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 .
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 lever effect, the force point, fulcrum, the action point, of claim 5
The distance between the force point and the fulcrum being longer than a distance between the action point and the fulcrum, of claim 6
The lubricating band and the comb member, of claim 9
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract utilizes the legal phraseology “comprising”.
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 1-11 and 16-18 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, the phrase “accommodating the at least one the at least one razor blade in a longitudinal direction” is unclear. The housing accommodates the blade in all directions. It is unclear what the limitation is trying to define. The housing and the blade are both elongate and both of their longitudinal axes would be parallel.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “the window frame surrounding at least a portion of the razor blade window” is unclear. The frame cannot surround a space it defines. Without the frame the space would not exist. The phrase should be replaced with “the window frame defining at least a portion of the razor blade window”.
Lines 6-18 of claim 1 are confusing in that the cover is disclosed as being detachably couped to the blade housing in addition to the detachment part (singular) and first, second, and third attachment parts which are not disclosed as cooperating with corresponding parts of the cover/housing to couple the cover and housing together. On lines 6-7, the phrase “and detachably coupled to the blade housing” should be deleted. Lines 8-18 should be replaced with “a first detachment part provided on the window frame so that the first detachment part extends outward from a longitudinal center of the window frame, the first detachment part detachably engages with the blade housing, a second detachment part provided on a first lateral side of the blade housing so that the second detachment part extends beyond a first side end surface of the window frame and detachably engages the first side end surface, a third detachment part provided on a second lateral side of the blade housing opposed to the first lateral side so that the third detachment part extends beyond a second side end surface of the window frame opposed to the first side end surface and detachably engages the second side end surface, and where the first detachment, the second first detachment, and the third first detachment part fully detach the housing cover from the blade housing by an external force applied by the user”.
With regards to claim 2, the detachment parts are 3-dimensional and protrude in all directions including in the same direction as the cutting-edge faces. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 3, the terms “upper” and “top” are unclear in that they are dependent upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation. The cartridge is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones that do not correspond with the listed terms. Terms that are true regardless of the orientation must be utilized. 121a can be called a “first member that comes after the at least one blade in a shaving direction”.
With regards to claim 3, it is unclear how a frame comprises a frame. The term “upper frame” needs to be replaced with a term that better describes 121a in relation to the whole frame (i.e. member).
With regards to claim 3, it is unclear what structure allows for the upper frame to detachably couple to a top of the blade housing. As written, the first detachment part does not play a role in the coupling which is not supported.
With regards to claim 4, what structures define the “hook-coupling”? As written, the detachment parts do not define hooks which is not supported. What structure allows for the window frame and/or the blade housing to deform? The detachment parts each have a hook and each detachment part deforms to disconnect or connect the respective hooks.
Claim 5 is very confusing. The term “lever effect” is disclosed as a function and the first detachment part cannot comprise a function. It is unclear what structure represents the lever effect, action point, and force point. It is unclear how the lever effect of the first detachment part can be in the blade housing since the first detachment part is on the window frame. Claim 5 needs to explain a portion of the window frame that attaches to the first detachment part acts as a fulcrum allowing the first detachment part to act as a lever.
Claim 6 is confusing because the force point, the fulcrum and the action point are not understood.
With regards to claim 7, the phrase “as the window frame and the blade housing are separated” is unclear. Claim 1 uses the term “detach”. It is unclear if the “separate” is intended to mean detach. Claim 7 should use the same terminology as claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the shaving aid member" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 9, it is unclear what structures incorporate the shaving aid member. Claim 9 should depend from claim 1 and should define the window frame having a second member that comes before the at least one blade in the shaving direction and the second member includes a guard.
With regards to claim 9, it is unclear what structures can and cannot represents a lubricating band and a comb member.
With regards to claim 10, it is unclear what structure allows for the blade housing to comprise a guard? It is unclear what structure has the pattern? It is unclear what can and cannot be considered a pattern? It is unclear what structure allows for the guard (133) to be “around” the blade window?
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear how each detachment part extends from both sides of the housing? One detachment part extends from one side of the housing and the other detachment part extends from another side of the housing. Claim 1 appears to disclose this limitation.
With regards to claim 16, all of the hook-couplings are unclear. Claim 16 does not structurally link the hook-couplings with the detachment parts which is not supported. What structure allows for the first hook-coupled to be released by an external force acting on the first detachment part? Claim 16 needs to further define each of the detachment parts with a hook-coupling and disclose which parts the hook-couples engage as the hook-coupling need a corresponding structure to attach to/detach from.
Claim 17 is confusing as it has the same issues as claim 16 and it is unclear what structure allows for the release of one hook-coupling to be in response to the release of other hook-couplings?
Claim 18 is very confusing. The window frame has the coupling portion but the window frame also has the first detachment part. How can the first detachment part decouple from the coupling portion/part? The first detachment part is on the window frame and attaches/detaches from a portion of the blade housing as supported by the specification.
With regards to claim 18, what structures represent the coupling portion or the coupling part of the window frame? The window frame appears to incorporates grooves 136b and 136a but these portions/parts interact with detachment parts 128 and 127 respectively. 128 and 127 would be the second and third detachment parts.
Claim 18 is confusing in that it introduces a decoupling function. Claim 1 does not use this term and claim 18 needs to utilize the same terminology as claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "coupling part" on lines 4 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 1-11 and 16-18 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
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 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 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.
24 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights