does not acknowledge that claim 9 further defines the at least one blade is a plurality of blades.
The body of claim 24 should be replaced with “third surface widths increase in a direction perpendicular to the second direction”.
With regards to claims 25 and 26, the terms “horizonal”, “lower”, “vertically”, “upper”, and “top” are unclear as they are based on an indefinite unclaimed orientation of the cartridge. These terms should be deleted or replaced with terms that are true regardless of the orientation.
With regards to claim 26, it is unclear what structure defines the recessed portion and how these portions define the receiving hole and accommodate the edge portion. The proposed language for claim 1 discloses “third surfaces” (L in the Figure above). It is unclear if the recessed portions are part of or define these third surfaces.
With regards to claim 27, claim 27 depends from claim 26. Claim 26 discloses that the recessed portions accommodate the edge portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 19, and 24-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art incorporates the third surfaces and their differing widths in combination with the remaining limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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 D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
11 March 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724