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 .
Response to Amendment
The substitute specification filed 7-7-25 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because:
a marked-up copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to a clean copy)
a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to a marked-up copy)
Applicant has submitted a single copy that has some of the amendment marking but not all. There are no markings indicating the addition of new paragraph [0001] on page 1 but does include markings in paragraphs [00020] and [00021]. All amendments made must be indicated with the required markings in the marked-up copy.
Since the amendments to the specification have not been entered, the objections remain below.
The substitute specification also appears to include a claim listing but the claim listing does not have new claims 2 and 3. The substitute specification does not need to include the claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Before the very first paragraph on page 1, a paragraph is needed explaining the instant application’s relationship with parent case 17/181,857 and then an explanation of the relationship with parent case 16/579,273.
The paragraph numbering needs to reviewed and corrected. The very first paragraph on page 1, the first full paragraph on page 5, the last paragraph on page 7 are all labeled as [0001].
On line 8 on page 7, the phrase “IG. 4” should be replaced with “FIG. 4”.
On lines 11-12 on page 7, the phrase “Ferrous Insert Ring 450 disposed on Cartridge Bottom Half 470” should be replaced with “Ferrous Insert Ring 450 disposed on Cartridge Top Half 480” to correspond with what is shown in Figure 4.
On line 14 on page 7, the phrase “to removably hold Cartridge 100 or 300” is confusing. No where in the disclosure dedicated to Figure 4 does it explain that structures 410, 450, 470, 480, either represent cartridge 100 or 300 or can be replaced with cartridge 100 or 300. The specification needs to be clear how cartridges 100 or 300 can operate with what is shown in Figure 4 or amend this phrase to utilize what is shown in Figure 4 only.
The specification does not incorporate many of the terms used by the claim so it is not clear which structures correspond with the claim limitations. For example, it is not understood how the structures shown in the Figures define the rigid mechanical structure, perimeter frame work, opening, and fastening means. The language utilized in the claims need to be incorporated into the specification so the invention is clear.
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 1-3 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 “an opening exposing the plurality of blades” is unclear. The opening is defined by the unclaimed receptacle and is, therefore, not positively claimed either. As written, the cartridge does not have a positively claimed relationship or a claimed intended functional relationship with the receptacle or the handle. If the cartridge is not in the receptacle, it is unclear how to determine if the rigid mechanical structure is covering the opening or not. The claim disclosing the cartridge is for a razor does not automatically put the cartridge in the receptacle.
With regards to claims 1, 2, and 3, the “fastening means” and “ring” disclosures are unclear. It is believed that the fastening means represents structure 440. In claim 1, the means couples the cartridge to the handle while, in claim 3, the ring holds the cartridge to the handle but in a way unrelated to the claim 1 means which is not supported. It is unclear how the means and the ring separately couple and hold the cartridge to the handle? Claim 1 needs to disclose that the fastening means couples the rigid mechanical structure to the handle. Claim 2 needs to disclose the top/first half is coupled to the handle via the fastening means. Claim 3 needs to disclose the top/first half is a ferrous insert ring.
With regards to claim 2, the terms “top” and “bottom” are indefinite as they are dependent upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation. The razor is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where 480 is below 470. Without an orientation claimed, the terms need to be replaced with terms that are true regardless of orientation (i.e. first and second).
With regards to claim 2, as written, the bottom half is unrelated to the perimeter frame work holding the plurality of blades which is not supported. Claim 2 needs to disclose the bottom/second half defines the perimeter frame work holding the plurality of blades.
With regards to claim 3, as shown in Figure 4, the ring is the top/first half. How can the ring be on itself? Claim 4 needs to disclose that the top/first half is a ferrous insert ring.
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 and 2 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moffat (9,868,220).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Moffat discloses the same invention including a cartridge (100) for a razor (Fig. 1), a plurality of blades (110), a rigid mechanical structure having a perimeter framework holding the blades (130, 140A, 140B), the rigid mechanical structure not having any support covering an opening exposing the blades (space between 130, 140A, 140B that allows 320 to contact the blades is not covered, Figs. 1, 4, and 5), a fastening means to couple the cartridge to a handle (Fig. 1), and the rigid mechanical structure having a top half (310 in Fig. 4) and a bottom half (340 in Fig. 4).
Claims 1-3 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/174778.
With regards to claims 1-3, WO 2019/174778 discloses the same invention including a cartridge (40, 90, Figs. 17-21) for a razor (10, Fig. 17), a plurality of blades (52 in 40 in Fig. 2), a rigid mechanical structure having a perimeter framework holding the blades (40, Figs. 17-21), the rigid mechanical structure not having any support covering an opening (100) exposing the blades (40, Figs. 17-21), a fastening means to couple the cartridge to a handle (90), the rigid mechanical structure having a top half (top of 40 in Fig. 20) and a bottom half (bottom of 40 in Fig. 4), a ferrous insert ring (90, 32, page 10 lines 7-8 discloses 90 can have ferrous element 32) disposed on the top half of the rigid mechanical structure to hold the cartridge to the handle (Figs. 17-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-7-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Moffat does disclose the rigid mechanical structure having a perimeter framework holding the blades (130, 140A, 140B in Fig. 1) where the structure does not have any supports covering the opening that exposes the blades (space between 130, 140A, 140B that allows 320 to contact the blades is not covered, Figs. 1, 4, and 5) as best understood. The rejection is a best understood, because the opening has not been positively claimed and it is unclear how to interpret the limitation where the “structure does not cover the opening” when the opening has not been defined. Moffat has an uncovered opening that exposes the blade and allows water 320 to directly contact the blades unobstructed. The claims do not feature any limitations that prevent Moffat from reading on the claimed perimeter as 130, 140A, and 140B clearly define a perimeter. The opening, as best understood for Moffat, is facing the rear of the blades and the disclosures of the guard bar and caps would be on the bottom half of the cartridge adjacent the cutting edges of the blade on a side opposite to and away from the opening. As stated above, the opening is not positively claimed and it is unclear how the cartridge comprises the opening when the opening appears to be part of the unclaimed receptacle. The opening is the space between 130, 140A, 140B that allows 320 to engage the blades as shown in Figures 1, 4, and 5. Claim 2’s disclosure does not require a two-part structure as argued. All things can have a top half and a bottom half including the rigid structure of Moffat.
While there are structural differences between the instant invention and Moffat, the claims do not disclose the limitations in a way that disqualifies Moffat from reading on the structures as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., blade exposure, two-part structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 Monday-Friday: 7:30 am-3:30 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, Adam J Eiseman can be reached on (571)270-3818. 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.
29 August 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724