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 .
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.
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, what constitutes the pattern being “visible”? Is it required that the pattern be visible to the naked eye, or can a magnification device be used to check for a visible pattern? If it must be visible to a person, it appears that the visibility of the pattern is dependent on the individual user. In the case of a user who is visually impaired or even blind, the pattern may not be visible at 50 revolutions – to some users, it may not even be visible prior to the wear test. Therefore, it cannot be clearly understood what is intended by a “pattern that is at least partially visible after being subjected to a wear test of 50 revolutions”.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas (US 20160199990).
Regarding claim 1, Nicholas discloses a razor cartridge (cartridge 14; see fig. 7) comprising;
a. a guard at a front portion of said cartridge (guard 16 is located at a front of cartridge 14; see paragraph [0058] and fig. 7), a cap at a back portion of said cartridge (cap 18 is located at a back of cartridge 14; see paragraph [0058] and fig. 7), at least one blade positioned between said guard and said cap (blades 20 are positioned between guard 16 and cap 18; see paragraph [0058] and fig. 7), a top surface (top surface 22; see fig. 7), and a lubricating member (lubricating member 30 is positioned on top surface 22; see paragraph [0028] and fig. 7) comprising a solid polymeric matrix comprising a water-soluble polymer material having a melting point of from about 150 °C to about 250 °C positioned at said top surface (lubricating member 30 comprises a solid polymeric matrix comprising a water-soluble polymer material having a melting point of from about 150 °C to about 250 °C; see paragraph [0027]), said lubricating member having a visible surface (lubricating member 30 has a visible surface 32; see paragraph [0058] and fig. 7), said visible surface having a visible surface area (visible top surface 32 comprises a surface area; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 7);
b. a printed structure on said visible surface of said lubricating member, said visible surface being a top surface of the lubricating member (lubrication support structure 34 is located on visible surface 32, which is a top surface 22 of cartridge 14; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 7), said printed structure comprising a UV curable ink (lubrication support structure 34 comprises a UV curable ink; see paragraph [0060]) covering a portion of said visible surface area creating a printed portion (the UV curable ink covers a portion of visible surface 32 and comprises a covered portion 36; see paragraph [0060] and fig. 7), said printed portion forming a pattern that is at least partially visible after being subjected to a wear test of 50 revolutions (the tested cartridges lose less than 0.5 mg of lubricating member weight when subjected to a wear test – specifically, the wear test involves bringing the cartridge into contact with a wool felt wheel that is kept moist with water, for a duration of fifteen revolutions; see paragraph [0069] and fig. 11).
Nicholas does not explicitly disclose said UV curable ink having a contact angle from 65 to 80 degrees with the lubricating member and a work of adhesion from 50 to 60 mJ/m2 with the lubricating member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nicholas to use a UV curable ink having a contact angle from 65 to 80 degrees and a work of adhesion from 50 to 60 mJ/m2 with the lubricating member. Nicholas discloses a variety of materials that the lubricating member can be made from, including but not limited to polyethylene oxide, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, and polyethylene glycol (see paragraph [0027]). In addition, Nicholas discloses a list of other ingredients that may be added to the lubricating member, and at least some of these materials are also noted in the instant specification (see paragraph [0028]). Nicholas also notes that, as in the instant specification, suitable types of UV curable inks include free radical, cationic, hybrid UV/water inks, and hybrid UV/oil inks (see paragraphs [0052-0053]). Since it appears that the contact angle between the UV curable ink and the lubricating member is dependent on the type of ink and the material it is deposited on (see pg. 9, lines 3-12 of instant specification), it is understood that through routine experimentation, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably be expected to select materials that would yield the recited contact angle and thus work of adhesion (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). In other words, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try different material/ink combinations from the provided selections, which are at least substantially the same, in order to discover the combination that provides optimum ranges for the contact angle and work of adhesion.
Examiner notes that the phrase “a pattern that is at least partially visible after being subjected to a wear test of 50 revolutions” is merely functional/intended use not defining any specific structure and only requires prior art references to be capable of said intended use (see MPEP 2114). In this case, visibility of the pattern after 50 revolutions of a wear test depends on the specific parameters of the wear test and the materials the pattern is formed from. Therefore, as best understood, the device of Nicholas as modified would be capable of having a visible pattern after 50 revolutions of a wear test, particularly if the same materials are selected (Nicholas discloses the same types of UV curable inks and ingredients for a lubricating member as that of the instant application; see paragraphs [0027-0033, 0052-0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein the printed portion is directly exposed to a user’s skin during shaving (covered portion 36 is located on lubricating member 30, which contacts skin during the hair removal process; see paragraphs [0058-0059] and fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein said lubricating member is positioned on said cap (lubricating member 30 is positioned on cap 18; see paragraph [0059] and fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein said lubricating member is positioned on said guard (lubricating member 30 is positioned on guard 16; see paragraph [0059] and fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein said lubricating member at least partially surrounds said blade (lubricating member 30 is located forward and aft of blades 20; see paragraph [0059] and fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein said lubricating member completely surrounds said blade (lubricating member 30 completely surrounds blades 20; see paragraph [0064] and fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein the printed structure comprises a plurality of printed droplets (lubrication support structure 34 comprises a plurality of printed droplets 38; see paragraphs [0043-0044] and fig. 4A-4B).
Regarding claim 9, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein the printed structure depicts alphanumeric text (printed droplets 38 may form a pattern in the form of words; see paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein the printed structure depicts non-alphanumeric graphics (printed droplets 38 may form a pattern in the form of figures, pictures, or designs; see paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein said printed portion covers from 3% to 70% of the visible surface area (covered portion 36 covers from about 3% to 70% of visible surface area 32; see paragraph [0040] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein said printed portion covers from 5% to 40% of the visible surface area (covered portion 36 covers from about 5% to 40% of visible surface area 32; see paragraph [0040] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Nicholas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Nicholas as modified further discloses wherein said printed portion covers from 10% to 30% of the visible surface area (covered portion 36 covers from about 10% to 30% of visible surface area 32; see paragraph [0040] and fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 2-4, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the term “visible” imparts the plain meaning of the term, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the intended scope of the claim, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is understood that the plain meaning of the term is intended, the claim scope remains unclear. As previously discussed, it appears that the pattern’s capability of “being seen” is dependent on a user (and further, the conditions the user is viewing the pattern in). Examiner recommends deletion of limitations drawn to the visibility of the pattern.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that routine experimentation would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the recited ranges for contact angle and work of adhesion, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both contact angle and work of adhesion are factors that impact the clarity/legibility of the printed structure, as well as its longevity and resistance to wear. As discussed above, the contact angle and work of adhesion appear to be at least somewhat dependent on the type of ink used and the material it is deposited on. Since Nicholas discloses at least some of the same types of ink/ingredients that comprise the lubricating member, it is Examiner’s interpretation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to experiment with these materials to determine the optimal ranges that provide the clearest and longest lasting pattern, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20160297087 to Nicholas, drawn to a razor blade with a printed object; US 20180222071 to Nicholas, drawn to a razor blade with a printed object; and US 20200262093 to Fontecchio, drawn to a printed lubricious material disposed on razor blades.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights